Re: [microsound] Re: OT[microsound ] war -- Do Some Homework

["tobias c. van Veen" <tobias@xxxxxxxxx>]

dear microsounders engaged with Iraq,

I remain continually amazed by a lack of ability to go out and do some
research here. To all this ongoing debate: try doing some fact digging, som=
e
information recovery. Back-and-forth debates about Geneva Conventions,
useless PBS publicity pieces and so on wastes everyone's time. I know this
might sound a little authoritarian if not scholarly, but try Google, and tr=
y
Reading. It works, believe me.

As for the below post -- if this is indeed what PBS claimed, this is a
series of false claims that fly in the face of fact.

The _US trained Al Qaeda_ -- as fighters against Iran. Just like the US
backed Iraq in the war against Iran. Hussein was a US puppet for many years=
;
he was liked by the US, they helped him build his various weapons programs.
This is not controversial. This is known history, and is well documented in
Noam Chomksy's book, "9/11" for example, as well as US State Dept. records.

As for bin Laden, he _hates_ Iraq, for bin Laden backed the
fundamentalists--ie, Iran! In his last video, he condemned not only the US
but Iraq. Both are secular states. CNN carried text stating this until it
was quickly changed and the bit against Iraq erased -- so this dubious
connection between Al Qaeda and Iraq can be conjured out of the hot air of
the desert -- just like those forged documents...

Here are some links. May I suggest reading them.

Nuclear Weapons & Iraq
http://www.zmag.org/content/showarticle.cfm?SectionID=3D15&ItemID=3D3298

Weapon's Inspector's Anger -- at the US
http://www.zmag.org/content/showarticle.cfm?SectionID=3D15&ItemID=3D3266

Deep Concerns from Chomsky
http://www.zmag.org/content/showarticle.cfm?SectionID=3D40&ItemID=3D3293

Human Rights and the US
http://www.zmag.org/chomsky/articles/loot9306-human-rights.html

The Gulf Embargo
http://www.zmag.org/chomsky/articles/loot9109-gulf-embargo.html

Gulf War I, 1991
http://www.zmag.org/chomsky/index.cfm

Which includes this:

"Saddam Hussein is a murderous gangster, just as he was before August 2,
when he was an amiable friend and favored trading partner [...] The same is
true with regard to weapons of mass destruction, surely an issue that must
be considered on a regional basis, hence with the dread "linkage," as in al=
l
similar cases. In April 1990, Saddam Hussein, then still George Bush's
friend and ally, offered to destroy his chemical and biological weapons if
Israel agreed to destroy its non-conventional weapons -- including its
nuclear weapons. The State Department welcomed Hussein's offer to destroy
his own arsenal, but rejected the link "to other issues or weapons systems.=
"
Note that these remain unspecified. Acknowledgement of the existence of
Israeli nuclear weapons would raise the question why all U.S. aid to Israel
is not illegal under congressional legislation of the 1970s that bars aid t=
o
any country engaged in clandestine nuclear weapons development. "

more on Gulf War I
http://www.zmag.org/chomsky/articles/z9102-gulf-pullout.html

Middle East and NOW
http://www.zmag.org/chomsky/articles/z9105-what-we-say.html

and .. US complicity:

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

"One of the world's worst violators of human rights is Indonesian dictator
General Suharto, who came to power with an army-led massacre that the CIA
described as "one of the worst mass murders in the twentieth century,"
ranking it alongside the crimes of Stalin, Hitler, and Mao.=A0 These crimes
were carried out with US support, which has not wavered as Suharto compiled
a shocking record of terror against his own population and invaded a small
oil-rich country (East Timor), killing some 200,000 people and robbing its
resources.=A0 The invasion was in direct violation of a UN Security Council
resolution to withdraw at once.=A0 These crimes too have been carried out wit=
h
the decisive military and diplomatic support of the United States.=A0
Accordingly, it was -- and is -- our moral responsibility as citizens to
terminate these crimes.=A0 That would require no "intervention," only
withdrawal of support, a far simpler matter.

During these years, Saddam Hussein has also carried out major crimes.=A0 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.=A0 His invasion of Kuwait, though a serious crime, in fact
added little to his already horrendous record.=A0 Throughout the period of hi=
s
worst crimes, Saddam remained a favored ally and trading partner of the US
and Britain, which furthermore abetted these crimes.=A0 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.=A0 S=
o
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.=A0 Quite the contrary: much of what was known, including
US support, was downplayed or not reported.

In these and many other cases, the criterion that distinguishes friend from
enemy is obedience, not crime.

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.=A0 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 u=
s
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).=A0 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.=A0 The State Department formally reiterated its refusal t=
o
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.=A0 Ha=
d
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." Administration reasoning was outlined by New York Times chief
diplomatic correspondent Thomas Friedman.  While opposing a popular
rebellion, he wrote, Washington did hope that a military coup might remove
Saddam, "and then Washington would have the best of all worlds: an
iron-fisted Iraqi junta without Saddam Hussein," a return to the days when
Saddam's "iron fist...held Iraq together, much to the satisfaction of the
American allies Turkey and Saudi Arabia," not to speak of Washington.=A0 Iraq=
i
democrats did not regard this as "the best of all worlds." A leading figure
of the opposition, Ahmed Chalabi, described the outcome as "the worst of al=
l
possible worlds" for the Iraqi people, whose tragedy is "awesome." The US,
he said, was "waiting for Saddam to butcher the insurgents in the hope that
he can be overthrown later by a suitable officer," an attitude rooted in th=
e
US policy of "supporting dictatorships to maintain stability."

Washington claims to have supported the democratic opposition in later
years.=A0 Their own picture is different, however.=A0 Just last month, the
British press reported Chalabi's observation that "everyone says Saddam is
boxed in, but it is the Americans and British who are boxed in by their
refusal to support the idea of political change."

"It was our responsibility, indeed obligation, to compel Washington to end
its support for Saddam's worst crimes when they occurred, perhaps even to
intervene to terminate them had that been necessary.=A0 "

It was our responsibility, indeed obligation, to compel Washington to end
its support for Saddam's worst crimes when they occurred, perhaps even to
intervene to terminate them had that been necessary.=A0 Quite possibly, as in
the case of Suharto, withdrawal of support would have sufficed.=A0 Currently
the Iraqi Democratic opposition is advancing concrete proposals for
overthrowing Saddam in favor of a popular-based alternative.  They are
requesting US support but not military intervention, which they have
consistently opposed.=A0 How realistic these proposals are it is hard to
judge, but we have a responsibility, I think, to ensure that they receive
serious and honest attention, and to ensure further that Washington abandon
the "refusal to support the idea of political change," apparently still in
force."