- #176
Adam
- 65
- 1
Please show me on what you base these:
- tens of thousands of Kurds,
- hundreds of thousands of iranians
- millions of iraqis.
- tens of thousands of Kurds,
- hundreds of thousands of iranians
- millions of iraqis.
Human Rights Watch estimates that Saddam's 1987-1988 campaign of terror against the Kurds killed at least 50,000 and possibly as many as 100,000 Kurds. The Iraqi regime used chemical agents to include mustard gas and nerve agents in attacks against at least 40 Kurdish villages between 1987-1988. The largest was the attack on Halabja which resulted in approximately 5,000 deaths. 2,000 Kurdish villages were destroyed during the campaign of terror.
Iranian leaders have denounced the military strike as "satanic" and "a threat to humanity." They fear being drawn into the conflict after their own eight-year war with Iraq, which killed an estimated 1 million people on both sides.
A War Crime or an Act of War?
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.
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?
(Stephen C. Pelletiere, The New York Times, January 31, 2003)
Stephen C. Pelletiere is author of "Iraq and the International Oil System: Why America Went to War in the Persian Gulf."
amp said:The Saudis have another hold on the US (and possibly the UK) They are heavily invested in our stock market. If they pulled out, the devastation to the US economy would make the great depression look like a walk in the park.
Rashad said:http://www.whatreallyhappened.com/oil.html
Justify criticisms (ie saying it is complete bull****) of this link, please. It seems to have a source or two as backing. Just looking for opinions, seems like the right thread...
Lifegazer said:Where's the weapons of mass destruction? We haven't found any. And why can the US have enough nukes to blow the world up several times over, whilst Iraq is invaded for possibly harbouring some biological weapons?
You cannot use 'terorism' as an excuse either; for nobody has any evidence linking Iraq with terrorism.
To me, this whole thing stinks of oil and imperialistic might... mixed with paranoi of terrorism and a crumbling stock-market.
I think the US/UK have made a mistake - regardless of the outcome. Sorry to disrupt the gung-ho patriotism; but that's how I feel.
Where's the weapons of mass destruction? We haven't found any.
And why can the US have enough nukes to blow the world up several times over, whilst Iraq is invaded for possibly harbouring some biological weapons?
You cannot use 'terorism' as an excuse either; for nobody has any evidence linking Iraq with terrorism.
To me, this whole thing stinks of oil and imperialistic might... mixed with paranoi of terrorism and a crumbling stock-market.
I think the US/UK have made a mistake - regardless of the outcome. Sorry to disrupt the gung-ho patriotism; but that's how I feel.
No we haven't yet, but I'm guessing George W. can't wait to be 'friends' with the Iraqis so he can get a nice discount on as much oil as he wants.JohnDubYa said:I fail to see how we got any oil out of this deal, or gained any territory. I think your views are heavily tainted by an anti-Republican attitude.
loseyourname said:By the way, the two largest exporters of oil to the US are Mexico and Canada. Why aren't we invading them?
No we haven't yet, but I'm guessing George W. can't wait to be 'friends' with the Iraqis so he can get a nice discount on as much oil as he wants.
Don't worry, I'm sure they're next.
Elizabeth1405: Your comments were structurally similar to those of JohnDubYa, but he was quicker on the draw to insult your for doing what he does.JohnDubYa said:In other words, your reasoning is faulty and worthless. You cannot justify opinions by referring to events that haven't occurred.
Didn't answer the questionJohnDubYa said:Hmmm... are you sure we haven't found any chemical or biological weapons in Iraq?
Avoided the question.I find it laughable that anyone would propose the US do nothing about other countries possessing, or trying to possess, weapons of mass destruction.
Sidestepped the question.I think even Kerry said that such a link existed. Or am I mistaken? If I am, what were his justifications for voting for the war?
Irrelevant shift of focus to justify his self-confessed failure.I fail to see how we got any oil out of this deal, or gained any territory. I think your views are heavily tainted by an anti-Republican attitude.
JohnDubYa said:In other words, your reasoning is faulty and worthless. You cannot justify opinions by referring to events that haven't occurred.
Didn't answer the question
Your comments were structurally similar to those of JohnDubYa,
JohnDubYa said:Hmmm... I don't recall relying on future events to prove any statements.
JohnDubYa said:I have an idea... why don't you admit that you have no good reason to believe that Bush invaded Iraq for oil or imperialism?
You are mistaken in your use of pronouns. You say "they" so that we will think that someone of merit is involved. In truth, it is not some anonymous they but you who is calling it a fallacy, and you are using Truth by Propehcy as your hook to get people to believe you.JohnDubYa said:They call this Truth by Prophecy, and it's a fallacy.
That you consider this the sole source of her intent is a fallacy on your part, in my opinion.In other words, your reasoning is faulty and worthless. You cannot justify opinions by referring to events that haven't occurred.
What kind of fallacy are you using? Surely you have a name for it when others speak this way. The fact that you fail to see something is completely irrelevant, and you know it. Bush had numerous goals for the venture in Iraq. He seems to be failing miserably. You ignore what his purpose was, and look upon his failure as proof that he never had the intentions in the first place. Perhaps your views are heavily tainted by a pro-Republican attitude. Is that not at least as likely?JohnDubYa said:I fail to see how we got any oil out of this deal, or gained any territory. I think your views are heavily tainted by an anti-Republican attitude.
Dissident Dan said:You can't disarm the world by war...because there will be no world left. Dozens of, if not over a hundred, countries have missiles. Should we go to war with India and Pakistan for wanting to sell missiles to 3rd-world countries?