Suffering of Iraqis through Saddam...

Society Pakistan & World Affairs
41

>>The caption above the picture is dated 1983, long before the Anfal campaigns, long before Saddams’ brutality was well known. But don’t let these facts deter you from your Anti-US rant.<<
Ohio Guy,
As i stated to Seminole, please let’s keep the anti-US element out of this. Very convenient to throw that label around in this Forum as soon as i start to get a little too critical of particular US policies.

Now regarding the date of the handshake - there were two visits Rumsfeld paid to Iraq, in 1983 and 1984. The initial visit in 1983 as we can see was to greet Satan himself; the 1984 visit was to the devil’s protege-in-making, Tariq Aziz. If you are telling me that the poor innocent US admin. was not aware of what Saddam was upto, please read on: On the day of [Rumsfeld’s] visit, March 24th [1984], UPI [United Press International] reported from the United Nations: “Mustard gas laced with a nerve agent has been used on Iranian soldiers in the 43-month Persian Gulf War between Iran and Iraq, a team of U.N. experts has concluded… Meanwhile, in the Iraqi capital of Baghdad, U.S. presidential envoy Donald Rumsfeld held talks with Foreign Minister Tarek Aziz (sic) on the Gulf war before leaving for an unspecified destination.” The day before, the Iranian news agency alleged that Iraq launched another chemical weapons assault on the southern battlefront, injuring 600 Iranian soldiers. “Chemical weapons in the form of aerial bombs have been used in the areas inspected in Iran by the specialists,” the U.N. report said. “The types of chemical agents used were bis-(2-chlorethyl)-sulfide, also known as mustard gas, and ethyl N, N-dimethylphosphoroamidocyanidate, a nerve agent…”

hm. At around the same time that Rumsfeld was stuffing his face with Iraqi food at one of Saddam’s palaces, it had been reported by the UN that mustard gas “laced with a nerve agent” had been utilized against Iranian soldiers. As a reward for Hussein gassing the Iranian soldiers (…hey isn’t that given as one of the reasons we are today supposed to oust him?..), all diplomatic relations between Iraq and the US were fully restored in November 1984.

Rumsfeld did not have to go too far to hear news of Iraq’s use of chemical gas; the US State Department on March 5th 1984 had issued a statement stating “available evidence indicates that Iraq has used lethal chemical weapons.” So - who knew what, and when?

>>[Rumsfeld] has met almost every world leader during this time. I’ll bet that he has met more than a few bad leaders in his time.<<
“bad leaders”? OG, remember this is Hitler himself we are referring to here - he’s not just your average run-of-the-mill “bad” leader. Going by the comments of some of the Guppies in this Forum, Saddam is the worst of the worst, the lowest scum there exists. Now you’re treating Rumsfeld’s meeting this guy, shaking hands with him, as nothing too out of the ordinary?

>>In a democracy the people of the democracy have a right to know why it is that their country is expecting war.<<
i couldn’t care less - release all the dossiers in the world, but do NOT claim that it is done in the name of altruism, to remove a horrible, horrible dictator from this world. This is an insult to the memory of the unknown number of Iranian soldiers who succumbed to the effects of the chemical gas; where was Jack Straw at that time with his glossy dossiers? Where was Rumsfeld? Why was he allowing himself to be entertained by the demon himself, shaking the hands of Saddam himself? Absolutely - in a democracy individuals possess the right to know the reasons for their country going to war; no one, and especially not citizens living in a democratic society, deserve to be fed deceits that their government is doing all this in the name of humanitarianism, or of ridding the world of a man whom they once dined and wined with.

>>…will help to remind people that the removal of Saddam is the right thing to do, even if it costs the lives of US and UK citizens.<<
And Iraqi citizens.

>>I have heard absolutely no one propose any other way to remove Saddam, or to change his behavior. Try as they might HRW cannot get a single country to sponsor a Tribunal to brand him a War Criminal, even though he is the most obvious in the world. He is dug in like a tick on a hound dog, and he is sucking the blood of his people.<<
What strong words - such a pity they were not uttered against Saddam 18 years ago when he was committing the WORST of his crimes.

>>So Nadia, how many genocides does he get? Is the first one free?<<
You tell me, Ohio Guy - all his genocides were allowed up until 1991, were they not, when he became a bit too uppity and threatened oil access of another equally repulsive (but pro-western, so all’s well) dictatorship. Shall we count all the massacres he was allowed to get away with prior to 1991?

42

Judge,

"...In 1963, a group of Baathist army officers tortured and assassinated General Qassim. This was done on Iraqi television. They also mutilated many of Qassim's devotees and showed their bodies (in close up) on the nightly news for more than one night. Saddam, hearing the news, quickly rushed back to Iraq to become involved in the revolution. And involved, he was, as both an interrogator and torturer at the infamous "Palace of the End", in the basement of the former palace of King Faisal. "

Please check your sources, Saddam returned to Iraq in 1963, and was promptly JAILED until 1967. He was at best a low level thug during this period of time, and very little would have been known about him until he became the Vice Chairman of the revolutionary command council in 1968. It was not until 1979 when Saddam assumed power.

I remember 1979 well. I lived in Wash DC at the time, and Jimmy Carter was bogged down in the Rose Garden by the Iranian Hostage crisis. Now I don't know what you think about Jimmy, but undoubtedly he forged a marriage of convenience with Saddam, as they shared a common enemy, Iran. Reagans' election was dominated by the Iranian Hostage crisis, and indeed the hostages were released on the day of his innauguration.

Now you might ask, did the US back the wrong guy. With perfect 20/20 hindsite, yes. At the time however Iraq was much more in the pocket of Russia. Russia is still owed billions that was loaned to Iraq during the 70's for their military build-up and for financing the Iran-Iraq war. Do you remember the Gulf War? Do you remember the SOVIET tanks that the Republican guard used? Where do you think those came from?

It is revisionist history to paint Saddam as a US lapdog. Saddam was adept at playing bothends against the middle for his own purposes. The worst of the treatment of the Kurds happened in 1988. The Iraqi troops returning from the Iran-Iraq war were tired, angry at being fought to a stand still, and by March of 1988 were slaughtering the Kurds. Scattered reports came out of the remote Kurdish areas by the middle of 1988. Please carefully read the HRW report on how so much came to be known about the Anfal campaigns, and the "gassing" of the Kurds. (And remember that during the Iran-Iraq war, BOTH sides had used chemical weapons.) By 1990 Iraq has invaded Kuwait.

That means that two years after the worst of the Anfal campaigns the US and the UK not only no longer supported Saddam, but would have ousted him. Now two years seems like an eternity, but for a government it is lightspeed. Since 1990, the US has been the worst possible enemy to Saddam.

So the US may have "backed" a dictator but at least it has had the common sense to change it's mind. There seems to be unbelievable joy in painting Saddam as a US supported dictator, and for some reason they are ignoring the current reality while reveling in their Anti-US hatred.

In the mean time, there has been NO movement to resolve the situation in Iraq. The HRW report gives extraordinary evidence that Saddam has committed genocide. Did people forget that they are Muslims? Where is the outrage? Even reminders such as the Dossier fail to shock many entrenched Anti-US critics. Instead we get conspiracy theories, like "It's all about the OIL". Look up how much a war against Iraq will cost. Do you know how much oil those BILLIONS would buy? We could support the entire US consumption of oil for YEARS on what we are projected to spend if we remove Saddam.

In my view it is a rather simple view of right and wrong. Saddam has committed genocide. period. You do not get second chances after genocide. If your people have not been able to remove you, then you must be removed. Since there has been no effort over the course of the last 10 years to indict Saddam (and even if indicted, do you think he would surrender?). There are very few options left. It is unfortunate that the US has focused on the WMD issue, because Saddam can sacrifice his programs or hide them, and still remain in power. And for some reason the world will breath a sigh of relief and forget about the suffering of the Iraqi people. Then the "Human Rights" folk will be thrashing about complaining that the US has left Saddam in power and the same deplorable situations will haunt another generation of Iraqi's as Saddams defective son's assume his throne.

43

Nadia,

Perhaps you need to be further informed. Here is a 1984 report on chemical weapons used in the Iran-Iraq war, Created by the Stockholm International Peace Reasearch Institute:

…Tear gas: In August 1982, US officials were quoted in the press as being “confident” that the Iraqis did not possess any “deadly chemical weapons”, only tear gas.

…With the exceptions, maybe, of the last two of these different categories of putative Iraqi agent, sources of supply might as well be indigenous as external to Iraq, given the technology implied. Involvement of the last three categories would, in some circles, implicate the USSR as supplier, for the reason that the USSR is said, on evidence that has yet to be solidly substantiated but which has nonetheless attracted some firm believers, to have weaponized all three of them in recent years. For its part, the USSR has expressly denied supplying Iraq with toxic weapons. Reports of Soviet supply attributed to US and other intelligence sources have nonetheless recurred. The earliest predate reports of Iraqi use of chemical weapons in the Gulf War.

Official Iranian commentaries, too, have pointed to the USSR as a supplier of the Iraqi weapons. These sources have also accused Brazil, France and, most conspicuously, Britain of supplying the weapons. No basis for any of these Iranian accusations has been disclosed. France, alongside Czechoslovakia and both Germanies, is reportedly also rumoured, among “foreign military and diplomatic sources” in Baghdad, to have supplied Iraq with chemical precursors needed for an indigenous production effort. Unofficial published sources have cited Egypt as a possible supplier of actual chemical weapons. In the mid-1960s, when Iraq was alleged to be using chemical weapons against insurgent Kurdish forces, Swiss and German sources of supply were reported in the Western press.

Export controls

On 30 (1984) March, the US government announced the imposition of ‘foreign policy controls’ on the export to the Gulf-War belligerents of five chemicals that could be used in the production of mustard and nerve gases. US officials told the press that this had been done in response to an unexpected volume of recent orders from Iraq for those chemicals. They also said that Japan, FR Germany and other unspecified European countries had been exporting the chemicals to Iraq. The British government took action similar to that of Washington on 12 April, adding three more chemicals to the control list (see table). Since then, other European governments have also announced embargoes of varying scope, and on 15 May the Foreign Ministers of the European Community agreed in principle on a common and complementary policy. There are Western press reports of suspicions in Western diplomatic circles in the Middle East that the USSR is shipping intermediates to Iraq through Jordan

http://projects.sipri.se/cbw/research/factsheet-1984.html

It seems as if a mere 6 days after Rumsfelds’ visit to Saddam the US was slapping export restrictions on Iraq, Britain soon after that. Wonder if that got mentioned at the meetings? Can’t imagine that it would not have come up. As you can see, as of 1982 the US did not believe that Iraq still had chemical weapons, the technology and precursors were being supplied largely by the USSR and EU countries. It seems to be apparent that the US and the UK were trying to limit Saddams’ access to WMD as early as 1984. The UK’s efforts to reign in Saddam started a good 18 years before the dossier!

Are you certain of what happened at that meeting? Could your outrage be a little misplaced? How about a little anti-Russia tirade just for some balance. OOppps, I forget, they are the ones who STILL support Saddam, provided technology for chemical weapons, sold Billions of dollars of military weapons to Saddam, and funded the Iran-Iraq war. But if you are ANTI-US, it is a lot more fun to blame only one party for every ill in the world…

44

So basically, on the one hand Amnesty is saying that Hussein is an evil and any actions to remove are justified but they are too late, and they should have done it a long time ago. That makes as much sense as monkey smoking pot.

45

The problem with Amnesty is that they have been consistent all along. Maybe someone can provide a photo of an Amnesty official shaking Evil Saddam's hand to blow this ludicrous theory out of the water?

46

Ohio Guy, i have previously (albeit not as frequently as i do vis-a-vis the US) criticized the Russian govt. i have gone on a few anti-Russia tirades (i absolutely admit these were not many and they were not specifically regarding Iraq). Not certain whether you remember that Kolya thread where i had that discussion with Anand; nowhere did i praise that government in that particular thread.

This is not about anti-Americanism. In ‘real’ life i strive to keep away from making stereotypes, judgements, etc.; i don’t hate Americans nor do i perceive of the US as the overriding Great Satan. i do believe that i have some legitimate grounds to oppose its foreign policies; that does not translate into loathing the entire country or more importantly its inhabitants. Trust me, if you knew me, you would know it is nothing of this sort. :flower1:

Judge^MentuLL :k:

47

Just because I can’t resist, here is another quote from the Stockholm Peace Institute research report:

Verification

One of the chemical-warfare instances reported by Iran, at Hoor-ul-Huzwaizeh on 13 March 1984, has since been conclusively verified by an international team of specialists dispatched to Iran by the United Nations Secretary General. The evidence adduced in the report by the UN team lends substantial credence to Iranian allegations of Iraqi chemical warfare on at least six other occasions during the period from 26 February to 17 March.

The efficiency and dispatch with which this UN verification operation was mounted stand greatly to the credit of the Secretary General. His hand had presumably been strengthened by the announcement on 7 March by the International Committee of the Red Cross (ICRC) that 160 cases of wounded combatants visited in Tehran hospitals by an ICRC team “presented a clinical picture whose nature leads to the presumption of the recent use of substances prohibited by international law”. The casualties visited were reportedly all victims of an incident on 27 February. The ICRC statement came two days after the US State Department had announced that “the US Government has concluded that the available evidence indicates that Iraq has used lethal chemical weapons”. Iraq had denounced the Washington statement as “political hypocrisy”, “full of lies”, a fabrication by the CIA, and had suggested that the hospital patients examined by the ICRC had “sustained the effects of these substances in places other than the war front”. On 17 March, at almost the same moment as the UN team was acquiring its most damning evidence, the general commanding the Iraqi Third Corps, then counter-attacking in the battle for the Majnoon Islands, spoke as follows to foreign reporters: “We have not used chemical weapons so far and I swear by God’s Word I have not seen any such weapons. But if I had to finish off the enemy, and if I am allowed to use them, I will not hesitate to do so”.

http://projects.sipri.se/cbw/research/factsheet-1984.html

Please note that the US condemnation preceded the UN’s by two days, just a few weeks before Rumsfelds visit, and that the Iraqi response is to accuse the CIA of “fabrications and lies”. Later they claim not to have used chemical weapons, and claim to have never seen them, invoking God’s Word.

Yup it sure sounds like the US was just buddy-buddy with Iraq, and was glossing over the use of these weapons!

48

[QUOTE]
Originally posted by Nadia_H: *
**My Voice*,
i receive the distinct impression you believe i should be thankful that the US and UK governments are attempting to keep us "informed" of Saddam's atrocities. For what rational reason should i ever be thankful to them?
[/QUOTE]

Insofar as I am aware, you are neither a citizen of the UK nor the US. So how can you possibly get the impression that I believe YOU should be thankful for the efforts of the UK and the US in keeping their people informed and knowledgeable about their enemy? (If I am wrong and you are a citizen of either country, you would be right that I think your government is doing a service to its people by informing them why we are prepared to depose Saddam at the expense of our young men and women's lives and that you should be thankful for that.)

Your outrage is totally consistent with your views regarding US policy toward Iraq. It can be summed up as follows: "Whatever it is, I'm against it." Obviously, you cannot contend that the FACTS of Saddam's brutality as disclosed in the Dossier released by the UK are False. Nor do you even try to argue that the FACTS are insufficient to justify forming a multi-nation coalition to remove Saddam from power. Instead, you find fault with and evil in the PUBLICATION of the TRUTH because the TRUTH is REPUBLISHED at a time you don't like.

And, if I understand you correctly, you are arguing that the timing of telling the truth about Saddam is evil and sinister because the governments of the UK and the US may be able to use the TRUTH to obtain the support of their citizens for military action in Iraq before sending troops. Further, the US and the UK may actually have the audacity to use the TRUTH to get support from other nations if and when Iraq is invaded. I wonder if you understand how truly ridiculous this argument sounds.

49

When Don Rumsfeld went to meet Saddam in he knew that Saddam was a blood thirsty monster, and was gassing people. Are people expected to believe that that Maggie Thatcher's government did not know this fact? Where were the British government dossiers then? Maybe they were busy sending ministers to sign lucrative business deals with Saddam? :)

50

[QUOTE]
Originally posted by Ohioguy: *
**Please note that the US condemnation preceded the UN's by two days, just a few weeks before Rumsfelds visit, and that the Iraqi response is to accuse the CIA of "fabrications and lies".*
[/QUOTE]

Ohio Guy, Forgive me. This is most likely my fault but i am feeling slightly confused. On page two of this thread (which was chronologically your first response on this thread's second page), you stated that, The caption above the picture is dated 1983, long before the Anfal campaigns, **long before Saddams' brutality was well known.** From the quotes you have (most recently) provided from the report by the Stockholm Peace Institute, you stated above that, the US condemnation preceded the UN's by two days, just a few weeks before Rumsfelds visit.

Initially there was the argument that the US was not aware of Saddam's brutalities; let me know perhaps i am misinterpreting your last post, but it seems to myself as though the argument has now shifted to one of the US being in fact aware of Saddam's atrocities and in fact went so far as to condemn it - all prior to Rumsfeld's visit? In my humblest opinion, this would make it all the more apparent to Rumsfeld that the Saddam Hussein he was going to visit in 1983 was the very same Saddam Hussein who had ordered these frightful uses of chemical gas - which the US had condemned but still not gone so far as to prevent one of their senior-level officials to pay two visits to Saddam and Tariq Aziz.

In summary, therefore, the US was infact aware of what was occurring in Iraq around the time of Rumsfeld departing for Iraq - which makes his handshake with the demon rather more odious (i think), to say nothing of being extremely hypocritical. Rumsfeld's knowledge, as well as the knowledge of the then US administration's of Hussein's gassing activities, makes it all the more challenging to digest the impartiality behind (the timing of) their torture reports and dossiers today. Please forgive me, but, if it is now ascertained that Rumsfeld KNEW what Saddam was upto yet still hopped on his plane in 1983 to shake hands with the gasser, what rational chances are there for offering an open reception (and an open mind) today towards Rumsfeld when he selectively releases anti-Saddam reports?

51

Nadia, what should US have done then? In 1983? Get rid of someone who was helping take care of the monster next door (that will be Khomeni). Every thing has a place in time. Time is now right for the butcher to go. I don’t know why should people worry about his past so much? While everyone agrees that he is far last his usefulness, it is now in everyone’s interest to send him to hell. What better time than before Haj and after Eid-ul-Fitr.

52

Nadia,

My timeline would have been as follows. In 1982 the US did not know and did not believe that Saddam had chemical weapons. Rumsfeld met with Saddam in 1993. Late in 1993 and Early in 1984 evidence began to emerge about use of chemical weapons. In early 1984 the UN begins to investigate casualties in Iran. In March of 1994 the US denounces the use of these weapons, as does the UN Security Council, including the US. Iraq claims that the evidence of chemical use is actually fabricated by the CIA. Rumsfeld visits Iraq again in mid-March 1984, but DOES NOT meet with Saddam, but instead Tariq Aziz. By March 30, 1984 the US puts export controls on Iraq for chemical precursors, along with most EU countries.

This is a timeline extracted from Un documents regarding Iraq’s use of these weapons during the Iran-Iraq war.

The UN Based Information On The Use Of Chemical Weapons In the Iran-Iraq War

 There are three major sources of information concerning the Iran-Iraq conflict. They are the Iranian Government, the Iraqi Government, and the direct investigation of the United Nations. The Iranian government is known to have lied several times over the supposed use of chemical weapons on their troops and the Iraqi government formally denies almost everything. Based on this the below time line will give the view of the UN concerning chemical weapons and their use during the war.

1980- All allegations concerning chemical weapons by the Iranians this year are unsupported.

1981- Allegations of chemical weapon attacks are dubious this year for two reasons. First the introduction of chemical weapons into a war is normally described as an escalatory or desperation response. Neither of these factors were present
in 1981. In fact, the two Iraqi offered cease-fires in June 28 and again on November 5 would be described as a desclatory response. Both of the cease fires were rejected by Iran. The second reason the attacks are dubious is that the alleged attacks involving chemical weapons were inconsistent with the military operations of Iraq. Iraqi soviet trained tanks units employed the use of smoke to conceal and move their forces in some of the conflicts and the smoke is toxic. However the smoke is hardly a weapon at the level of nerve gas or Mustard gas.

1982- All reported chemical weapon attacks this year from the Iranian government are unsupported for the same reasons
as in 1981.

1983- Early in the year all of the alleged uses of Chemical weapons this year were most likely announced to cover the Iranians tactical failures in the war. Later on that year the Iranian failure forced them to change their strategies to a war of attrition. The human wave tactics proved too costly to Iran so they spread their forces over the entire 650 mile front and apply pressure to the entire border. This resulted preliminarily in the capture of many Iraqi border towns being captured. This provided a possible rational for the introduction of chemical weapons in the war. Iraq could not match the Iranian numbers but could deliver chemical weapon strikes via air easily over the entire border. As expected on August 9 1983 there was the first documented use of sulfur mustard gas in the war by the UN. This was due to the first formal complaint by Iran concerning the use of chemicals in the war to the UN. On the northern front the very mountainous terrain aided the Iranian light infantry and impeded Iraqi armored units. 24 of the 169 casualties of the first two attacks where inflicted by mustard gas. The Iraqi chemical attacks at Tamarchin and near Shiverash seemed to be experimental in nature. The attack August 1983 at the Haweizeh marches seemed to be more than experimental in nature. The alleged nerve gas attacks at the marshes was suspected when bodies were found with no visible injuries. This was later refuted when it was learned that the Iraqi forces flooded the marshes and electrified them to kill invading Iranian troops.

1984- Only documented uses of mustard gas appeared in the war this year.

1985- The first evidence of the use of nerve agents in the war appeared this year. When Iranian war casualties were transported to Europe for treatment doctors concluded that anticholinesterase poisoning from tabun nerve gas as well as the burns and blisters associated with sulfur mustard gas.

Burck, G. M. Chemical Weapons Proliferation. Greenwood Press 1991 ed. Pages 96-106

1986- Most attacks involved mustard gas but there were some confirmed nerve gas attacks. The major attacks at the Fao Peninsula during February 13-17 resulted in UN teams investigating there and confirming the use of tabun and sarin nerve agents. The alleged HCN (cyanide) attacks there were refuted when it was noted that when tabun nerve gas decomposes in the blood or water it produces HCN.

1987- There were confirmed nerve and mustard gas attacks this year by the Iraqiís but it was less severe than ion 1986. Phosgene, an old WWI gas agent, was reportedly used by the Iranian forces at Halbja but was unpopular with the troops because they would not even shave their beards to properly wear the gas masks issued to them.

1988- Early this year there was an extensive use of chemical weapons on the civilian population. The most notable case occurred at the Kurdish town of Halbja where an estimated 3000 to 5000 deaths occured due to sarin nerve gas and mustard gas. Later that year the intensity and effectiveness of chemical weapons indicated that Iraqís manufacturing capabilities were improving. VX nerve gas, the most effective of all the nerve agents, was found to have been used this year. There was an escalated use of chemical agents in the war until its end in August 2 of 1988. The last probable use of chemical weapons in the war was by the Iraqi forces on the July 22 bombing raids on Sar-I-Pul and Gilan.
http://www.calpoly.edu/~drjones/CW98/iraq/INDEX.HTML

53

MyVoice,
You are accurate, i am not a citizen of either the UK or the US.

>>Your outrage is totally consistent with your views regarding US policy toward Iraq. It can be summed up as follows: “Whatever it is, I’m against it.”<<
i am afraid this does not at all tally up with my views regarding US policy towards Iraq. i think i am rather not in favour of these reductionist statements - he’s this, she’s that, end of story, case closed. If i applied what you are suggesting, in actuality, towards my political perspectives, then i would be quite different on Gupshup. You would see me in every thread bashing anyone who is nonMuslim and nonPakistani, etc. i’m sorry i don’t comprehend where you are coming from with these statements - i could be wrong but i feel as though it is quite a sweeping generalization to make about me. Any instance where an individual repeatedly criticizes particular aspects of US foreign policy, why is it perceived of as such a “threat” and received with (generally speaking) a hostile attitude? If one has total faith and optimism in the goodness of that government, then your feeling of security and faith should override any seemingly stupid comments from individuals such as myself.

>>Nor do you even try to argue that the FACTS are insufficient to justify forming a multi-nation coalition to remove Saddam from power.<<
Well, let for us a minute imagine the response in this thread should i dare to attempt to argue that the facts in the Amnesty/HRW reports are insufficient grounds upon which to oust Hussein. (Speaking of which, it won’t in actuality be a “multi-nation coalition” but that’s a whole other can of worms). i am getting pounded on simply as it is for questioning the timing of the release of these documents, i don’t think i want to engage in another discussion regarding the illegality behind ousting Hussein, (which i may have done in earlier threads dating several months ago, perhaps).

>>Instead, you find fault with and evil in the PUBLICATION of the TRUTH because the TRUTH is REPUBLISHED at a time you don’t like.<<
Let’s just take it one level at a time. Do you or do you not agree with Amnesty and with HRW (…URLS for both organizations’ comments have been provided in my posts earlier on…) that the timing of Jack Straw’s dossier was politically motivated? That’s it.

>>I wonder if you understand how truly ridiculous this argument sounds.<<
No, sorry, i do not. i am not the most intelligent person in my family, certainly not on this board, maybe i am missing something that you will be kind enough to fill me in upon. :flower1: :flower1: i honestly do not comprehend your position - what is the “ridiculous” element: that two internationally-respected, internationally-renowned human rights organizations - whose work the British and US governments both have utilized in the past in preparing such torture reports, including this latest one by J. Straw - should question why these reports are published at politically opportune times? Is it so ridiculous that the very organizations whose work Straw has heavily utilized in this dossier should themselves critically, publically query as to why the reports were published during this time? So which path should they adopt - should they be quiet whenever the US govt. undertakes any action? Wave flags and cheer on an unprovoked invasion against another sovereign country? Cheer on as the Kurds resume their position of being politically fashionable again, expecting to be dumped subsequently as history has proved? Should they be silent when they are aware that Rumsfeld himself shook hands with Saddam - one year flying to Iraq to meet the demon himself, the next year returning to meet Tariq Aziz? Is it more ridiculous for Amnesty to meekly accept any action undertaken by the US simply because the US admin. believes it possess the higher moral ground, or to question - in a serious, mature, respectful, non-subjective manner - the political and military incentives behind such actions? Is it more ridiculous to seek the truth (which HRW and Amnesty are doing by questioning the timings of the dossiers), or to allow others to fashion the “truth” and feed it to a gullible public as they see fit?

54

NYA :flower1:
Once you have successfully explained the above to all the Abdullahs, Fatimas, Ahmeds, Imrans, Ayeshas, and Muhammads who experienced the chemical attack of Halabja that it was more convenient for the world to have the monster next door controlled by Saddam, rather than going after Saddam when he was gassing their children and grandparents, then you will have me convinced as well. Until they are not convinced, neither am i.

55

Nadia…flowers to you.

But I don’t think that those kids need to be convinced. They never brought him in power, and they could care less if he is gone. He is menace to the society and he must be made to pay for crimes that everyone agrees he has committed.

56

Just a follow up to the dossier. For it’s part the United States has been consistent in quoting and using the information provided by Amnesty, Human Rights Watch and the UN. Why there should be an objection now when all of these sources have been widely quoted year after year is somewhat remarkable:

1995:
During the year, the regime continued to deny the widespread killings of Kurds in northern Iraq during the “Anfal” Campaign of 1988 (see Sections 1.b. and 1.g.). Both the Special Rapporteur and HRW have concluded that the Government’s policies against the Kurds raise issues of crimes against humanity and violations of the 1948 Genocide Convention

1996:

The security services routinely torture detainees, even though the Constitution prohibits the practice. The Special Rapporteur and AI provided new, detailed accounts of the Government’s systemic use of physical and psychological torture in recent years. They noted that government decrees and announcements that might reduce the use of torture had not been confirmed by demonstrable evidence. For example, the Special Rapporteur noted that an August 5 RCC decree suspending the use of amputation against army deserters did not apply to those convicted of various other crimes. The execution of 96 deserters in northern Iraq on August 31 (see Section 1.a) calls into question whether the Government intended any lesser punishments for army deserters.

1997:
The Government has a long record of executing perceived opponents. The U.N. Special Rapporteur, the international media, and other groups all reported an increased number of extrajudicial killings during the year. The Special Rapporteur has stated that “the country is run through extrajudicial measures,” In a 1996 report, Amnesty International (AI) noted that various decrees expanding the use of the death penalty in 1994 and 1995 have not been sufficiently clarified to ensure fair and just applicability, a problem compounded by the lack of an independent judiciary. The list of offenses requiring a mandatory death penalty has grown substantially in recent years, and now includes forgery, smuggling cars, and “sabotaging the national economy.” The Special Rapporteur noted that membership in certain political parties is punishable by death, that there is a pervasive fear of death for any act or expression of dissent, and that there are recurrent reports of the use of the death penalty for such offenses as “insulting” the President or the Ba’ath Party. These killings occur with total impunity and without due process.

1998:

The United Nations has documented over 16,000 cases of persons who have disappeared. According to the Special Rapporteur, most of these cases occurred during the Anfal Campaign. He estimates that the total number of Kurds who disappeared during Anfal could reach the tens of thousands. Human Rights Watch estimates the total at between 70,000 and 150,000, and Amnesty International (AI) at more than 100,000.

In a 1997 report, Amnesty International documented the repeated failure by the Government to respond to requests for information about persons who have disappeared. The report detailed unresolved cases dating from the early 1980’s through the mid-1990’s, particularly the disappearances of Aziz al-Sayyid Jassem, Sayyid Muhammad Sadeq M

57

Ohio Guy,
Thank you for the timeline. You state that By March 30, 1984 the US puts export controls on Iraq for chemical precursors…
In 1994, the US Senate Banking Committee had reported that the “U.S. Commerce Department had traced shipments of “biological materials” identical to those later found and destroyed by UN inspectors… These shipments [of biological materials] continued at least until November 1989.”

The record of the British government is slightly more surprising - it continued to grant licenses to British firms to export materials usable for biological weapons until December 1996 (same source as above). The British government’s complicity in exporting weapons (and/or their components) to Iraq has been made public knowledge via the now infamous Scott Inquiry report prepared by Lord Justice Scott… which i think should be accessible (atleast segments of it) via the archives sections of some of the main British papers.

>>Late in 1993 and Early in 1984 evidence began to emerge about use of chemical weapons… Rumsfeld visits Iraq again in mid-March 1984, but DOES NOT meet with Saddam, but instead Tariq Aziz.<<
In my own personal opinion, and i could very well be wrong, as a senior-level American governmental official, for Rumsfeld to be paying an official visit to Tariq Aziz was not the wisest of decisions on Rumsfeld’s part. Even stepping foot in Iraq at such a time was wrong whether or not he did not meet Saddam and ‘just’ met Aziz. Aziz was then at that time Iraq’s Foreign Minister; that’s akin to an American official visiting John Manley for us Canadians. That receives a massive amount of press and coverage here, particularly if it comes - as it did during the 1984 visit - in the midst of an ongoing war. Iraq was at that time engaged in a war with Iran. On that very day that Aziz and Rumsfeld were chatting presumably at one of Saddam’s palaces, (24 March 1984), United Press International reported from the United Nations: “Mustard gas laced with a nerve agent has been used on Iranian soldiers in the 43-month Persian Gulf War between Iran and Iraq, a team of U.N. experts has concluded… Meanwhile, in the Iraqi capital of Baghdad, U.S. presidential envoy Donald Rumsfeld held talks with Foreign Minister Tarek Aziz (sic) on the Gulf war before leaving for an unspecified destination.” The day before, the Iranian news agency alleged that Iraq launched another chemical weapons assault on the southern battlefront, injuring 600 Iranian soldiers. “Chemical weapons in the form of aerial bombs have been used in the areas inspected in Iran by the specialists,” the U.N. report said. “The types of chemical agents used were bis-(2-chlorethyl)-sulfide, also known as mustard gas, and ethyl N, N-dimethylphosphoroamidocyanidate, a nerve agent known as Tabun.”

Following is from one of Canada’s national newspapers, the *Globe and Mail*: “Although an international arms embargo applied to both Iran and Iraq, Western weapons were widely used by Baghdad’s armed forces in its invasion of Iran in 1980 and throughout the war. Washington also re-established full diplomatic relations with Baghdad in November of 1984, only a few months after Mr. Rumsfeld’s second visit, a clear signal of warming relations [between Iraq and the US].”

i guess we are back to the bottom line again: questioning the timings of the release of these torture dossiers. Manifestly i can’t speak for them but i think that all that Amnesty and HRW are stating, is that these reports are issued at politically-expedient moments in order to sway public opinion towards favourably considering an invasion against Iraq. This, for them, is an affront of the work that their human rights activists undertake in preparing these reports and collecting their data - because, as we have seen, such reports are given scarce media attention at times when the current dictator (whomever he may be at that time) is considered a political ally (hence we have silence over Halabja). When Amnesty’s Secretary General criticized the “manipulation” of such governments, she wasn’t criticizing every aspect of these governments; she simply wants to (in my opinion) ensure that ALL torture dossiers are given the same amount of attention and are never again selectively released.

58

Nadia:
I’m afraid that I’ve got to stand by what you call my broad generalization. Please recognize that it is directed solely at your “views regarding US policy toward Iraq.” Not your views toward the US generally or any other US policy. Just Iraq. If you think this is wrong, tell me one single US policy toward Iraq in the last 20 years or so that you agreed with.

As to how ridiculous the argument sounds, I’m not sure how much more explicit I can be. But, I’ll give it a try.

1. It is the duty of every democratically elected government to keep the electorate informed and to provide the electorate with explanations for why the government does things.
2. BEFORE sending young men and women overseas to do battle where they might die, the American public is entitled to know in the clearest terms why we are doing that, what we are fighting for and what we are fighting against.

3. If an Administration does NOT have the agreement of the majority of all Americans that the reasons we are fighting justify the potential loss of lives of American soldiers, they should not be sent.

4. There are at least two things that potentially justify this war (a) Saddam’s lunacy and history of outrageous behavior coupled with the threat of him killing untold numbers the next time his lunacy emerges for all to see; and (b) violations of UN Resolutions.

In the present case, we have the UK and the US doing exactly what we demand of our elected leaders. They are providing truthful and accurate information about how utterly beyond redeeming social value Saddam Hussein really is. The specifics of the information is probably “news” to a lot of people who just weren’t interested in listening before. (As shown by OhioGuy, a lot of this stuff has been published by the US before). Getting this information will probably help many in making an intelligent decision as to whether to support sending US troops into harms way in another Muslim country.

Then you come along and criticize the US and the UK for SPREADING THE TRUTH !!!!! Basically, you find it sinister and evil that our governments are doing exactly what our governments are supposed to do before sending troops to war.

But you can’t argue with the TRUTH that is being spread. You just don’t think the US or the UK governments should tell their people the truth. At least, not now.

I bet I wouldn’t be too far off base suggesting that you, Amnesty and HRW just don’t want anyone spreading the truth about Saddam now because it’s a lot harder to get anyone to join an anti-War rally if they know what kind of a brutal, despotic, monster he is and how much better off the Iraqi people will be when he is gone.

59

Nadia,

By the first visit, the US had NO high level contact with Iraq since 1967. Rumsfelds' visit came after the killing of US Marines in Beirut, and he was a private citizen acting as a Special Envoy to the Mideast. He was not an ambassador, nor establishing diplomatic relations. How much "influence" can a country have that has had no formal diplomatic contact, no US aid or assistance for 17 years? Yet the Russians had huge levels of commerce, military sales and loans to Iraq. Who do you think had more influence? Please list for me the number of high level contacts the Russians had with Saddam and his cronies. The US has had diplomatic relations with Iraq for 7 of the past 35 years. It is hard to believe that Saddam has been at our beck and call, and we are the root of all evil performed by his regime.....

Rumsfeld visited nearly every Middle Eastern country that year. Did they all become US puppets?

Of course you can make this all very sinsiter if you would like. Even though Saddam had not used biological agents, we should have suspected that he might, even though they are infinitely harder to use in a military fashion. It was not until after 1992 that the US discovered the depth of his biological program.

As far as the "dossiers" go, either AI and HRW make their material public or not. As Myvoice tried to point out, publishing the facts is no crime. These same facts have been published year after year, with the tacit support of both AI and HRW. They have become part of the official public record, and part of official public policy.

Sometimes however Human Rights is simply a larger political picture. What AI and HRW are objecting to now is that Human Rights abuses may be part of what leads to war. What do they think, that the tooth fairy will painlessly swoop down and grab tyrants? If you are serious about Human Rights, sometimes that will lead to war. The dossier published by the British speaks to those who would not believe a government report but might believe an independent report of the same events.

In extreme cases of Human Rights abuse, shining the light of day on the abuses does nothing. Sanctions do nothing. (this used to be the ultimate punishment for human rights activists!) Cutting off funding and loans and scientific exchanges accomplishes nothing. What else is left? Despite this nearly global condemnation, Iraq has not taken the opportunity to change it's behavior one bit. And that assumes that you would let a leader guilty of genocide STAY in power. AI and HRW are humanitarian organizations, so the thought of being a party to war scares them. Removal of a genocidal tyrant is a much better reason for war than any other reason for war. Simply, it is the right thing to do when all other means are exhausted.

60

:k: :k: :k:
Right on.