When the US government "covered up" Saddam's gassing of the Kurds

Now they tell the world to take note that Saddam gassed the Kurds, which he surely did. But back then they were quite actively covering up this fact, to prop up Saddam’s brutal regime and protect their trade interests.

Later, and after the Gulf war they watched from the skies over Iraq as Saddam’s butchered the Shia’s in their thousands by helicopter gunships, they allowed him to keep btw in the Gulf war ceasefire agreement. All to make sure that Saddam remained in power, and promote their twisted idea of “regional stability”.

No wonder except for one or two nations in the world, they find little support for their war mongering over Iraq.

http://www.pbs.org/newshour/forum/march98/intervention1.html

***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.

Iraq served US interests during the Iraq-Iran war, same way Taliban or Mujahideed served US interests during Soviet invasion of Afghanistan. They were both funded financially and militarily by CIA etc. Both have been discarded like a French letter since.
Pakistan, has in the past served US interests and is currently also serving it. Only time will tell, how long this current romance b/w US and Pak lasts :D

PS: Malik bhai, welcome back to GS :)

[QUOTE]
*Originally posted by 5Abi: *
Iraq served US interests during the Iraq-Iran war, same way Taliban or Mujahideed served US interests during Soviet invasion of Afghanistan. They were both funded financially and militarily by CIA etc.

[/QUOTE]

Yes, funded militarily including giving him anthrax and other such chemical weapons I have read? They gave him such weapons and and the aid to buy it. They looked the other way or covered up his crimes, when he gassed the Kurds, and bombed the Shia's into oblivion. Now suddenly after allowing all that they are turning around preaching hypocrisy and double standards after the fact. No wonder they stand practically isolated in the world as a result.

Iraq served many purposes in the middle east and more so now. Due to iraq and the sanctions, the prevailing conditions, the US has military personal in the persian gulf. In each nation. Now they will have it in Iraq. All they need now is Lebanon and Syria and they can get any Muslim nation. Also with Iran, it will be all blocked up, caused by troops in Iraq, Afghanistan and Pakistan. This would in the end stifle the progress of all 4 nations. The aim in my opinion is not solely oil. Rather the aim of the US is to stifle the growth and development of Islamic nations that can prove to be a problem in the future, like Pakistan.

The iran and iraq war played right into US hands, and the US govt provided arms to both nations. Then the Persian Gulf war it worked to the US benefit as well. This war will strengthen the control of the US in the region.

As for the gassing of the Kurds, the US adopted the views that roosevelt said about Marcos "he might be a SOB but he is our SOB". Same with Saddam, same with every dictator they like. The same with the CE they think they own him like they did Saddam.

One of the points that Turkey does appreciate. Sounds harsh doesn't it? Otherwise all the attacks could have been launched directly via Turkish home ground.

[QUOTE]
*Originally posted by CM: *
As for the gassing of the Kurds, the US adopted the views that roosevelt said about Marcos "he might be a SOB but he is our SOB". Same with Saddam, same with every dictator they like. The same with the CE they think they own him like they did Saddam.
[/QUOTE]

Exactly. They covered up his war crimes then, and even provided him with such deadly weapons. Even after thousands of Kurds (and later Shias) were slaugtered by Saddam, they looked the other way, and carried on propping up his regime. Shameful hypocrisy.

There was a documentary on CNN a while back.. All the ingredients for chemical weapons were exported from Florida while US govt. played Nelsons eye.

Hey why are you surprised after all they are the one who said enemy of an enemy is a friend.

[QUOTE]
*Originally posted by Abdali: *
There was a documentary on CNN a while back.. All the ingredients for chemical weapons were exported from Florida while US govt. played Nelsons eye.

Hey why are you surprised after all they are the one who said enemy of an enemy is a friend.
[/QUOTE]

Yes, but I suggest that when they go after Saddam for trying to supposedly acquire WMD, they should go after those who gave such weaponary in the first place. First place they could try is Florida as you mentioned - they should send the tanks in straight away. No UN approval required in this case. :)

[QUOTE]
*Originally posted by Abdali: *
There was a documentary on CNN a while back.. All the ingredients for chemical weapons were exported from Florida while US govt. played Nelsons eye.

Hey why are you surprised after all they are the one who said enemy of an enemy is a friend.
[/QUOTE]

Yep thats right, and the person who made the documentary, the producer or whatever, was fired after it was aired and seen as non-patriotic by the US military/govt. And CNN later issued some sort of official applogy as well. Since then, CNN has not exposed such links between american companies or agencies or govt officials :D. Its been subdued.

[QUOTE]
*Originally posted by 5Abi: *

Yep thats right, and the person who made the documentary, the producer or whatever, was fired after it was aired and seen as non-patriotic by the US military/govt. And CNN later issued some sort of official applogy as well. Since then, CNN has not exposed such links between american companies or agencies or govt officials :D. Its been subdued.
[/QUOTE]

Interesting. So an American reporter who exposed the US governments links with Saddam's WMD programme, that the US govt is now using in their propoganda campaign, was fired cause he revealed the truth.

First the US government covers Saddam's gassing of the Kurds, and now this revelation. All these lies, lies, shamless hypocrisies and double standards. No wonder nobody in the world is really prepared to believe their lies of war.

In the land of the free, there is no freedom to discuss the truth. So much for the modern democracy the US is.

[QUOTE]
*Originally posted by CM: *
In the land of the free, there is no freedom to discuss the truth. So much for the modern democracy the US is.
[/QUOTE]

In The New World Order patriotic means "Sit down and shut up else you will be seen anti-American and Ashcroft may throw you in confinement under the Patriotic Act w/o any legal representation :D

Very Stalin of Ashcroft dont you think? I think the worlds strongest democracy is taking to many lessons from this centuries villans

[QUOTE]
*Originally posted by 5Abi: *

In The New World Order patriotic means "Sit down and shut up else you will be seen anti-American and Ashcroft may throw you in confinement under the Patriotic Act w/o any legal representation :D
[/QUOTE]

Or called Un-American as they used to be called, and we know what they did to such people in the 1950's?