Would you support the Iraq war for purely humanitarin reasons?

[BRussell]

Let's say Bush and Blair didn't say a single thing about WMD or WOT. They never said Iraq was a threat to anyone else, they only said that Saddam was a horrible dictator who tortured and murdered the Iraqi people.

It wouldn't be without precedent - the intervention in Yugoslavia was essentially humanitarian. Milosevic didn't pose any threat to the US or Europe. Neither did Haiti or Somalia. There was a joke that one of the conditions for the use of the military during the Clinton administration was that it didn't serve American interests.

So take the threat argument away completely - would the war have been justified?

[Anders]

No. Not this war. If the end was humanitarian then the means would nessesarily have had to be very different. The planning of the post-combat situation would have had to be made in advance and not something you began discussions about after the military victory. The way the war was fought and how the enemy soldiers was looked upon would have been differently. Only with the "threath" of WoMDs could the war be rushed into and the way it should be fought not discussed.

But if those things had been done in advance I will not refuse I would have supported the war. A state is not a holy entity that noone from the outside can interfer with. But it has to be well thought through and only because of opression of those inside its boarders. And you have to realise that when you have the power over a country you also have the responsibility for it like if it was your own.

[faust9]

In my view no. There where, and are, more pressing humanitarian emergencies in the world than Iraq at the time. The war in Congo, Zimbabwe, Sudan, etc. Also, we needed to dedicate more time and resources to Afghanistan. My view take care of the true crisies first then start toppeling two bit dictators. Finish the job in Afghanistan then try and reshape the ME.

If the humanitarian needs of Iraq where weighed against all of the conflicts and opression throughout the world then Iraq would find itself lower on the needs chain. Iraq would have been akin to Chechnya or even Tibet. Opressive--yes. Brutal at times--yes. Millions dying because of cival war and cross border conflicts--no.

[Anna Mated]

What they said.

[groverat]

That was my rationale for supporting the war, so yes.

[Northgate]

Absolutely not. I'm sympathetic to normal everyday Iraqi's, but this was their ruler and it was their responsability to overthrown him on their own. Like we did against the British.

If 'IF' they had started their own civil war, the country was in chaos, and the Baath party was engaged in violent death throws...then I would go in, destroy the regime and restore order. That would've produced the result we were originally looking for. We would've been considered liberators.

But that's not what history's gonna record is it?

[rageous]

Originally posted by Northgate
Like we did against the British

*cough* With a large amount of assistance from the French. *cough*

[faust9]

Originally posted by rageous
*cough* With a large amount of assistance from the French. *cough*

*cough* Did the French invade the America's in order to liberate us? *cough* No, they assisted us after we declared our independence.

*cough*
Learn some history. http://www.americanrevolution.org/frcon.html
*cough*

[jimmac]

Of course not.

[rageous]

Did I say the French invaded?

My point was that it's not simply left up to the citizens of a nation to fight for their own freedom. Sometimes they need help. And sometimes they get it.

[giant]

Human Rights Watch:
"The Bush administration cannot justify the war in Iraq as a humanitarian intervention, and neither can Tony Blair.

"Such interventions should be reserved for stopping an imminent or ongoing slaughter. They shouldn't be used belatedly to address atrocities that were ignored in the past."
http://politics.guardian.co.uk/iraq/story/0,12956,1131895,00.html

http://hrw.org/wr2k4/3.htm

Human Rights Watch ordinarily takes no position on whether a state should go to war. The issues involved usually extend beyond our mandate, and a position of neutrality maximizes our ability to press all parties to a conflict to avoid harming noncombatants. The sole exception we make is in extreme situations requiring humanitarian intervention.

Because the Iraq war was not mainly about saving the Iraqi people from mass slaughter, and because no such slaughter was then ongoing or imminent, Human Rights Watch at the time took no position for or against the war. A humanitarian rationale was occasionally offered for the war, but it was so plainly subsidiary to other reasons that we felt no need to address it. Indeed, if Saddam Hussein had been overthrown and the issue of weapons of mass destruction reliably dealt with, there clearly would have been no war, even if the successor government were just as repressive. Some argued that Human Rights Watch should support a war launched on other grounds if it would arguably lead to significant human rights improvements. But the substantial risk that wars guided by non-humanitarian goals will endanger human rights keeps us from adopting that position.

Over time, the principal justifications originally given for the Iraq war lost much of their force. More than seven months after the declared end of major hostilities, weapons of mass destruction have not been found. No significant prewar link between Saddam Hussein and international terrorism has been discovered. The difficulty of establishing stable institutions in Iraq is making the country an increasingly unlikely staging ground for promoting democracy in the Middle East. As time elapses, the Bush administration’s dominant remaining justification for the war is that Saddam Hussein was a tyrant who deserved to be overthrown—an argument of humanitarian intervention. The administration is now citing this rationale not simply as a side benefit of the war but also as a prime justification for it. Other reasons are still regularly mentioned, but the humanitarian one has gained prominence.

Does that claim hold up to scrutiny? The question is not simply whether Saddam Hussein was a ruthless leader; he most certainly was. Rather, the question is whether the conditions were present that would justify humanitarian intervention—conditions that look at more than the level of repression. If so, honesty would require conceding as much, despite the war’s global unpopularity. If not, it is important to say so as well, since allowing the arguments of humanitarian intervention to serve as a pretext for war fought mainly on other grounds risks tainting a principle whose viability might be essential to save countless lives.

In examining whether the invasion of Iraq could properly be understood as a humanitarian intervention, our purpose is not to say whether the U.S.-led coalition should have gone to war for other reasons. That, as noted, involves judgments beyond our mandate. Rather, now that the war’s proponents are relying so significantly on a humanitarian rationale for the war, the need to assess this claim has grown in importance. We conclude that, despite the horrors of Saddam Hussein’s rule, the invasion of Iraq cannot be justified as a humanitarian intervention.
And then all of the criteria are weighed.

[rageous]

Originally posted by faust9
*cough* Did the French invade the America's in order to liberate us? *cough* No, they assised us after we declaired our independence.

*cough*
Learn some history. http://www.americanrevolution.org/frcon.html
*cough*

Let me summarize:

Northgate - The Iraqi's should fight for their own freedom like we did against the British

Rageous - We didn't fight alone. The French assisted.

Faust - Rageous, the French did not invade America. Learn your history.

No mention of the fact that what I said was completely correct and the statement I was disputing was completely incorrect? Odd.

[Wrong Robot]

Originally posted by rageous
Let me summarize:

Northgate - The Iraqi's should fight for their own freedom like we did against the British

Rageous - We didn't fight alone. The French assisted.

Faust - Rageous, the French did not invade America. Learn your history.

No mention of the fact that what I said was completely correct and the statement I was disputing was completely incorrect? Odd.


I believe faust is alluding to the fact that We, the helpers, invaded Iraq.

our present situation would be something like this

Iraqi's should fight for their own freedom, like we did against the british

We didn't fight alone, the french assisted, (as The US will assist the Iraqis(

The French never invaded America, (unlike the US which has invaded Iraq in order to "help" them)

[BuonRotto]

In would say yes, but then I agree the means of how thing went down, how they were planned, and especially how the aftermath was planned, were pretty off base. But in an idealistic sense, yes, I don't mind the idea of going in to free acountry. As a matter of fact, I wish the free world could do a lot more of that and a lot less looking with other way when it suits us in the near term.

Then again, I thought we should have supported the uprisings in Iraq in '91, so in the hypothetical world of shoulda-coulda-wouldas, I would say that the Iraq war shouldn't have been necessary in the first place. :)

[ColanderOfDeath]

I would have supported it in 91. Most Iraqis would have at the time as well. Father of Shrubbery compromised too much to build his coalition. Ironic I suppose. It wouldn't have been that hard militarily. No harder than what we went through now.

Humanitarian reasons gets wishy washy. I'm still not sure that this may not turn out to be the best thing for Iraq in the longer term, say 25-50 years but that remains to be seen. And we'll never know how events developed in the scenario in which we don't invade so there is no other reality with which to compare the end results, only a speculative one. I think if handled properly this could have been a justified war but it would have to have been on an entirely different time table. I don't think anyone but the most diehard GOP mouthpiece doubts that they understated the cost and the way it would stretch the military. Also, I think most of us would agree that they fucked up the planning for the post-war era. Not a big surprise though on that.

I bet Shrubbery wishes that he had slow played it and attacked this year instead of last. Then he could still be basking in the political alpenglow of his victory instead of being hounded about WMDs and daily attacks on coalition troops and civilians.

[Powerdoc]

Originally posted by ColanderOfDeath
I would have supported it in 91. Most Iraqis would have at the time as well. Father of Shrubbery compromised too much to build his coalition. Ironic I suppose. It wouldn't have been that hard militarily. No harder than what we went through now.

Humanitarian reasons gets wishy washy. I'm still not sure that this may not turn out to be the best thing for Iraq in the longer term, say 25-50 years but that remains to be seen. And we'll never know how events developed in the scenario in which we don't invade so there is no other reality with which to compare the end results, only a speculative one. I think if handled properly this could have been a justified war but it would have to have been on an entirely different time table. I don't think anyone but the most diehard GOP mouthpiece doubts that they understated the cost and the way it would stretch the military. Also, I think most of us would agree that they fucked up the planning for the post-war era. Not a big surprise though on that.

I bet Shrubbery wishes that he had slow played it and attacked this year instead of last. Then he could still be basking in the political alpenglow of his victory instead of being hounded about WMDs and daily attacks on coalition troops and civilians.

Yes I didn't understand at the time why they did not remove it. I only see two reasons why they didn't :

- they did not want to lose too many soldiers. At this time occidental countries loved the myth of war without any causualties for them

- they did not really want to remove Saddam, fearing that some islamist integreist took the power.

[rageous]

They didn't support the uprising because the UN mandate was to expell the invading Iraqi military from Kuwait, and nothing more. The UN was unwilling to let the conflict go any further than that, and unfortunately the US decided to follow along and play nice at the international politics front.

The only difference between then and now is that this time the US had the balls, or arrogance (depending on your point of view), to not let the UN effect domestic policy.

[Powerdoc]

Originally posted by rageous
They didn't support the uprising because the UN mandate was to expell the invading Iraqi military from Kuwait, and nothing more. The UN was unwilling to let the conflict go any further than that, and unfortunately the US decided to follow along and play nice at the international politics front.

The only difference between then and now is that this time the US had the balls, or arrogance (depending on your point of view), to not let the UN effect domestic policy.

At this time, the coalition was huge, and the public opinion worldwide, would have agreed.
I don't know if we will know, one day, the real reasons (and not the official one : the UN mandate).

[sammi jo]

Originally posted by BRussell

It wouldn't be without precedent - the intervention in Yugoslavia was essentially humanitarian.

Well, its a nice fuzzy thought....but the intervention in Yugoslavia did provide NATO with a raison d'etre, essentially a redundant alliance since the collapse of the Soviet bloc. Also, Kosovo's mineral wealth and the market potential of the region required the presence of a pro-western leader and regime, ie NOT Milosevic. Then, the NATO intervention did provide a windfall for military contractors (both US and European). And....disputes such as this work against regional unity which in itself could act as a counter to US (or other) hegemony.

Milosevic didn't pose any threat to the US or Europe. Neither did Haiti or Somalia. There was a joke that one of the conditions for the use of the military during the Clinton administration was that it didn't serve American interests.

Take it another way: If the same thing had been going on in a nation without the (oil) wealth of Iraq, who would have intervened for purely humanitarian reasons? Would we have invaded Iraq if they didn't have their oil wealth? NOT A CHANCE. Lets repeat that again. No Way. Period. Never, ever. By the way, who went into Rwanda, for a recent example, a poor agricultural/subsistence based economy with no oil resources, to save a million people from a genocide of far greater magnitude than Yugoslavia? Answer: Nobody. Of course they didn't.

Who in the past has gone to war for purely humanitarian reasons, without some other reason in the background, either strategic, economic, political, or even religious reasons? Nobody.

Sorry to sound cynical and curmudgeonly, but when it comes down to warfare, or any big operation in this life always, always always follow the money trail.

So take the threat argument away completely - would the war have been justified? [/B]

For humanitarian causes, the choice of Iraq in 2003 was so arbitrary. If the US wanted to wage war for purely humanitarian causes, then we have a huge long list of nations that need invading right now, including (almost) every middle eastern nation.

[faust9]

Originally posted by rageous
They didn't support the uprising because the UN mandate was to expell the invading Iraqi military from Kuwait, and nothing more. The UN was unwilling to let the conflict go any further than that, and unfortunately the US decided to follow along and play nice at the international politics front.

The only difference between then and now is that this time the US had the balls, or arrogance (depending on your point of view), to not let the UN effect domestic policy.

How was this war domestic policy? The UN has no say in domestic policy. The friggin WTO has more clout in the way we do our business than the UN. Invading another country is the realm of Foreign policy.

Also, I think Dick Cheney had a differnt view as to why we stopped (as did Bush I) and it went something like this:


Did We Go Far Enough?

There have been significant discussions since the war ended about the proposition of whether or not we went far enough. Should we, perhaps, have gone in to Baghdad? Should we have gotten involved to a greater extent then we did? Did we leave the job in some respects unfinished? I think the answer is a resounding "no."

One of the reasons we were successful from a military perspective was because we had very clear-cut military objectives. The President gave us an assignment that could be achieved by the application of military force. He said, "Liberate Kuwait." He said, "Destroy Saddam Hussein's offensive capability," his capacity to threaten his neighbors -- both definable military objectives. You give me that kind of an assignment, I can go put together, as the Chiefs, General Powell, and General Schwarzkopf masterfully did, a battle plan to do exactly that. And as soon as we had achieved those objectives, we stopped hostilities, on the grounds that we had in fact fulfilled our objective.

Now, the notion that we should have somehow continued for another day to two is, I think, fallacious. At the time that we made the decision to stop hostilities, it was the unanimous recommendation of the President's military advisors, senior advisors, that we had indeed achieved our objectives, and therefore it was time to stop the killing and the destruction.

Some have suggested that if we had spent another day in combat in the Kuwait theater, we would have changed the outcome of the subsequent conflict between the Shi'a, and the Kurds in the north, against Iraq. I do not believe that is the case. I think it is important to remember that Saddam had better than 60 divisions when the war started; that we destroyed or rendered combat ineffective in military terms about two-thirds of that force, roughly 40 divisions in the Kuwaiti theater. But he had some 20 divisions deployed in Iraq that never were engaged in the conflict. They were up along the border with Turkey, along the border with Iran, but they were never committed to the theater. And they were never there for the target of U.S. military operations. It is that residual force, plus what small force he was able to get out of the theater at the end of the war, that he ultimately used to deal with the Kurds and the Shi'a, but I do not believe one more day in Kuwait would have made that much difference.

Some have suggested that if we had gotten involved just a little bit -- for example, if we had shot down a few helicopters -- it would have changed the outcome of the conflict. Again, I think that is a misguided notion. One of the lessons that comes out of all of this is we should not ask our military personnel to engage "a little bit" in a war. If you are going to go to war, let's send the whole group; let's make certain that we've got a force of sufficient size, as we did when we went into Kuwait, so that we do not suffer any more casualties than are absolutely necessary.

Now, if you're going to deal with the effort to change the military balance inside Iraq, if you want to really neutralize the Iraqi Army, you have to deal not only with helicopters but also with artillery, with tanks and armored personnel carriers, and with the infantry units that clearly make the Iraqi government -- even today with a two-thirds smaller army than they had a few months ago -- significantly an overwhelming presence vis-a-vis the insurgents that exist inside the country.

I think that the proposition of going to Baghdad is also fallacious. I think if we were going to remove Saddam Hussein we would have had to go all the way to Baghdad, we would have to commit a lot of force because I do not believe he would wait in the Presidential Palace for us to arrive. I think we'd have had to hunt him down. And once we'd done that and we'd gotten rid of Saddam Hussein and his government, then we'd have had to put another government in its place.

What kind of government? Should it be a Sunni government or Shi'i government or a Kurdish government or Ba'athist regime? Or maybe we want to bring in some of the Islamic fundamentalists? How long would we have had to stay in Baghdad to keep that government in place? What would happen to the government once U.S. forces withdrew? How many casualties should the United States accept in that effort to try to create clarity and stability in a situation that is inherently unstable?

I think it is vitally important for a President to know when to use military force. I think it is also very important for him to know when not to commit U.S. military force. And it's my view that the President got it right both times, that it would have been a mistake for us to get bogged down in the quagmire inside Iraq.


The above comes courtesy of one Richard Cheney and can be read at http://www.washingtoninstitute.org/pubs/soref/cheney.htm

Bush 1 signed a document that outlined why we stopped and it wasn't because of the UN. 13 years ago the leaders of our country saw the error of a full scale invasion and march to Baghdad.


[edit]Read all of what Dick said and Juxtapose that with what we did this time around. The ideas presented by Dick in 91 where well and good so why didn't we follow them this time? Why not invade Iraq with enough personel to ensure immediate stability and sufficient security?

[giant]

Originally posted by rageous
The UN was unwilling to let the conflict go any further than that, and unfortunately the US decided to follow along and play nice at the international politics front.
Actually, contrary to the anti-UN story you tell yourself, Bush Sr. says it was because the only way he could have arab support was to promise not to take the war to Baghdad. In addition, no one at the time wanted to drive the country into civil war, since there were reports that the Iranians were spilling over into Iraq. The high possibility of Iraq exploding into a conflict between groups across the region, spilling over into neighboring countries, lead the coalition to leave saddam in place and have everything contained. This was what really everyone agreed on for practical reasons and is just a broad overview. You know, it's really not too hard to research things rather than just parroting the anti-UN crap fox feeds you.

Oh, and I see faust expands a bit with some info from cheney himself. Welcome to the real world. Enjoy your stay.

[rageous]

Originally posted by giant
Actually, contrary to the anti-UN story you tell yourself, Bush Sr. says it was because the only way he could have arab support was to promise not to take the war to Baghdad. In addition, no one at the time wanted to drive the country into civil war, since there were reports that the Iranians were spilling over into Iraq. The high possibility of Iraq exploding into a conflict between groups across the region, spilling over into neighboring countries, lead the coalition to leave saddam in place and have everything contained. This was what really everyone agreed on for practical reasons and is just a broad overview. You know, it's really not too hard to research things rather than just parroting the anti-UN crap fox feeds you.

Anti-UN? When did I say I was anti-UN? I realize it's popular to believe that when someone says the US and UN disagree about something, they are taking a pro-US and anti-UN stance. However I made no such claim and certainly don't see things in such narrow terms.

[Anders]

Its interesting to read the Cheney quote. A lot of the speculations about a postwar Iraq he did more than ten years ago could have been helpful had it been done again 18 month ago.

[rageous]

Additionally, I find it ammusing how people say "Well Bush Sr. said..." and use that as an end to the whole argument. How often do you imply "Well W said this, but...."?

Of course Bush Sr. is going to say he wasn't influenced by the UN. That sort of thing doesn't play well domestically with the Republican base, and it would also call into question why he fought so hard to form a coalition that he was then in opposition with. It's hard for him to argue that the UN was wrong right after he desperately sought their approval to reinforce how "right" it was to repel the Iraqi invasion of Kuwait.

[giant]

Originally posted by rageous
Of course Bush Sr. is going to say he wasn't influenced by the UN. That sort of thing doesn't play well domestically with the Republican base, and it would also call into question why he fought so hard to form a coalition that he was then in opposition with. It's hard for him to argue that the UN was wrong right after he desperately sought their approval to reinforce how "right" it was to repel the Iraqi invasion of Kuwait.
Look, now he's using Bush Sr. conspiracy theories to justify his discredited anti-UN statements. Beautiful.

[rageous]

Again, please point out where I was anti-UN and pro-US.

I aksed you to previously, but as usual you chose not to address a point you can not justify. I understand this to be your modus operandi and thus don't expect any real response from you of a substantive nature.

But it is interesting how I am now anti-Bush and anti-UN in the very same argument.

[Anders]

Now I am gonna be a prick.

This thread is going so well and have the potieniale to be the best Iraq war thread ever so:

Please don´t speak to eachother in third person and please don´t hang on to arguments too long.

Yes I am very proactive here but our homeland have been very severely hit the last couple of weeks so I hope a gentle enquiry is enough to ensure that we don´t have to make a full blown invation against the wish of the entire AI community ;)

[BuonRotto]

<Buon puts his knives back in the drawer.> ;)

[Powerdoc]

Originally posted by BuonRotto
<Buon puts his knives back in the drawer.> ;)

How Unfortunate :embarrass

Lucky bastard ;) :D

[G4Dude]

I would absolutely support the war for humanitarian reasons and this was one of the major reasons I was behind the war in the first place. Furthermore I believe that it is our duty as the most powerful nation in the world to eliminate all oppressive regimes in the world. We are helping Iraq and Afghanistan but there is a long way to go. I also think that Europe needs to help out in Africa insteat of just ignoring it. They colonized it and now they need to help fix it. We did not ask to take on the task of spreading freedom but it is one which we have to take on in order to save the world. It sounds corny but I really believe it. :)

[giant]

So for everyone that "supports the war for humanitarian reasons," have you actually accounted for the points made by HRW? Seems to me you have your work cut out for you if you want to try to refute their position.

[sammi jo]

Originally posted by G4Dude
I would absolutely support the war for humanitarian reasons and this was one of the major reasons I was behind the war in the first place. Furthermore I believe that it is our duty as the most powerful nation in the world to eliminate all oppressive regimes in the world. We are helping Iraq and Afghanistan but there is a long way to go. I also think that Europe needs to help out in Africa insteat of just ignoring it. They colonized it and now they need to help fix it. We did not ask to take on the task of spreading freedom but it is one which we have to take on in order to save the world. It sounds corny but I really believe it. :)

G4Dude, if you were so supportive of the war "for humanitarian reasons" then don't you feel that it was beyond duplicitous for the US to lend so much support to Saddam Hussein from when he became dictator right up until the invasion of Kuwait, that is, for some 12 years! Saddam Hussein during those 12 years was not exactly known for his humanitarianism, yet he was one of the US' most important allies in the mid east. And, for those who say "it was a necessary thing to do, namely arming Iraq to counter the Iranian 'threat' ", both the US (and Europe to an extent) supplied both sides with weapons, including chemical weapons, but most especially Iraq.

The "humanitarian" reasoning for the war is one of the most sanctimonious, self-righteous and manipulative pieces of garbage propaganda ever put forward by a US administration. It is unbelievable that people even give this kind of stuff credence, let alone actually swallowing it. The evidence for this war being for "humanitarian reasons" (it sounds like an oxymoron but whatever) is zero at best.

Deputy Defense Sec. Wolfowitz summed it up (inadvertently) awhile back when he let the cat out of the bag by saying that the war was to get rid of "weapons of mass destruction" in Iraq, even though the admin knew full well that Saddam Hussein hadn't had any WMD since 1991. Both Colin Powell and Condi Rice said so in 2001!!!! Strange how that (correct) intelligence was ignored, or got forgotten about in the rush to go to war, huh?

The SOLE reason the admin. came to this "WMD" decision was because it was the only one they could find consensus on!!!!

Humanitarian reasons my a$$.

:rolleyes:

[G4Dude]

The US screwed up by supporting Saddam and W. realized the mistake and tried to correct it. This is, as I mentioned before, what the Europeans need to do in Africa. They need to fix the situiation there.


By the way, I think it's sad how liberals think they are superior to everyone else. They think that freedom is something that not everyone should get. Somehow they believe that only they are entitled to it and that it is okay so stand by when a brutal dictator murders hundreds of thousands of his own people. Well, guess what: it's not! What makes you guys think your life is so damn more precious than some poor Iraqi's?

[giant]

Originally posted by sammi jo
Deputy Defense Sec. Wolfowitz
Actually, I think what he said in Vanity Fair is relevant here:
The truth is that for reasons that have a lot to do with the U.S. government bureaucracy we settled on the one issue that everyone could agree on which was weapons of mass destruction as the core reason, but . . . there have always been three fundamental concerns. One is weapons of mass destruction, the second is support for terrorism, the third is the criminal treatment of the Iraqi people. Actually I guess you could say there's a fourth overriding one which is the connection between the first two. . . . The third one by itself, as I think I said earlier, is a reason to help the Iraqis but it's not a reason to put American kids' lives at risk, certainly not on the scale we did it.
So not even wolfie agrees with you guys.

Oh, and G4Dud, does this mak wolfie a lib?

[BRussell]

Originally posted by G4Dude
By the way, I think it's sad how liberals think they are superior to everyone else. They think that freedom is something that not everyone should get. Somehow they believe that only they are entitled to it and that it is okay so stand by when a brutal dictator murders hundreds of thousands of his own people. Well, guess what: it's not! What makes you guys think your life is so damn more precious than some poor Iraqi's? One thing that bothered me about the war was how damn easy it was to topple Saddam's gov't. We just drove some tanks into Baghdad, and it collapsed. It was barely a "boo!" If it was that easy, why didn't neighboring Middle Eastern countries, or, better yet, the Iraqis themselves do the job. It's almost like they wanted this guy in power. And you know what, at least for a large segment of Iraq, he was probably no worse than most of the other gov'ts in that region.

And remember that when we decide to topple a gov't like that, two things happen: 1) Americans die (how old are you, G4Dude? Old enough to enlist?) and 2) we are then inextricably linked with the new gov't, which could potentially set them up for failure or, at best, cause some form of blowback against us in a decade or two.

[faust9]

Originally posted by G4Dude
By the way, I think it's sad how liberals think they are superior to everyone else. They think that freedom is something that not everyone should get. Somehow they believe that only they are entitled to it and that it is okay so stand by when a brutal dictator murders hundreds of thousands of his own people. Well, guess what: it's not! What makes you guys think your life is so damn more precious than some poor Iraqi's?

<rant>What the hell are you talking about? Everyone is entitled to freedom, but it's not our job to shove it down their throat. Is it fair that US troops are being killed for for the freedom you hold so dear when the people we are "liberating" didn't feel obligated enough to fight for themselves? Is it fair that US mothers and fathers are loosing their kids, or being reunited with their kids minus arms and legs, for a freedom which you proclaim sacrosanct yet are not fighting for? How long where you in the military? Have you tried to join the military? I was in. I still have friends in. I have family members in Iraq. How many family members of yours are fighting to bestow this freedom upon another nation? How close to your home has this invasion into a sovereign nation come to you?

I hate hearing these cries of freedom and liberation because it's nothing short of jingoism. If freedom was so important to you then Iraq would be near the bottom of the list because there are many regimes which are more oppresive outside of Iraq. Burma, Tibet, Sudan, Chechnya, Ivory Coast... Why is freedom for Iraqis worth so much to you yet the freedom of these other places worth so little that you'd simply pawn it off on Europe (a conglomeration of nations BTW not a single entity as you believe)?

Jingoism, and flag waiving what a pair. Since you posed the question first I'll spit it back at ya. What makes Iraqis life so damn special that my brother in law has to give his life in order to protect said Iraqi (he's still alive knock on wood)? What makes the freedom of Iraqis so important that American troops have to give up their freedoms. That's right killer--Troops are losing their freedom to live, to use limbs which they've lost on the battle field, to be safe. I speak from experience when I say we all join knowing the possibility of war exists; however, we don't joint to fight wars rooted in jingoism's and demagoguery.

So, how is the war in Iraq a humanitarian endeavor? Also, knowing the current state of affairs would you, G4Dude, have sanction the war a year ago(the old if I knew then what I know now). When are you gonna enlist and fight for the precious freedom because someone's gotta do it why not you? Finally why is the life of an Iraqi so damn more precious than the life of a kinsmen? Remember when you respond that I served. I spent more time in the ME than you've probably spent out of the country. Remember that when you toss around phrases like "I think it's sad how liberals think they are superior to everyone else" because I know, and am one, a lot of conservatives fully against this fiasco. I know, and am one, a lot of conservatives who were against this invasion from the get-go.</rant>

[G4Dude]

Look, my point was that a lot of people give off the impression that they couldn't care less about these people who are suffring over in the middle east, or africa, or eastern europe, or asia. Now the question of whether the invasion of Iraq was worth 900 lives (and counting) is a legitimate one. Is is a question which I have no answer to. All I know is that if the President had said we were going in for humanitarian reasons I would have been for it. Knowing what I do now about the insurgency and the continued violence, I don't know what I would say. But I firmly believe that in the long run, this will have been the right thing to do. Maybe we shouldn't have gone in when we went in, but I think it needed to be done sooner or later. I know it's hard to see Americans die especially when they are dying in the place of some nameless kurd or shiite who lives half a world away and not dying to defend a foreign invasion.

As for why I'm not in the army. I've never really thought about it so I'll try my best to come up with an explaination. I'm in college, I don't need to join to get money for an education. I want to make a decent living and be my own boss someday. That is something joining the military would not allow me to do. I'm very scared of dying. There I said it, I'm scared shitless of dying in some desert 10,000 miles away. That being said, if there was a draft, I would go, 100% because my country needed me. I am so appreciative of those people who voluntarily put their lives on the line so we can live safely. And that's probably people in military families don't like this war. They can't see how the invasion of Iraq directly effects the safety of Americans, and I understand that.

[FormerLurker]

Originally posted by G4Dude
They can't see how the invasion of Iraq directly effects the safety of Americans, and I understand that. Maybe you could explain it then... and please, spare us the wishful thinking about saving us all from the mythical WoMD.

[G4Dude]

Originally posted by FormerLurker
Maybe you could explain it then... and please, spare us the wishful thinking about saving us all from the mythical WoMD.

Whoa there cowboy! If you read my posts, I haven't said anything about WMDs so I'm not about to start. Furthermore, I never said that the war DID make Americans more secure. I was talking about military families and why they would not support the war.

Way to spin though!

[Wrong Robot]

Originally posted by G4Dude
Whoa there cowboy! If you read my posts, I haven't said anything about WMDs.

and if you read HIS post you'd see he was asking you to keep it that way.

[FormerLurker]

It reads like you disagree with the military families "who can't see how the invasion of Iraq directly effects the safety of Americans".

But you are saying that you understand their viewpoint? Ah, thanks, that sounds much more sensible.

Perhaps your point would have been clearer if you'd ended with "I understand that point of view" or "I understand their viewpoint" instead of "I understand that". Your phrasing leaves it more than a bit ambiguous as to whether "that" refers to the invasion directly affecting Americans' safety, or to the viewpoint of some military families that it does not.

[pfflam]

Originally posted by G4Dude
By the way, I think it's sad how liberals think they are superior to everyone else. They think that freedom is something that not everyone should get. Somehow they believe that only they are entitled to it and that it is okay so stand by when a brutal dictator murders hundreds of thousands of his own people. Well, guess what: it's not! What makes you guys think your life is so damn more precious than some poor Iraqi's? Freedom is great . . . Were the Iraqis free to not have to have our freedom imposed on them?

Freedom is many things . . . . freedom for one group of people might be different than the kind you value . . . some people would rather have freedom from fear and anxiety and illness at the expense of open social strictures than have freedom to choose your favorite video game at the expense of an environment of anxiety or fear for their lives or etc etc.

Some people want to be free by being free from your idea of freedom.

Who is more arrogant:
The person who believes that their culture is universally the best and therefo forcibly undergoes an invasion which, at least in its accompanying propaganda, is about 'helping them and 'freeing' them.
Or someone who is reluctant to assume that they immediately and always assume what is best for everybody?

:\

BTW: Saddam's largest murder sprees happened WHILE THE US and he were allies!! They still contihued but not with such severity, with the exception of the quelling of the rebellion which we announced support for and then retracted.
Saying that 'we realized he was a bad guy" has nothing to do with anything in reality-land: The reasons for our changing relationship to Saddam had to do with resources and geopolitical power positions.

[neutrino23]

Let me add a few different thoughts.

First, one must be very careful of the rhetoric being bandied about. One man's contractor is another man's mercenary. Those labeled terrorists by the ruling group are often considered freedom fighters by the oppressed.

My take is that while it is good that Saddam is gone it is terribly wrong that the US conquered Iraq in order to accomplish this.

Here is one possible alternative. The US had complete control of the skies of Iraq. The US could have armed both the Kurds in the north and the Shiites in the South. With the benefit of US airpower protecting them they could have staged a revolution to take down Saddam by gradually encroaching on Saddam from the north and south.

With no source of weapons and facing armed rebellion Saddam would have eventually been taken down.

There are a lot of problems with this scenario. Iran and Turkey would have strongly resisted anything that made the Kurds too powerful. Turkey at least, is an ally.

The Shiites are culturally close to Iran. It is not in US interests to have the southern part of Iraq become a client of Iran.

The Sunnis in Iraq would be powerless and probably severely oppressed after the fall of Saddam. The Sunni resistance might have fought on for years and years.

While Saddam would be gone and Iraq would be under self-rule there is no telling how things would wind up several years down the road.

Don't forget that the US is building an enormous embassy in Iraq and we are building at least fourteen permanent military bases. On the surface Iraq will seem to be free but they will remain an occupied country for a long time.

[pfflam]

That would have led to civil war and probable mass murder of Sunnis, as well as an eventual incursion by Turky and perhaps even Iran.

I do not believe that the humanitarian issue was a good reason for this war.
NOT in the way it was prosecuted.

What should have happened: very stringent oversite on the food for oil program . . . something that was left in charge of the US, and in specific, by a group headed by Negroponte . . . . however, they werre not concerned with shady profits and business, supposedly, because they were too concerned with weapons.
We also should have made a very strong push, diplomatically, to form a real coalition made up of Islamic countries as well as UN members. This would have then placed increasing pressure over a period of a year, or two, while a real plan is assembled rather than a hackneyed plan written by people completely unaware of the realities of MEast.
As well as manouvering serious internal pressures through assorted different means.

Of course, none of this would have happened if there was not some real form of payoff, resources or political position (ie: "presence in the ME" -Pax Americana) . . . and even with those real goals in mind they would not have happened . . . if we had taken that coalition/diplomatic coupled with increased internal pressure approach the US would not have a solitary grasp on the goods

[NaplesX]

There is only one small problem with the premise of this thread...

Halabjah.

The subject of WMD cannot be avoided no matter how hard you try.

10 points to the person that can tell me the next obvious question.

[FormerLurker]

Originally posted by NaplesX
The subject of WMD cannot be avoided no matter how hard you try.
Unless, of course, you are avoiding the fact that the incident you cite was 14 years ago, and that no WMDs have been found in Iraq (despite your unwavering and incredible belief that they will be found any day now).

[BR]

Originally posted by BRussell
Let's say Bush and Blair didn't say a single thing about WMD or WOT. They never said Iraq was a threat to anyone else, they only said that Saddam was a horrible dictator who tortured and murdered the Iraqi people.

It wouldn't be without precedent - the intervention in Yugoslavia was essentially humanitarian. Milosevic didn't pose any threat to the US or Europe. Neither did Haiti or Somalia. There was a joke that one of the conditions for the use of the military during the Clinton administration was that it didn't serve American interests.

So take the threat argument away completely - would the war have been justified?
No. There are plenty of African and Southeast Asian countries in worse shape that should be bumped to the front of the line.

[1337_5L4Xx0R]

When one country rushes in and topples another, destabilizes it and plunges it into chaos, and that second country poses no threat to the first, there is nothing humanitarian about that. "Humanitarian" implies selflessness, and the current administration's actions are anything but selfless.

But to answer the thread title, if humanitarian reasons actually were the modus operandi, like in a parallel universe or something, I still wouldn't have supported it, certainly not without global consensus. Intervening to stop a war is one thing; starting one, unprovoked, is another.

[bunge]

Originally posted by NaplesX
Halabjah.

The Kurds were killed by a nerve agent, produced and used by Iran and not Iraq.

[giant]

Originally posted by pfflam
Freedom is great . . . Were the Iraqis free to not have to have our freedom imposed on them?

Some people want to be free by being free from your idea of freedom.
And it's amazing to me that in this day and age some people actually believe democracy = freedom. If only they knew anything (even a tiny bit) about the world around them.

[NaplesX]

Originally posted by FormerLurker
Unless, of course, you are avoiding the fact that the incident you cite was 14 years ago, and that no WMDs have been found in Iraq (despite your unwavering and incredible belief that they will be found any day now). So you have forgiven Saddam, then?

Is there some sort of statute of limitations on mass murder?

Enlighten me, please.

[NaplesX]

Originally posted by bunge
The Kurds were killed by a nerve agent, produced and used by Iran and not Iraq. What? Please expand.

[giant]

Originally posted by NaplesX
What? Please expand.
Sure. Actually, let's just have the CIA's top analyst on the Iran-Iraq war explain it:

http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article2098.htm

Watch the whole thing. It's great, especially in retrospect.

[bunge]

Originally posted by NaplesX
What? Please expand.

NaplesX,

I didn't click on giant's link because it's probably redundant information, but if that link isn't enough please post in this thread and ask for more proof. If Google can't help you find some information I'll try and post more of what I know.

[NaplesX]

Originally posted by giant
Sure. Actually, let's just have the CIA's top analyst on the Iran-Iraq war explain it:

http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article2098.htm

Watch the whole thing. It's great, especially in retrospect. That's it! That's your expansion?

The guy is an obvious anti-bush anti-war guy. What are the references to the "movement"? He sites a report from the DIA that he admits is iffy, although he sticks by it then he tells the crowd there that is is classified, therefore not verifiable. He really didn't say anything in that whole 15 minute clip.

[FormerLurker]

Originally posted by NaplesX
That's it! That's your expansion?

The guy is an obvious anti-bush anti-war guy. No, he's obviously someone in a better position than anyone posting on these boards, to know what he's talking about: 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. It does help to read a little, before spouting off nonsense like that.

[NaplesX]

The guy also stated that it was just another battle and merely another tragedy of war. Ho hum.

Here look at all the soldiers that were there in that town. Look at all the guns...

http://www.kdp.pp.se/4.jpg
http://www.kdp.pp.se/bad0080.jpg
http://www.kdp.pp.se/2.jpg
http://www.kdp.pp.se/1.jpg
http://www.kdp.pp.se/12.jpg
http://www.kdp.pp.se/hal8.jpg
http://members.tripod.com/surkew/173d9390.jpg

And you guys call me all sorts of names and say I am heartless. What a screwy world.

[NaplesX]

Originally posted by FormerLurker
No, he's obviously someone in a better position than anyone posting on these boards, to know what he's talking about: It does help to read a little, before spouting off nonsense like that. How many analysts were there at the CIA during those years?

[FormerLurker]

Originally posted by NaplesX
How many alylists were there at the CIA during those years?
1. I don't know, do you?
2. What does it matter how many?
3. He was the SENIOR analyst on Iraq.
4. Learn to spell.

[NaplesX]

Originally posted by FormerLurker
1. I don't know, do you?
I don't know exact numbers but I am sure it was thousands.
Originally posted by FormerLurker
2. What does it matter how many?
We are talking about one voice in thousands. Have you even checked to see if there are opposing views to his, or is he automatically a respectable source because he supports your political argument?
Originally posted by FormerLurker
3. He was the SENIOR analyst on Iraq.Senior, meaning head of a department, or senior, meaning being there for a certain amount of time?
Originally posted by FormerLurker
4. Learn to spell. Ouch!

[NaplesX]

Here is a source that you guys seem to respect:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Halabja_poison_gas_attack

Read it carefully.

[FormerLurker]

Originally posted by NaplesX
Here is a source that you guys seem to respect:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Halabja_poison_gas_attack

Read it carefully.
Reading that carefully, I see this phrase in the first sentence:
"allegedly by Iraqi government forces"

Note that is the only "alleged" part - the fact that Kurds died from poison gas is not up for debate. But the question of who gassed them, IS.

More on this in the discussion of the wikipedia topic you linked:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Halabja_poison_gas_attack

[giant]

What an interesting discussion, particularly because Naples apparently doesn't even know what he's arguing about any more.

The two points are, and these are also Pelletiere's points, a) whether it was the directly caused by Iraq or Iran is open for debate and b) (this is the big one) this was a battle in a war, not a genocidal attack on civilians.

Pelletiere:
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.

As far as the wikipedia article goes, you've made the fatal mistake of trying to use it for definitive info on recent political events without reading it very skeptically. That's a big no-no. Case in point, the paragraph at the end gives no authoritative sources (and after a quick initial search it appears the quote is not showing up on the HRW site) and is, in fact, very wrong if it really is claiming that this was not a consequense of war. I will correct that entry by the end of the day.

Pelletiere's real and very legitimate argument:
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.
That's what you and many others have missed. You've eaten up a piece of propaganda without questioning what the real facts and debates are. You hear "gassed the kurds" and don't even bother to find out what that actually means and what the circumstances are. The point, in the end, is that the whole situation is far, far more complicated when accounting for the factual events, the political situation and the research done on it in the past 15 years.

[NaplesX]

Originally posted by FormerLurker
Reading that carefully, I see this phrase in the first sentence:
"allegedly by Iraqi government forces"

Note that is the only "alleged" part - the fact that Kurds died from poison gas is not up for debate. But the question of who gassed them, IS.

More on this in the discussion of the wikipedia topic you linked:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Halabja_poison_gas_attack I agree, but from what I have read on the issue, there are far more people "in the know" that think it was SH than people that think otherwise.

It seem that many here are just satisfied with interjecting some kind of doubt into any given discussion, and anything that supports that tactic is quoted. There are actually people that think that the US had a direct hand in Halabja. I bet there are some that think that aliens did it too.

The consensus right now is that SH along with Chemical Ali are responsible for the tragedies:

http://www.hrw.org/press/2003/01/iraq0117.htm
http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/world/iraq/majeed.htm
http://www.cbc.ca/fifth/kurds/attack.html

That is but a small sampling.

And giant, I know exactly what I am arguing about, but thanks for the help, however useless.

[giant]

Originally posted by NaplesX
That is but a small sampling.
GlobalSecurity.org is a secondary source (I'm actually writing an academic article that includes a bunch of info on John Pike as we speak), and the HRW article is not a primary source, nor does it even discuss halabja (meaning you aren't even really reading what you post). Primary sources (meaning the only real "in the know" sources) would be any of the 3-5 (can't remember the exact number) studies done on halabja, the DIA report and the others that were all done by peace groups, all of which I read years ago (the DIA report was summed up in Pelletiere's final assesment at the army war college).

As it stands, you are arguing a nonpoint. Pelletiere's argument is bulletproof in that he is only stating what we know and pointing out that there is not a concensus on which side is responsible, that the US changed its position when it was building the case for war, but the fact remains that regardless of where the responsibility lies, it was a sad consequence of war and the civilians of halabja were caught in the middle of a battle.

If you want to have discussions about civilian deaths during war, that's fine. One could easily point you to the most dramatic cases of civilian deaths in war (Hiroshima and Nagasaki) to see that this happens in war. Hell, the current war in Iraq has killed some 10000 Iraqi civilians. Its a sad fact of war and one of the main reasons why war needs contemplated more carefully than this administration is willing to.

This isn't to say that Saddam wasn't a genocidal killer, but your reliance on skimming websites you don't understand to create an alternate narrative to support your empty, pointless and directionless argument does you and this board a disservice.

[NaplesX]

Originally posted by giant
GlobalSecurity.org is a secondary source (I'm actually writing an academic article that includes a bunch of info on John Pike as we speak), and the HRW article is not a primary source, nor does it even discuss halabja (meaning you aren't even really reading what you post). Primary sources (meaning the only real "in the know" sources) would be any of the 3-5 (can't remember the exact number) studies done on halabja, the DIA report and the others that were all done by peace groups, all of which I read years ago (the DIA report was summed up in Pelletiere's final assesment at the army war college).

As it stands, you are arguing a nonpoint. Pelletiere's argument is bulletproof in that he is only stating what we know and pointing out that there is not a concensus on which side is responsible and that the US changed its position when it was building the case for war, but the fact remains that regardless of where the responsibility lies, it was a sad consequence of war and the civilians of halabja were caught in the middle of a battle.

If you want to have discussions about civilian deaths during war, that's fine. One could easily point you to the most dramatic cases of civilian deaths in war (Hiroshima and Nagasaki) to see that this happens in war. Hell, the current war in Iraq has killed some 10000 Iraqi civilians. Its a sad fact of war and one of the main reasons why war needs contemplated more carefully than this administration is willing to.

This isn't to say that Saddam wasn't a genocidal killer, but your reliance on skimming websites you don't understand to create a alternate narrative to support your empty, pointless and directionless argument does you and this board a disservice. Can you please do me a favor?

Put me back on your ignore list. You have insulted me so many times that anything that you say is meaningless and looks like "bla bla bla, Look at me! I know everything, bla bla bla...."

You seem to forget these are opinion boards, and everyone has one. You can point out where you think I am going wrong, but don't insult, your credibility is zero with me despite your obvious intelligence. I am not sure why you bother.

The only people that might respect you here, are those that obviously agree with you and that is just sad. You have every opportunity to be civil and decent, if you wanted to. Yet, time after time you make your choice.

[NaplesX]

Originally posted by FormerLurker
Reading that carefully, I see this phrase in the first sentence:
"allegedly by Iraqi government forces"

Note that is the only "alleged" part - the fact that Kurds died from poison gas is not up for debate. But the question of who gassed them, IS.

More on this in the discussion of the wikipedia topic you linked:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Halabja_poison_gas_attack I am not sure, but I think that you missed some very key adjectives like:

some - 1: quantifier; used with either mass nouns or plural count nouns to indicate an unspecified number or quantity; "have some milk"; "some roses were still blooming"; "having some friends over"; "some apples"; "some paper"

Example - "Some people affiliated with the United States government at the time of the Halabja attack continue to insist that Iran, rather than Iraq, committed the atrocity"

Most - 1. Consisting of the greatest number or quantity; greater in number or quantity than all the rest; nearly all.

Example - "Most accounts of the incident regard Iraq as the party responsible for the gas attack, which occurred during the Iran-Iraq War."

I could be wrong.

[giant]

Originally posted by NaplesX
I am not sure, but I think that you missed some very key adjectives like.
:lol:

It's called NPOV. Welcome to the wikipedia.

[giant]

More politicization? (http://observer.guardian.co.uk/politics/story/0,6903,1263830,00.html)

[MaxParrish]

Originally posted by BRussell
Let's say Bush and Blair didn't say a single thing about WMD or WOT. They never said Iraq was a threat to anyone else, they only said that Saddam was a horrible dictator who tortured and murdered the Iraqi people.

It wouldn't be without precedent - the intervention in Yugoslavia was essentially humanitarian. Milosevic didn't pose any threat to the US or Europe. Neither did Haiti or Somalia. There was a joke that one of the conditions for the use of the military during the Clinton administration was that it didn't serve American interests.

So take the threat argument away completely - would the war have been justified?

A good question, one that might be asked of the Iraqi people now (and in five years). For all of Saddam's killings, and all the mass graves, one has to remember that he had ceased the worst atrocities - maybe a couple of thousand of executions a year - by the time of the invasion.

Reputedly, many more deaths were being caused by the embargo...

I'm not sure that one can easily seperate 'all the reasons' for ridding the gulf of Saddam into a few neat catagories.

[bunge]

Originally posted by NaplesX
We are talking about one voice in thousands.

"...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."

From here (http://www.nytimes.com/2003/01/31/opinion/31PELL.html?ex=1090468800&en=f578b00969e21daa&ei=5070), originally posted/printed January 31, 2003.

[chu_bakka]

Isn't war for humanitarian reasons an oxymoron?

I bet more civilians were killed by US bombs last year than were killed by Saddam the year before.

There's nothing humanitarian about war.

[NaplesX]

Originally posted by bunge
"...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."

From here (http://www.nytimes.com/2003/01/31/opinion/31PELL.html?ex=1090468800&en=f578b00969e21daa&ei=5070), originally posted/printed January 31, 2003. Let's make this simple:

There are conflicting reports about what happened, and none are rock solid. You have to assume a lot and forget a lot of facts to believe that the Iranians were responsible for Halabja.

Think it through from a neutral perspective. Ask the most obvious questions.

BTW, the quotes you posted were from the same speech that giant posted the video of AFAIK.

[faust9]

Originally posted by NaplesX
Let's make this simple:

There are conflicting reports about what happened, and none are rock solid. You have to assume a lot and forget a lot of facts to believe that the Iranians were responsible for Halabja.

Think it through from a neutral perspective. Ask the most obvious questions.

BTW, the quotes you posted were from the same speech that giant posted the video of AFAIK.

A neutral perspective would demand that you look at all possibilities including that Iran was responsible due to the war.

What are these most obvious questions.
"Who could have done this?"--Saddam, or Iran
"Why would this happen?"--Iran was at war with Iraq, Saddam had a bone to pick with the Kurds.

What you have to do as NOT assume that one party is culpible immediatly given liitle evidence to support that claim while deeming another party innocent when there is evidence (the same amount of evidence points to both sides) against the "innocent" party. PS which country has ties to terrorists again?

[giant]

Originally posted by NaplesX
There are conflicting reports about what happened, and none are rock solid. You have to assume a lot and forget a lot of facts to believe that the Iranians were responsible for Halabja.
No you don't. The fact is that all of the studies have shown both are responsible and that both sides killed civilians with chemical weapons at halabja. What is disputed is which one is more responsible. The actual point of disagreement concerns which side used which chemicals and what chemicals killed the majority of victims.

[NaplesX]

Originally posted by faust9
A neutral perspective would demand that you look at all possibilities including that Iran was responsible due to the war.

What are these most obvious questions.
"Who could have done this?"--Saddam, or Iran
"Why would this happen?"--Iran was at war with Iraq, Saddam had a bone to pick with the Kurds.

What you have to do as NOT assume that one party is culpible immediatly given liitle evidence to support that claim while deeming another party innocent when there is evidence (the same amount of evidence points to both sides) against the "innocent" party. PS which country has ties to terrorists again? OK:

Former ambassador to Croatia from 1993 to 1998 he documented the Iraqi authorities' attacks against the Kurds in the late 1980s when he served as senior advisor to the US Senate Foreign Relations Committee (1979-1993). He was one of the first to witness the genocide of the Kurds by the Iraqi government during a trip he made to the region in 1987. Peter Galbraith said of his trip to Iraq:

"As we traveled from the Iraqi area to the Kurdish area, we were stunned to see that the villages were gone. These were places that had been inhabited for millennia. The graveyards were removed, the mosques, all the wire had been taken down form the electric poles. It had become a desolate region. And we could see where the people had been moved. Iraq called them victory cities but in reality they were a kind of concentration camp."

"It was a moment of recognition. And I put together the use of chemical weapons against villages far from the Iranian border in places that could have nothing to do with the Iran/Iraq war and put that together with the systemic destruction of villages that I’d seen before. The conclusion was that this regime was committing genocide. And I felt that we had to do something about it."

One of "Chemical" Ali's orders, dated June 20, 1987, directed army commanders "to carry out special bombardments [a reference to chemical weapon use]...to kill the largest number of persons present in...prohibited zones."

In 1988, "Chemical" Ali said of the Kurds. "I will kill them all with chemical weapons! Who is going to say anything? The international community? Fuck them! the international community, and those who listen to them!"

In March 16, 1988, in the town of Halabja, 5,000 Kurds died writhing in agony and 10,000 were seriously affected when Iraqi jets dropped chemical bombs on the town

[giant]

:wow:

You should be banned for that kind of dishonesty. Mashing quotes from Galbraith and then globalsecurity.org to make it appear like they are all from the same place.

So as I said,
Originally posted by giant
The fact is that all of the studies have shown both are responsible and that both sides killed civilians with chemical weapons at halabja. What is disputed is which one is more responsible. The actual point of disagreement concerns which side used which chemicals and what chemicals killed the majority of victims.
Oh, the other point of disagreement with the DIA study cites the report that the town was taken by Iran and Iran-aligned forces the day before the main attack , further demonstrating that if Iraq was primarily responsible, it was a military battle targeting military forces.

[NaplesX]

Originally posted by giant
:wow:

You should be banned for that kind of dishonesty. Mashing quotes from Galbraith and then globalsecurity.org to make it appear like they are all from the same place.

So as I said,

Oh, the other point of disagreement with the DIA study cites the report that the town was taken by Iran and Iran-aligned forces the day before the main attack , further demonstrating that if Iraq was primarily responsible, it was a military battle targeting military forces. Where is the military bodies, Iranian or Iraqi?

Surely there would be some, no?

Oh yeah, my above post was a timeline, you do realize that or should I have spelled that out?

[NaplesX]

Halabja was just part of the plan:

http://www.gendercide.org/case_anfal.html
http://www.hrw.org/reports/1992/iraqkor/KOREME4.htm
http://usinfo.state.gov/products/pubs/silenced/chemical.htm

"During his two-year Anfal Campaign against the Kurdish population, Saddam Hussein used these chemical weapons against more than 40 villages."

You guys act as if Halabja was he only village that CW's were used against.

Was Iran responsible for all of the others?

Same MO, but hey let's blame Iran.

[giant]

OK, I'll be benevolent and bring you up to speed.

The following is Glen Rangwala's analysis referencing most of the studies done. However, he does not accurately charaterize Pelletiere (apparently was not aware that he was the CIA's top analyst on the war) and his claim that the war was not closely examined by the authors is subsequently very false.* Another possible problem is the explanation of the presence of cyanide through tabun decomposition, since decomposition could take far longer. For these reasons, while I am swayed by Rangwala's argument, it does have those weak points which have not been addressed and likely will not be since it would require examining classified information the CIA has on the battle.

What is not open for discussion is the fact that it was part of a battle, in fact one of the major battles of the Iran-Iraq war.

Anyway, here it is (http://www.casi.org.uk/discuss/2002/msg00034.html), as posted to the casi list:
Dear Mark

I've refrained from posting to the list before on this issue, out of concern that it will provoke a more substantial (and to my mind, fruitless) discussion. No doubt someone will come back at this with further, tortuous explications in an attempt to demonstrate that it really was the Iranians that did it. But nevertheless, since you ask, and in an attempt to correct some of the misinterpretations put around previously, here goes.

The source for most of these "exposes" of Halabja was a report entitled 'Iraqi power and US security in the Middle East' by Stephen Pelletiere (trained in politics, also claims Iran was behind the 1991 intifada in Southern Iraq), ret. Colonel Douglas V. Johnson (trained in strategic studies) and Leif Rosenberger (trained in economics). It was published by the US Army War College — not usually a source that campaigners take as providing the gospel truth. I mention the authors' academic background only in order to point out that none of them (to my knowledge) are trained in chemistry or medical diagnostics. As far as I'm aware, the IHT piece of 1990 was just referring to this study (though I haven't seen that article directly).

Contrary to the claim made in one of the authors cited by Ghazwan it cannot be said that this book "examined very closely the behaviour of the Iraqi army during the hostilities with Iran". Indeed, it only makes brief mention of Halabja, and then only assertively (no evidence is offered). On page 52 of the book it is simply written:

"In March 1988, the Kurds at Halabjah were bombarded with chemical weapons, producing a great many deaths. Photographs of the Kurdish victims were widely disseminated in the international media. Iraq was blamed for the Halabjah attack, even though it was subsequently brought out that Iran too had used chemicals in this operation, and it seemed likely that it was the Iranian bombardment that had actually killed the Kurds."

That's it, the basis of much of the claims that have been circulating on casi-discuss for the last few years.

So why did these authors take this line? Well, the focus of their study is not on Halabja, human rights in Iraq or international welfare, but is indicated by the title of the study, "US security in the Middle East".
Straight after making their claim on Halabja, the authors detail what they mean by "US security in the Middle East":

"As a result of the outcome of the Iran-Iraq War, Iraq is now the most powerful state in the Persian Gulf, an area in which we have vital interests. To maintain an uninterrupted flow of oil from the Gulf to the West, we need to develop good working relations with all of the Gulf states, and particularly with Iraq, the strongest." (p.53)

This is two sentences after their take on Halabja. Human rights organisations' attempts to penalise Iraq are "without sufficient thought for the adverse diplomatic effects" (p.53). Again, p.57: "under pressure from the Iraqis, all the Arab states of the Gulf — with the possible exception of Oman — would tacitly support a move to withdraw US privilieges in the Gulf" — and so Iraq needs to be kept on side, lest "US privileges" be withdrawn.

OK, that's the ad hominem attack as such. Turning to the actual arguments themselves, Douglas Johnson has explained them in a little more detail in personal correspondence with a colleague of mine. The sole evidential material provided is that the photos of Kurdish victims showed blue discoloration of extremities, and this was an indication of use of a cyanide compound, most probably hydrogen cyanide or its derivatives ("blood gas"); since it was claimed that Iraq did not make use of hydrogen cyanide, someone else must have done it. Therefore (the argument goes), it must have been Iran. This is coupled with a claim that since Halabja was only recently captured by the Iranian-backed Patriotic Union of Kurdistan, there was probably an Iranian mix-up and the Iranians ended up bombing their own side.

The problems with this argument are numerous. Most obviously, why on earth would Iran bomb a town so extensively whose inhabitants were among the core supporters of their ally, the PUK? The argument of "fog of war" fails to hold, even if the Iranian air force had thought that Iraqi troops were still present in Halabja.

Even that seems unlikely: the PUK captured Halabja on 15 March 1988. They were accompanied by members of the Iranian Revolutionary Guard who coordinated PUK actions. The town was fully under PUK/Iranian control 4 hours after they entered the town. The eyewitness testimony collected by Physicians for Human Rights and by British filmmaker Gwynne Roberts, who was in Halabja & captured the attack and aftermath on film, confirms this: the PUK controlled all exits to the town, and were preventing civilians from leaving as they thought that the Iraqis would not spread their artillery bombardment of surrounding areas to the centre of the town if it was fully inhabited (human shields). I find it hard to believe that with Iranian troops in the town for 36 hours before the chemical weapons attacks, the field commanders still thought that Iraqi forces were still in possession of the town.

The actual attack began at nightfall on the 16th, when 8 aircraft dropped chemical bombs; they were followed throughout the night by 14 aircraft sorties, with 7 to 8 planes in each group. Intermittent bombardment continued until the 18th (some reports say the morning of the 19th). If the Johnson et al argument is to be believed, Iranians were bombing their own elite units and key supporters for 48 hours, even though news reports were already circulating about the defeat of Iraqi troops on the 15th.

Regarding the nature of the CWs used — the crucial element in Johnson's analysis — the most detail survey of the medical effects was done by Professor Christine Gosden, a medical geneticist from Liverpool Uni, who has (I think) done the only survey into the long-term effects of the CW attack (obvious access problems until recently). From looking at the health problems of those who were victims of the attacks on Halabja, her results show that mustard gas, sarin, tabun and VX were used in the attack.

Prior UN investigations had catalogued Iraqi use of Tabun and mustard gas from 1983, but ongoing into the later stages of the war (see in particular the specialist report of the UN Sec-Gen of 26/3/84, and the UN expert commission report on use of chemical weapons in the Iran-Iraq war doc no. S/18852 of 1988 ). Iraqi use of sarin and VX has been widely asserted (the former, by the Physicians for Human Rights in soil sampling from Birjinni: http://www.phrusa.org/research/chemical.html). So it seems quite clear that all the chemical agents that Gosden traces the use of at Halabja had been used previously by Iraq.

By contrast, I have seen no reliable analysis of Iranian use of either Tabun or Hydrogen Cyanide — Dr Johnson doesn't tell us that he has any such evidence either: all he says is that there was no previous use of cyanide from the Iraqi side, and infers from this that it must have been the Iranians. By contrast, the presence of cyanide which Dr Johnson claims (but is still disputed; the claim stems primarily from Iranian autopsies on victims I believe, but are not independently confirmed) is perfectly explicable in terms of Iraqi use of Tabun. Gosden says:

"The Halabja attack involved multiple chemical agents — including mustard gas, and the nerve agents SARIN, TABUN and VX. Some sources report that cyanide was also used. It may be that an impure form of TABUN, which has a cyanide residue, released the cyanide compound."

(http://www.fas.org/irp/congress/1998_hr/s980422-cg.htm;
reposted in a better format at: http://www.chem-bio.com/resource/gosden.html)

The only credible report that Johnson himself cites in his defence, a PhD from Syracuse University in 1993 — rather than supporting Johnson's case — shows that the decomposition of the chemical agent, Tabun (which Iraq did use) produces a cyanide compound. Iraq didn't need to use hydrogen cyanide directly in order to produce blue discoloration around mouths. Its established repertoire of chemicals did that as well.

This interpretation has also been supported by the Jean Pascal Zanders, Project Leader of the Stockholm International Peace Research Institute's Chemical and Biological Warfare Project, who conducted interviews with victims of Halabja brought to Brussels for treatment.
Zanders argues that direct use of hydrogen cyanide at Halabja was unlikely. Hydrogen cyanide is itself highly volatile. It must be delivered on the target in huge quantities to be effective and its effects are gone in a matter of seconds. The heat in Halabja would have rendered this even more problematic. Furthermore, the flashpoint of hydrogen cyanide is very low which means that it easily explodes. So at least some bombs or containers with the agent, if that was the method of delivery, would have exploded upon impact. There are no reports of any such explosions (unlike the many accounts of French drums filled with hydrogen cyanide exploding in mid-air or upon impact when lobbed towards the German trenches in WWI).

Finally, there is no evidence of Iranian use of hydrogen cyanide either. Iran has submitted its declarations on past CW programmes to the Organisation for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons, the international body overseeing the implementation of the Chemical Weapons Convention.
International inspectors have verified these declarations, including those regarding former CW production facilities. Zanders mentions that Iran only had pilot plant-scale CW production facilities towards the end of and just after the war. He argues that Iran does not in retrospect appear to have had the capability to mount a major CW attack. This is consistent with UN reports of the time (including the 1988 report referred to above) which found no evidence of large scale Iranian use (it is probable, though, that there were small trial uses by Iran in 1987).

So, in summary, either the atrocity at Halabja was carried out by the Iraqi military against their enemies - with a set of chemical warfare agents that they had a record of use prior to Halabja, and with a proven reputation for using chemical weapons in large amounts against civilians (the mustard gas attacks on Majnun island in September 1984 are estimated to have killed 40,000 people) — or by the Iranians, against their own allies and soldiers in an attack using chemicals that there's no evidence that they ever have had. If you still choose to believe the latter, you should be aware that the only original report I know of that supports your position is primarily concerned with maintaining friendly relations with Iraq for oil and geostrategic reasons, and shows little understanding of the nature of the chemical agents used in the war.

I hope this is useful.

Best regards
Glen.

On Mon, 7 Jan 2002 [email address edited out] wrote:

> At the time, the Kurds and human rights groups said that it was
> Iraq. The UK & US governments were directly and indirectly
> blaming Iran and shifting the blame away from Iraq. Again at the
> time, I took this to be 'proof' of Iraq's guilt as the US/UK were
> strongly supporting SH.
>
> It would be interesting to know the truth rather than the US/UK spin
> and misinformation from the time.
>
> Mark Parkinson
>
> --

Note that if you believe that the DIA report is a lie for political reasons, then you are saying that the Reagan administration lied. Rangwala mentions why they might do such a thing, and it also touches on the same reasons why we went to war in Iraq last year.

*in addition, note that his criticism of Pelletiere's characterization of the 91 uprising in southern iraq is challenged in a subsequent post (http://www.casi.org.uk/discuss/2002/msg00036.html).

[NaplesX]

Originally posted by giant
OK, I'll be benevolent and bring you up to speed.

The following is Glen Rangwala's analysis referencing most of the studies done. However, he does not accurately charaterize Pelletiere (apparently was not aware that he was the CIA's top analyst on the war) and his claim that the war was not closely examined by the authors is subsequently very false.* Another possible problem is the explanation of the presence of cyanide through tabun decomposition, since decomposition could take far longer. For these reasons, while I am swayed by Rangwala's argument, it does have those weak points which have not been addressed and likely will not be since it would require examining classified information the CIA has on the battle.

What is not open for discussion is the fact that it was part of a battle, in fact one of the major battles of the Iran-Iraq war.

Anyway, here it is (http://www.casi.org.uk/discuss/2002/msg00034.html), as posted to the casi list:


*in addition, note that his criticism of Pelletiere's characterization of the 91 uprising in southern iraq is challenged in a subsequent post (http://www.casi.org.uk/discuss/2002/msg00036.html). Soldier's Bodies?

[giant]

Originally posted by NaplesX
Soldier's Bodies?
OK, I'll be benevolent and bring you up to speed.

The following is Glen Rangwala's analysis referencing most of the studies done. However, he does not accurately charaterize Pelletiere (apparently was not aware that he was the CIA's top analyst on the war) and his claim that the war was not closely examined by the authors is subsequently very false.* Another possible problem is the explanation of the presence of cyanide through tabun decomposition, since decomposition could take far longer. For these reasons, while I am swayed by Rangwala's argument, it does have those weak points which have not been addressed and likely will not be since it would require examining classified information the CIA has on the battle.

What is not open for discussion is the fact that it was part of a battle, in fact one of the major battles of the Iran-Iraq war.

Anyway, here it is (http://www.casi.org.uk/discuss/2002/msg00034.html), as posted to the casi list:
Dear Mark

I've refrained from posting to the list before on this issue, out of concern that it will provoke a more substantial (and to my mind, fruitless) discussion. No doubt someone will come back at this with further, tortuous explications in an attempt to demonstrate that it really was the Iranians that did it. But nevertheless, since you ask, and in an attempt to correct some of the misinterpretations put around previously, here goes.

The source for most of these "exposes" of Halabja was a report entitled 'Iraqi power and US security in the Middle East' by Stephen Pelletiere (trained in politics, also claims Iran was behind the 1991 intifada in Southern Iraq), ret. Colonel Douglas V. Johnson (trained in strategic studies) and Leif Rosenberger (trained in economics). It was published by the US Army War College — not usually a source that campaigners take as providing the gospel truth. I mention the authors' academic background only in order to point out that none of them (to my knowledge) are trained in chemistry or medical diagnostics. As far as I'm aware, the IHT piece of 1990 was just referring to this study (though I haven't seen that article directly).

Contrary to the claim made in one of the authors cited by Ghazwan it cannot be said that this book "examined very closely the behaviour of the Iraqi army during the hostilities with Iran". Indeed, it only makes brief mention of Halabja, and then only assertively (no evidence is offered). On page 52 of the book it is simply written:

"In March 1988, the Kurds at Halabjah were bombarded with chemical weapons, producing a great many deaths. Photographs of the Kurdish victims were widely disseminated in the international media. Iraq was blamed for the Halabjah attack, even though it was subsequently brought out that Iran too had used chemicals in this operation, and it seemed likely that it was the Iranian bombardment that had actually killed the Kurds."

That's it, the basis of much of the claims that have been circulating on casi-discuss for the last few years.

So why did these authors take this line? Well, the focus of their study is not on Halabja, human rights in Iraq or international welfare, but is indicated by the title of the study, "US security in the Middle East".
Straight after making their claim on Halabja, the authors detail what they mean by "US security in the Middle East":

"As a result of the outcome of the Iran-Iraq War, Iraq is now the most powerful state in the Persian Gulf, an area in which we have vital interests. To maintain an uninterrupted flow of oil from the Gulf to the West, we need to develop good working relations with all of the Gulf states, and particularly with Iraq, the strongest." (p.53)

This is two sentences after their take on Halabja. Human rights organisations' attempts to penalise Iraq are "without sufficient thought for the adverse diplomatic effects" (p.53). Again, p.57: "under pressure from the Iraqis, all the Arab states of the Gulf — with the possible exception of Oman — would tacitly support a move to withdraw US privilieges in the Gulf" — and so Iraq needs to be kept on side, lest "US privileges" be withdrawn.

OK, that's the ad hominem attack as such. Turning to the actual arguments themselves, Douglas Johnson has explained them in a little more detail in personal correspondence with a colleague of mine. The sole evidential material provided is that the photos of Kurdish victims showed blue discoloration of extremities, and this was an indication of use of a cyanide compound, most probably hydrogen cyanide or its derivatives ("blood gas"); since it was claimed that Iraq did not make use of hydrogen cyanide, someone else must have done it. Therefore (the argument goes), it must have been Iran. This is coupled with a claim that since Halabja was only recently captured by the Iranian-backed Patriotic Union of Kurdistan, there was probably an Iranian mix-up and the Iranians ended up bombing their own side.

The problems with this argument are numerous. Most obviously, why on earth would Iran bomb a town so extensively whose inhabitants were among the core supporters of their ally, the PUK? The argument of "fog of war" fails to hold, even if the Iranian air force had thought that Iraqi troops were still present in Halabja.

Even that seems unlikely: the PUK captured Halabja on 15 March 1988. They were accompanied by members of the Iranian Revolutionary Guard who coordinated PUK actions. The town was fully under PUK/Iranian control 4 hours after they entered the town. The eyewitness testimony collected by Physicians for Human Rights and by British filmmaker Gwynne Roberts, who was in Halabja & captured the attack and aftermath on film, confirms this: the PUK controlled all exits to the town, and were preventing civilians from leaving as they thought that the Iraqis would not spread their artillery bombardment of surrounding areas to the centre of the town if it was fully inhabited (human shields). I find it hard to believe that with Iranian troops in the town for 36 hours before the chemical weapons attacks, the field commanders still thought that Iraqi forces were still in possession of the town.

The actual attack began at nightfall on the 16th, when 8 aircraft dropped chemical bombs; they were followed throughout the night by 14 aircraft sorties, with 7 to 8 planes in each group. Intermittent bombardment continued until the 18th (some reports say the morning of the 19th). If the Johnson et al argument is to be believed, Iranians were bombing their own elite units and key supporters for 48 hours, even though news reports were already circulating about the defeat of Iraqi troops on the 15th.

Regarding the nature of the CWs used — the crucial element in Johnson's analysis — the most detail survey of the medical effects was done by Professor Christine Gosden, a medical geneticist from Liverpool Uni, who has (I think) done the only survey into the long-term effects of the CW attack (obvious access problems until recently). From looking at the health problems of those who were victims of the attacks on Halabja, her results show that mustard gas, sarin, tabun and VX were used in the attack.

Prior UN investigations had catalogued Iraqi use of Tabun and mustard gas from 1983, but ongoing into the later stages of the war (see in particular the specialist report of the UN Sec-Gen of 26/3/84, and the UN expert commission report on use of chemical weapons in the Iran-Iraq war doc no. S/18852 of 1988 ). Iraqi use of sarin and VX has been widely asserted (the former, by the Physicians for Human Rights in soil sampling from Birjinni: http://www.phrusa.org/research/chemical.html). So it seems quite clear that all the chemical agents that Gosden traces the use of at Halabja had been used previously by Iraq.

By contrast, I have seen no reliable analysis of Iranian use of either Tabun or Hydrogen Cyanide — Dr Johnson doesn't tell us that he has any such evidence either: all he says is that there was no previous use of cyanide from the Iraqi side, and infers from this that it must have been the Iranians. By contrast, the presence of cyanide which Dr Johnson claims (but is still disputed; the claim stems primarily from Iranian autopsies on victims I believe, but are not independently confirmed) is perfectly explicable in terms of Iraqi use of Tabun. Gosden says:

"The Halabja attack involved multiple chemical agents — including mustard gas, and the nerve agents SARIN, TABUN and VX. Some sources report that cyanide was also used. It may be that an impure form of TABUN, which has a cyanide residue, released the cyanide compound."

(http://www.fas.org/irp/congress/1998_hr/s980422-cg.htm;
reposted in a better format at: http://www.chem-bio.com/resource/gosden.html)

The only credible report that Johnson himself cites in his defence, a PhD from Syracuse University in 1993 — rather than supporting Johnson's case — shows that the decomposition of the chemical agent, Tabun (which Iraq did use) produces a cyanide compound. Iraq didn't need to use hydrogen cyanide directly in order to produce blue discoloration around mouths. Its established repertoire of chemicals did that as well.

This interpretation has also been supported by the Jean Pascal Zanders, Project Leader of the Stockholm International Peace Research Institute's Chemical and Biological Warfare Project, who conducted interviews with victims of Halabja brought to Brussels for treatment.
Zanders argues that direct use of hydrogen cyanide at Halabja was unlikely. Hydrogen cyanide is itself highly volatile. It must be delivered on the target in huge quantities to be effective and its effects are gone in a matter of seconds. The heat in Halabja would have rendered this even more problematic. Furthermore, the flashpoint of hydrogen cyanide is very low which means that it easily explodes. So at least some bombs or containers with the agent, if that was the method of delivery, would have exploded upon impact. There are no reports of any such explosions (unlike the many accounts of French drums filled with hydrogen cyanide exploding in mid-air or upon impact when lobbed towards the German trenches in WWI).

Finally, there is no evidence of Iranian use of hydrogen cyanide either. Iran has submitted its declarations on past CW programmes to the Organisation for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons, the international body overseeing the implementation of the Chemical Weapons Convention.
International inspectors have verified these declarations, including those regarding former CW production facilities. Zanders mentions that Iran only had pilot plant-scale CW production facilities towards the end of and just after the war. He argues that Iran does not in retrospect appear to have had the capability to mount a major CW attack. This is consistent with UN reports of the time (including the 1988 report referred to above) which found no evidence of large scale Iranian use (it is probable, though, that there were small trial uses by Iran in 1987).

So, in summary, either the atrocity at Halabja was carried out by the Iraqi military against their enemies - with a set of chemical warfare agents that they had a record of use prior to Halabja, and with a proven reputation for using chemical weapons in large amounts against civilians (the mustard gas attacks on Majnun island in September 1984 are estimated to have killed 40,000 people) — or by the Iranians, against their own allies and soldiers in an attack using chemicals that there's no evidence that they ever have had. If you still choose to believe the latter, you should be aware that the only original report I know of that supports your position is primarily concerned with maintaining friendly relations with Iraq for oil and geostrategic reasons, and shows little understanding of the nature of the chemical agents used in the war.

I hope this is useful.

Best regards
Glen.

On Mon, 7 Jan 2002 [email address edited out] wrote:

> At the time, the Kurds and human rights groups said that it was
> Iraq. The UK & US governments were directly and indirectly
> blaming Iran and shifting the blame away from Iraq. Again at the
> time, I took this to be 'proof' of Iraq's guilt as the US/UK were
> strongly supporting SH.
>
> It would be interesting to know the truth rather than the US/UK spin
> and misinformation from the time.
>
> Mark Parkinson
>
> --

Note that if you believe that the DIA report is a lie for political reasons, then you are saying that the Reagan administration lied about a major atrocity for political reasons. Rangwala mentions why they might do such a thing, and it also touches on the same reasons why we went to war in Iraq last year.

*in addition, note that his criticism of Pelletiere's characterization of the 91 uprising in southern iraq is challenged in a subsequent post (http://www.casi.org.uk/discuss/2002/msg00036.html).

[NaplesX]

So the kurds in Halabja were SH supporters thus Iran attacked the civilian populace there?

Or were they Iranian sympathizers that Iran decided to eliminate?

What was the reason that Iran would attack a town with no soldiers?

If you want to believe that Iran did it, fine. You are entitled to your opinion. Although, as an aside, I think you are prone to believing anything that puts the US in a bad light, IMO.

I think there are compelling arguments on both sides, to me I would tend to believe that it was just another one of the many atrocities committed by SH during his two-year Anfal Campaign. Because it fits the MO. I might be wrong, but that is my take.

If you would like to debate that subject in a civil manner, I might consider it. However, given your history, I am inclined to converse with you as little as possible. Your choice as dictated by your actions, not mine.

[jimmac]

:lol:

[giant]

Originally posted by jimmac
:lol:
No kidding. He's asking questions that are clearly answered one post prior in detail citing multiple primary sources and eyewitness accounts. I seriously don't get it.

[THT]

Originally posted by BRussell
So take the threat argument away completely - would the war have been justified?

For justification, my conditions would be: a) only if the Iraqi populace wanted us to invade and occupy, and 2) only if Hussein was absolutely corrupt and pathological.

I don't think those two conditions were true, and if GWB and TB were marketing an invasion as such, I would think they were doing it for politics sake or were misguided much like it happen with the current Iraq invasion and occupation.

Saddam Hussein is a realist-of-sorts and Iraq a mostly secular country. A China-style policy would have been a cheaper and more effective policy. Ie, lifting sactions and increasing trade with Iraq would be more productive in getting Iraq to be a more modern nation. In fact, I think this sort of policy is a lot like the stated neocon domino-theory policy, but is cheaper, more effective and has demonstrable analogues elsewhere in the world. (The analogue I am thinking of is of course China, Southeast Asia, Indonesia, Phillipines, Malaysia, etc.)

[Nightcrawler]

A very good question, difficult, but not impossible to answer:

But in order to answer your question, one has to look a bit of the grander scheme:

There was a time when a Britain-installed king reigned in Iraq in the name of the interest of Britain and the west. the US took over after worldwar2 the control of the installed regimes in the islamic world and installed some of its own.

A coup though dethroned the king and brought to power a somewhat communistic or marxistic regime. Maybe the coup was helped or provoked by the Soviet-Union, I don't know. What I know is that the US reacted with a coup of itself in the sixties that brought the Baath-regime to power, a socialistic party, that was strangely anti-communistic oriented. With the help of the CIA a lot of massacres were commited against the communistic elites in Iraq, in order to gain influence, power and authority.

A few years later a guy, who assassinated the former president of Iraq, came into power in the Baath-party: Saddam Hussein.

He could gain power and influence in the Baath-party, not only because he was the assassin of the former president, during the CIA-supported coup, but espescially because he had the support, the money, and the intelligence of the US in his back.

For the next few decades that same guy got the full diplomatic, military, financial and educational (in the form of training how to best oppress the own people, including secret-intelligence, military, emprisoning and torturing-trainings) support of the US until 1990.

During this time the US even delivered him with WMDs, parts of it directly by the US, parts of it through France as strawman.

During this time the US convinced Saddam Hussein to invade Iran and to use all the WMDs the US has delivered to him, while the US supports at one phase more Iraq and at another phase more Iran, depending who got the upperhand in that respective phases, in order to prolong the war and to keep every side from winning the war.

Now that the context is set, I will answer your question:

Would I support the Iraq-war for purely humanitarian reasons? Hell, no! Not for humanitarian reasons, not for WMD-reasons, not for any reason at all.

I would support the lifting of the UN-sanctions which in itself have killed and harmed millions and bogged a whole country down to nearly pre-industrial-level.

I would support the abolishing of the no-fly-zones and the daily bombardments during the 12 years of sanctions.

I would support that the US doesn't support the Baath-regime anymore financially, military, diplomatic and educational, and that they keep out of the business of Iraq, and let the iraqi-population deal with their regime on their own, and not interfere, when revolutions occur.

Because in order for the iraqis to gain their freedom, they will have to fight it for themselves, in order to be natural and satisfactory as well as sustainable. Everything else will be seen earlier or later as artificial, imposed, not in the interest of the own people, basically a new form of the old.

Nightcrawler

[pfflam]

The no-fly zones were established because Hussain was using HELLicopter-gunships to kill Kurdish civilians and refugees.

.

If the US layed no hands on Iraqi affairs then they simply would have gone to someone else . . . . that is why the US aided Iraq in the first place, they were turning towards the Soviet Union.

The manner in which the US supported the Baathists was not so intelligent perhaps, however, people seem to forget that the Soviet Union really did have an explicitly Expansionistic doctrine, and really did want to take over the world: it is Maxrist Doctrine that states that a true Communistic state can not take place until the entire world is Communist . . . . hence the Leninistic doctrine of the 'Dictatorship of the Proloteriate State' which controls things until that final 'triumph'

In other words: the Cold-War really was a war, and it was against an aggressor spread throughout the globe in proxy wars . . . . that is not a popular view among my more 'Liberal' cohorts . . . but, unfortunately it was the truth: just remember Kruschev's words: "we will bury you"