Democratic Underground Latest Greatest Lobby Journals Search Options Help Login
Google

US coverup of gassing of Kurds, to the present occupation, "immoral"

Printer-friendly format Printer-friendly format
Printer-friendly format Email this thread to a friend
Printer-friendly format Bookmark this thread
This topic is archived.
Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion (01/01/06 through 01/22/2007) Donate to DU
 
bigtree Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Aug-27-06 10:47 AM
Original message
US coverup of gassing of Kurds, to the present occupation, "immoral"
Edited on Sun Aug-27-06 11:36 AM by bigtree
Morality in Iraq, Then and Now

By Jim Hoagland
Sunday, August 27, 2006; Page B07

Change is news, and the important news from the second trial of Saddam Hussein is this: The U.S. government is helping expose the ex-dictator's genocidal assault on Kurdish tribesmen instead of helping hide it.

Welcome the change. But do not rush past the original malfeasance: U.S. officials were directly involved two decades ago in covering up and minimizing the horrifying details that were finally spread on the legal record in a Baghdad courtroom last week. In a long history of U.S. involvement in Iraq stained by official mistakes, betrayals and misunderstandings, the initial coverup of Hussein's Anfal campaign is among its darkest moments.

It is also important to recognize that without the U.S. invasion, these trials would never have occurred. But that in turn underscores a bitter reality that the Bush administration must now confront:

Military intervention can be justified when it changes things for the better. It does not have to be perfect. But conducting a military occupation that has lost the ability to change the situation for the better for those being occupied is unwise and ultimately untenable. It is also immoral. U.S. involvement in Iraq is again perilously close to being just that.


article: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/08/25/AR2006082501238_pf.html


another winger criticizing the occupation he and his pals couldn't stop blowing their wad off about. He was for the war before he was against it. (or something like that)
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
orwell Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Aug-27-06 11:10 AM
Response to Original message
1. Huh?
"Military intervention can be justified when it changes things for the better."

That's the new standard? It is all right to kill people if you think things will get better. Better by whose standard, oil companies? Well-heeled supporters? Large multinationals? Theocratic fundamentalists?

I thought we were "exporting democracy..." I guess that's no longer operational.

I guess the narrative need often change when you are a pathological liar and a sociopath.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
bigtree Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Aug-27-06 11:33 AM
Response to Reply #1
2. Hoagland is a nutcase. I should have couched this article
Edited on Sun Aug-27-06 11:37 AM by bigtree
as another right wing warmonger questioning the war he couldn't stop promoting and cheerleading.

lazy posting.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Nozebro Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Aug-27-06 11:49 AM
Response to Original message
3. False premise. Saddam's army did NOT "gas" the Kurds. IRAN did that.
Edited on Sun Aug-27-06 11:50 AM by Nozebro
Why anyone other than wrong-wingnuts would read or care about what that fool/propaganda promoter Hoaglund has to say is beyond me.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
bigtree Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Aug-27-06 12:39 PM
Response to Reply #3
4. look, I mostly agree
Edited on Sun Aug-27-06 12:40 PM by bigtree
but, it is a measure of how far afield* Bush has gone with respect to Iraq that his own flack takes pains to break him down over it, even though they were behind it 100% from the outset.

Why would anyone care? Caring about what they say and do is how we begin to confront them. It's how we hold the Bush regime and their media flacks accountable. You made a good stab at it. What's the problem with that?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
geek tragedy Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Aug-27-06 05:15 PM
Response to Reply #3
6. No, you're just plain wrong.
Every single credible investigation--and EVERY SINGLE CREDIBLE HUMAN RIGHTS ORGANZIATION ON THE PLANET--squarely blames Iraq for that gassing.

I suggest you educate yourself further on the matter.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Octafish Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Aug-27-06 01:13 PM
Response to Original message
5. Poppy Bush led US efforts to arm Iraq with Chem weapons
As veep, GHWB wanted the US to tilt toward Iraq in the war with Iran. More profitable, more oil, more power. Check out Alan Friedman's "Spider's Web" or online try DU's own Demopedia: http://demopedia.democraticunderground.com/index.php/Iraq-Gate

The other side wanted the US to help the "moderates" in the Iran government. They were sending arms to the
Ayatollah through Israel from Day 1, apparently payback for the October Surprise. For details, check out Rober Parry's "Lost History" or Gary Sick's "October Surprise."

Odd. Both ops ended up controlled by Poppy.

Here's a nice recap of arming Iraq -- "Iraq-gate" for lack of a better term.



The Ties That Blind

How Reagan Armed Saddam with Chemical Weapons


By NORM DIXON
Counterpunch June 17, 2004

On August 18, 2002, the New York Times carried a front-page story headlined, "Officers say U.S. aided Iraq despite the use of gas". Quoting anonymous US "senior military officers", the NYT "revealed" that in the 1980s, the administration of US President Ronald Reagan covertly provided "critical battle planning assistance at a time when American intelligence knew that Iraqi commanders would employ chemical weapons in waging the decisive battles of the Iran-Iraq war". The story made a brief splash in the international media, then died.

While the August 18 NYT article added new details about the extent of US military collaboration with Iraqi dictator Saddam Hussein during Iraq's 1980-88 war with Iran, it omitted the most outrageous aspect of the scandal: not only did Ronald Reagan's Washington turn a blind-eye to the Hussein regime's repeated use of chemical weapons against Iranian soldiers and Iraq's Kurdish minority, but the US helped Iraq develop its chemical, biological and nuclear weapons programs.

Nor did the NYT dwell on the extreme cynicism and hypocrisy of President George Bush II's administration's citing of those same terrible atrocities--which were disregarded at the time by Washington--and those same weapons programs--which no longer exist, having been dismantled and destroyed in the decade following the 1991 Gulf War--to justify a massive new war against the people of Iraq.

A reader of the NYT article (or the tens of thousands of other articles written after the war drive against Iraq began in earnest soon after September 11, 2001) would have looked in vain for the fact that many of the US politicians and ruling class pundits who demanded war against Hussein--in particular, the one of the most bellicose of the Bush administration's "hawks", defence secretary Donald Rumsfeld--were up to their ears in Washington's efforts to cultivate, promote and excuse Hussein in the past.

The NYT article read as though Washington's casual disregard about the use of chemical weapons by Hussein's dictatorship throughout the 1980s had never been reported before. However, it was not the first time that "Iraqgate"--as the scandal of US military and political support for Hussein in the '80s has been dubbed--has raised its embarrassing head in the corporate media, only to be quickly buried again.

One of the more comprehensive and damning accounts of Iraqgate was written by Douglas Frantz and Murray Waas and published in the February 23, 1992, Los Angeles Times. Headlined, "Bush secret effort helped Iraq build its war machine", the article reported that "classified documents obtained by the LA Times show ... a long-secret pattern of personal efforts by (George Bush senior)--both as president and vice president--to support and placate the Iraqi dictator."

CONINUED...

http://www.counterpunch.org/dixon06172004.html



DIM, DRUNK TRAITOR'S SON
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
geek tragedy Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Aug-27-06 05:16 PM
Response to Reply #5
7. Yes, it was Reagan and Poppy Bush who both
aided Iraq and then helped push the bullshit meme that Iran gassed its allies.

Unfortunately, there are some stupid people on the left who regurgitate the Poppy Bush lies in an effort to counter Neocon rhetoric.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
savemefromdumbya Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Aug-27-06 05:20 PM
Response to Reply #5
8. Yes, the US and Britain did this
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DU AdBot (1000+ posts) Click to send private message to this author Click to view 
this author's profile Click to add 
this author to your buddy list Click to add 
this author to your Ignore list Fri Apr 19th 2024, 02:38 PM
Response to Original message
Advertisements [?]
 Top

Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion (01/01/06 through 01/22/2007) Donate to DU

Powered by DCForum+ Version 1.1 Copyright 1997-2002 DCScripts.com
Software has been extensively modified by the DU administrators


Important Notices: By participating on this discussion board, visitors agree to abide by the rules outlined on our Rules page. Messages posted on the Democratic Underground Discussion Forums are the opinions of the individuals who post them, and do not necessarily represent the opinions of Democratic Underground, LLC.

Home  |  Discussion Forums  |  Journals |  Store  |  Donate

About DU  |  Contact Us  |  Privacy Policy

Got a message for Democratic Underground? Click here to send us a message.

© 2001 - 2011 Democratic Underground, LLC