The US' role in Iraq from the 80's till 2003, answering apologists

[Jungibaaz]

Right, so I didn't want to make another thread for this. But our fellow member @US_statedept_retired made the following post about this issue, flag waving when it came to Iraq, and I promised him a rant.

This is where you lose every time in pretending that you care about civilians. It's a huge hole in that 'concern" you seem to portray and can't explain away.

You ONLY seem to be worried about civilian deaths when non muslims are behind it, but we never hear or heard a word about the muslim dictator Saddam killing his people, gassed his people by numbers estimate near a million or more.

We don't hear from you saying "wait a minute- the U.S got rid of a genocidal maniac- murderer of women, children and civilians in his own country. Although the evidence of WMD was wrong, the evidence of him having killed and continue to kill his people nearing a million or more was NOT wrong! "

If Nazi germany was actually lead by a muslim man and not Hitler. You would be cursing at the allied invasion to get rid of him, which had higher casualties.

That would tell us that you really don't care about civilians, rather are more focused about an anti-west bias. Look at the post you are replying to as proof of where your priorities lie. Who is their right mind would say that military action is also not needed to kill fundamental jihadist? You are doing so right now in Pakistan too & through your military!

Somehow you think innocent civilians only get killed in western wars and never when say your army is going after the terrorists by bombing infrastructure, buildings, village and homes filled with civilians too.

More Iraqi civilians were killed by fellow muslims and by a ratio close to 8-10X

And now my reply:

This is where you lose every time in pretending that you care about civilians. It's a huge hole in that 'concern" you seem to portray and can't explain away.

I find that insulting. You think I pick and chose whether civilian killing is bad on the basis of who it is that claims the kill?
No, Hell No. Saddam was a bast@rd (excuse my french), and he deserved to hang for his crimes. But.... there's FAR more to that story than you think.

Let me unleash the holy hell I'd like to see you counter... if you are so up for debate.

You ONLY seem to be worried about civilian deaths when non muslims are behind it, but we never hear or heard a word about the muslim dictator Saddam killing his people, gassed his people by numbers estimate near a million or more.

We don't hear from you saying "wait a minute- the U.S got rid of a genocidal maniac- murderer of women, children and civilians in his own country. Although the evidence of WMD was wrong, the evidence of him having killed and continue to kill his people nearing a million or more was NOT wrong! "

If Nazi germany was actually lead by a muslim man and not Hitler. You would be cursing at the allied invasion to get rid of him, which had higher casualties.

That would tell us that you really don't care about civilians, rather are more focused about an anti-west bias. Look at the post you are replying to as proof of where your priorities lie. Who is their right mind would say that military action is also not needed to kill fundamental jihadist? You are doing so right now in Pakistan too & through your military!

Somehow you think innocent civilians only get killed in western wars and never when say your army is going after the terrorists by bombing infrastructure, buildings, village and homes filled with civilians too.

More Iraqi civilians were killed by fellow muslims and by a ratio close to 8-10X

So Saddam was a murderous criminal, right? And the almighty and righteous powers of the west beat him down once, attempted to remove him from there on, and then dethroned him, executed him and then all live happily ever after right?

Let me tell you. I WONT go into the details of post invasion Iraq much. Because there were plenty of horrors, from mismanagement, to reckless murder, torture to political manipulation. It is the opinion of many Iraqis and was even back then, that Iraq was better off under Saddam. And now with ISIS eating away at their country, the IMPOSED sectarian governance(s) are also telling. Many in Iraq blame the US for bringing in a government that was indeed representing the interests of some but not all, and this is textbook post 9/11 style the US used in Afghanistan as well. Enter a war torn country with sectarian strife, pick the lesser of two evils and roll with it for the sake of your own goals. The entire democracy thing is a farce, a huge section of politicians and supporters were shunned, the Ba'athist elements were made enemies, the sunnis of Iraq were then also the ones who waged war.

Al Qaeda was not in Iraq before the US' intervention, now they have Al Qaeda, and the likes of ISIS, who make Al Qaeda look like day time TV.

Well, first of all, as you just said, the WMD thing was a lie. Or at the very least an incompetency of the highest possible degree. Mr Bush, Colin Powell, Cheney, Rumsfeld said the word 'Dubya Emm Dee' (WMD) in every speech, and how the entire world needed to support them on this noble cause. So the WMD thing didn't work out. So then it was about another noble cause of bringing about democracy...

Well, you should know that within the first month of two of the invasion of 2003, Saddam was gone, and many in the US were already calling it a success, just like they did in Afghanistan, prematurely. Do you know how many civil servants/leaders/government officials for example school teachers, government employed workers, and others were employed during that initial period? A few hundred, less than 400 if I recall correctly, in a country of 17 million. So first factor in post war Iraq... power vacuum, and power struggles. Add that to the fact that the US was at war with extremists, former Saddam supporters were banished and some communities in general were disillusioned. Civilian casualties mounting in a seemingly illegal war... It is no wonder, no wonder at all that elements like Al Qaeda stepped in and caused living hell in Iraq, if you can remember, the daily fatalities we used to hear about, 70, 100, 130. That was hell, courtesy of Uncle Sam & Co.

So, you might then say, Saddam committed crimes against his people. And he certainly did, but some added facts you seem to miss. Before Saddam became a threat to US oil interests in it's region, namely the Kuwait invasion. It was considered ally for furthering US interests in the region and with Iran in mind.

Starting in 1982 with Iranian success on the battlefield, the United States made its backing of Iraq more pronounced, normalizing relations with the government, supplying it with economic aid, counter-insurgency training, operational intelligence on the battlefield, and weapons.

The Spider's Web: The Secret History of How the White House Illegally Armed Iraq | Foreign Affairs

Another source not able to find on the internet, since it's from the Washington post and is an article from 1986

President Ronald Reagan initiated a strategic opening to Iraq, signing National Security Decision Directive 4-82 and selecting Donald Rumsfeld as his emissary to Hussein, whom he visited in December 1983 and March 1984.

Shaking Hands with Saddam Hussein

In 1982, Iraq was removed from a list of State Sponsors of Terrorism to ease the transfer of dual-use technology to that country. According to investigative journalist Alan Friedman, Secretary of State Alexander Haig was "upset at the fact that the decision had been made at the White House, even though the State Department was responsible for the list."

Source- 'The spider's web'

The Spider's Web: The Secret History of How the White House Illegally Armed Iraq | Foreign Affairs

Howard Teicher served on the National Security Council as director of Political-Military Affairs. He accompanied Rumsfeld to Baghdad in 1983. This is what he said about it...

'The United States actively supported the Iraqi war effort by supplying the Iraqis with billions of dollars of credits, by providing U.S. military intelligence and advice to the Iraqis, and by closely monitoring third country arms sales to Iraq to make sure that Iraq had the military weaponry required. The United States also provided strategic operational advice to the Iraqis to better use their assets in combat... The CIA, including both CIA Director Casey and Deputy Director Gates, knew of, approved of, and assisted in the sale of non-U.S. origin military weapons, ammunition and vehicles to Iraq. My notes, memoranda and other documents in my NSC files show or tend to show that the CIA knew of, approved of, and assisted in the sale of non-U.S. origin military weapons, munitions and vehicles to Iraq.'

http://www2.gwu.edu/~nsarchiv/NSAEBB/NSAEBB82/iraq61.pdf

About two of every seven licenses for the export of "dual use" technology items approved between 1985 and 1990 by the U.S. Department of Commerce "went either directly to the Iraqi armed forces, to Iraqi end-users engaged in weapons production, or to Iraqi enterprises suspected of diverting technology" to weapons of mass destruction, according to an investigation by House Banking Committee Chairman Henry B. Gonzalez. Confidential Commerce Department files also reveal that the Reagan and Bush administrations approved at least 80 direct exports to the Iraqi military. These included computers, communications equipment, aircraft navigation and radar equipment.

http://pqasb.pqarchiver.com/washingtonpost/doc/307528789.html?FMT=ABS&FMTS=ABS:FT&type=current&date=Jul 22, 1992&author=R. Jeffrey Smith&pub=&edition=&startpage=&desc=Dozens of U.S. Items Used in Iraq Arms

In conformance with the Presidential directive, the U.S. began providing tactical battlefield advice to the Iraqi Army. "The prevailing view", says Alan Friedman, "was that if Washington wanted to prevent an Iranian victory, it would have to share some of its more sensitive intelligence photography with Saddam."

Source, the book 'The spider's web', link given above.

On page 27 the author says...

'At times, thanks to the White House's secret backing for the intelligence-sharing, U.S. intelligence officers were actually sent to Baghdad to help interpret the satellite information. As the White House took an increasingly active role in secretly helping Saddam direct his armed forces, the United States even built an expensive high-tech annex in Baghdad to provide a direct down-link receiver for the satellite intelligence and better processing of the information...'

and on Page 38...

'he American military commitment that had begun with intelligence-sharing expanded rapidly and surreptitiously throughout the Iran–Iraq War. A former White House official explained that "by 1987, our people were actually providing tactical military advice to the Iraqis in the battlefield, and sometimes they would find themselves over the Iranian border, alongside Iraqi troops."'

Next point...

Donald Rumsfeld meets Saddam on 19–20 December 1983. Rumsfeld visited again on 24 March 1984, the day the UN reported that Iraq had used mustard gas and tabun nerve agent against Iranian troops. The NY Times reported from Baghdad on 29 March 1984, that "American diplomats pronounce themselves satisfied with Iraq and the U.S., and suggest that normal diplomatic ties have been established in all but name.

Shaking Hands with Saddam Hussein

According to retired Army Colonel W. Patrick Lang, senior defense intelligence officer for the United States Defense Intelligence Agency at the time, "the use of gas on the battlefield by the Iraqis was not a matter of deep strategic concern" to Reagan and his aides, because they "were desperate to make sure that Iraq did not lose."

OFFICERS SAY U.S. AIDED IRAQ IN WAR DESPITE USE OF GAS - NYTimes.com

Joost R. Hiltermann says that when the Iraqi military turned its chemical weapons on the Kurds during the war, killing approximately 5,000 people in the town of Halabja and injuring thousands more, the Reagan administration actually sought to obscure Iraqi leadership culpability by suggesting, inaccurately, that the Iranians may have carried out the attack.

Halabja - America didn't seem to mind poison gas - NYTimes.com

Iraqi military personnel received various types of guidance from their American counterparts on U.S. soil. According to Roque Gonzalez, an ex-Special Forces officer with multilingual expertise, Saddam's elite troops received instruction in unconventional warfare at Fort Bragg, North Carolina. "The idea was that, in the event of an Iranian victory, the Iraqi soldiers would be able to wage a guerrilla struggle against the occupying Iranian force", writes Barry Lando, former investigative producer with 60 Minutes.

Source- Lando, Barry Web of Deceit: The History of Western Complicity in Iraq, from Churchill to Kennedy to George W. Bush, Other Press, 2007.

Iraq acquired Mk. 82 bombs of US origin through the US themselves and Suadi. That sourced form the book the spider's web, again see link above.

More on Soviet weaponry rather then US built...

The United States assisted Iraq through a military aid program known as "Bear Spares", whereby the U.S. military "made sure that spare parts and ammunition for Soviet or Soviet-style weaponry were available to countries which sought to reduce their dependence on the Soviets for defense needs."

According to Howard Teicher's court sworn declaration:

If the "Bear Spares" were manufactured outside the United States, then the U.S. could arrange for the provision of these weapons to a third country without direct involvement. Israel, for example, had a very large stockpile of Soviet weaponry and ammunition captured during its various wars. At the suggestion of the United States, the Israelis would transfer the spare parts and weapons to third countries... Similarly, Egypt manufactured weapons and spare parts from Soviet designs and provided these weapons and ammunition to the Iraqis and other countries.

http://www2.gwu.edu/~nsarchiv/NSAEBB/NSAEBB82/iraq61.pdf

Now.. The next part is really interesting:

Chemical and biological weapons

On February 9th, 1994, Senator Riegle delivered a report-commonly known at the Riegle Report- in which it was stated that "pathogenic (meaning 'disease producing'), toxigenic (meaning 'poisonous'), and other biological research materials were exported to Iraq pursuant to application and licensing by the U.S. Department of Commerce." It added: "These exported biological materials were not attenuated or weakened and were capable of reproduction."

Secrets Of His Life And Leadership - Interview With Said K. Aburish | The Survival Of Saddam | FRONTLINE | PBS
U.S. Senate Commitee on Banking, Housing and Urban Development

The report then detailed 70 shipments (including Bacillus anthracis)from the United States to Iraqi government agencies over three years, concluding "It was later learned that these microorganisms exported by the United States were identical to those the UN inspectors found and recovered from the Iraqi biological warfare program."

Senator Riegle's Report

Donald Riegle, Chairman of the Senate committee that authored the aforementioned Riegle Report, said:

U.N. inspectors had identified many United States manufactured items that had been exported from the United States to Iraq under licenses issued by the Department of Commerce, and [established] that these items were used to further Iraq's chemical and nuclear weapons development and its missile delivery system development programs. ... The executive branch of our government approved 771 different export licenses for sale of dual-use technology to Iraq. I think that is a devastating record.

The U.S. Centers for Disease Control sent Iraq 14 separate agents "with biological warfare significance," according to Riegle's investigators.

Perspective: How Iraq built its weapons programs

Anthrax

Iraq purchased 8 strains of anthrax from the United States in 1985, according to British biological weapons expert David Kelly.
The Iraqi military settled on the American Type Culture Collection strain 14578 as the exclusive strain for use as a biological weapon, according to Charles Duelfer.

US supplied anthrax to Iraq
Iraq Purchased Anthrax From US Company:

Diplomatic support

In 1984, Iran introduced a draft resolution to the United Nations Security Council, citing the Geneva Protocol of 1925, condemning Saddam Hussein's use of chemical weapons on the battlefield. In response, the United States instructed its delegate at the UN to lobby friendly representatives in support of a motion to take "no decision" on the use of chemical munitions by Iraq. If backing to obstruct the resolution could be won, then the U.S. delegation were to proceed and vote in favour of taking zero action; if support were not forthcoming, the U.S. delegate were to refrain from voting altogether.

USDEL should work to develop general Western position in support of a motion to take "no decision" on Iranian draft resolution on use of chemical weapons by Iraq. If such a motion gets reasonable and broad support and sponsorship, USDEL should vote in favor. Failing Western support for "no decision," USDEL should abstain.

Representatives of the United States argued that the UN Human Rights Commission was an "inappropriate forum" for consideration of such abuses. According to Joyce Battle, the Security Council eventually issued a "presidential statement" condemning the use of unconventional weapons "without naming Iraq as the offending party."

http://www2.gwu.edu/~nsarchiv/NSAEBB/NSAEBB82/iraq47.pdf
Shaking Hands with Saddam Hussein

Thiodiglycol, MD-500, bell-212, TOW ATGM were all bought directly from the US without a backdoor route.
Spares for Soviet weaponry were granted by the US, and multi-billion dollar deals were made in weapons purchases either directly from the US or through a middle man like Israel or Saudi.

That above is a very small part of it... reports by UNSC showed 24 US firms who supplied weapons to Iraq and technology transfer was there too. then 2003, media reports revealed even more...

Made in the USA, Part III: The Dishonor Roll - Los Angeles | Los Angeles News and Events | LA Weekly

So.

In summary of the above, it's from an old post of mine.

Saddam was your poodle, you funded him, armed him, gave him diplomatic support and immunity. And even as he was using his dreaded arsenal of chemical weapons against Iran and his own people, you ignored and in fact supplied said weapons as best you could. UNTIL, he crossed your own interests. So don't give me this BS about humanitarian argument.

Now when it came to what happened after the Gulf War, many attempts were made to remove Saddam from power, including sanctions on Iraq. Under mounting pressure, Saddam allowed UN inspectors to show up and do what they needed to do, and they did. His arsenal (of US arms) was depleted, way past it's expiration and destroyed. But despite that US pushed on sanctions. Eventually food sanctions were imposed. led by the US of course, the champion of civilians of Iraq, the estimated death toll for these sanctions during the 90's was some 500,000 children. And many others were malnourished and had birth defects.

Iraq Sanctions Kill Children, U.N. Reports - NYTimes.com

Now on the birth defects, it was also believed that both in the 2003 invasion and the Gulf war, the US used DU and white phosphorus. Which led to birth defects in children.

Iraqi Birth Defects Worse than Hiroshima

The United States may be finished dropping bombs on Iraq, but Iraqi bodies will be dealing with the consequences for generations to come in the form of birth defects, mysterious illnesses and skyrocketing cancer rates.

Al Jazeera's Dahr Jamail reports that contamination from U.S. weapons, particularly Depleted Uranium (DU) munitions, has led to an Iraqi health crisis of epic proportions. Children being born with two heads, children born with only one eye, multiple tumours, disfiguring facial and body deformities, and complex nervous system problems, are just some of the congenital birth defects being linked to military-related pollution.

In certain Iraqi cities, the health consequences are significantly worse than those seen in the aftermath of the atomic bombing of Japan at the end of WWII.

(Dr Samira Alani/Al Jazeera])

The highest rates are in the city of Fallujah, which underwent two massive US bombing campaigns in 2004. Though the U.S. initially denied it, officials later admitted using white phosphorous. In addition, U.S. and British forces unleashed an estimated 2,000 tons of depleted uranium ammunitions in populated Iraqi cities in 2003.

Today, 14.7 percent of Fallujah's babies are born with a birth defect, 14 times the documented rate in Hiroshima and Nagasaki. Fallujah's babies have also experienced heart defects 13 times the European rate and nervous system defects 33 times that of Europe. That comes on top of a 12-fold rise in childhood cancer rates since 2004. Furthermore, the male-to-female birth ratio is now 86 boys for every 100 girls, indicating genetic damage that affects males more than females.

(Dr Samira Alani/Al Jazeera)

(On a side note, these pictures are rather sanitized compared to other even more difficult to look at images. See here if you can bear it.)

If Fallujah is the Iraqi Hiroshima, then Basra is its Nagasaki.

According to a study published in the Bulletin of Environmental Contamination and Toxicology, a professional journal based in the southwestern German city of Heidelberg, there was a sevenfold increase in the number of birth defects in Basra between 1994 and 2003.

According to the Heidelberg study, the concentration of lead in the milk teeth of sick children from Basra was almost three times as high as comparable values in areas where there was no fighting.

In addition, never before has such a high rate of neural tube defects been recorded in babies as in Basra, and the rate continues to rise. According to the study, the number of hydrocephalus cases among new-borns is six times as high in Basra as it is in the United States.

This isn't isolated to Fallujah and Basra. The overall Iraqi cancer rate has also skyrocketed:

Official Iraqi government statistics show that, prior to the outbreak of the First Gulf War in 1991, the rate of cancer cases in Iraq was 40 out of 100,000 people. By 1995, it had increased to 800 out of 100,000 people, and, by 2005, it had doubled to at least 1,600 out of 100,000 people. Current estimates show the increasing trend continuing.

As Grist’s Susie Cagle points out, that's potentially a more than 4,000 percent increase in the cancer rate, making it more than 500 percent higher than the cancer rate in the U.S.

(Dr. Samira Alani/Al Jazeera)

Instead, the international community, including the nation most responsible for the health crisis, is mostly ignoring the problem.

To make matters worse, Iraq's healthcare system, which was once the envy of the region, is virtually nonexistent due to the mass exodus of Iraq’s medical doctors since 2003. According to recent estimates, there are currently fewer than 100 psychiatrists and 20,0000 physicians serving a population of 31 million Iraqis.

Dahr Jamail was on Democracy Now this morning discussing the horrific effects of military-related pollution in Iraq:

Yanar Mohammad, President of the Organization for Women's Freedom in Iraq was also on Democracy Now and addressed the toxic legacy of birth defects in Iraq. (I interviewed Mohammed for a piece I wrote for Muftah about the deterioration of Iraqi women's rights since the invasion, which you can read here.)

courtesy. This thread on this forum: Iraqi Birth Defects Worse than Hiroshima

And also, further evidence of use of these sort of weapons by the US, again from an old post of my own:

In the gulf war, at least some 300 tons of DU were used according conservative military estimates, other more reasonable estimates range up to 800 tons. The UKAEA (UK atomic energy authority) highlighted the damage the use of DU would cause to health and the environment in Iraq.

The only thing 'depleted' about DU is the fact that is easily available, very cheap.
The UKAEA estimated up to an addition half a million cancer deaths in the 10 years following the gulf war as a result of DU use.

The contamination also causes birth defects, which is the primary topic of this thread, which you conveniently ignored.
DU is carcinogenic and can cause mutations. Even inhalation of tiny particles can cause ill health. And in the deserts where it was mostly used, once released into the environment, it can easily travel, if not at least cause harm to more local areas.
It has many effects on health. I can put a large list of effects.

Not to forget the number of miscarriages as a result. This is one area that is often ignored and is difficult to measure.

Further Evidence on Relation between Depleted Uranium, Incidence of Malignancies among Children in Basra, Southern Iraq

Also, the democracy argument was already addressed above but to add to it, the US oil interests also played a part, the Iraqi constitution is the only of it's kind in the world to explicitly allow large oil companies market penetration. Sounds like a Cold war goal right there. Moving on.

Then there is the issue of the legality of the Iraq war, which was questionable to say the least. It was not sanctioned by the UNSC, and Kofi Annan himself called it illegal, unsanctioned and against the UN charter. Clauses of the UN resolution 1441.

According to the Lancet, a peer reviewed study found that some 600,000 people died between 2003 and 2006 alone, as a result of the war. Some champion of the common Iraqi you people are. UN inspectors also claimed that some conditions were worse than under Saddam, again if a source is needed, just ask.

So..

In conclusion, the war was illegal, we were lied to once, and then again and then again. Saddam was your pet poodle, and you armed him while he committed atrocities. And then you attempted to overthrow him in 3 separate occasions, killing thousands, and millions of civilians along the way. And now, Iraq is worse off than it ever was under Saddam.

Courtesy you.


Disclaimer: This stuff was compiled from multiple sources, sub sources and online references. It is a compilation of what I know to be true and what I've written in the past. A lot of it is form old posts of mine.

 

[Steve781]

U.S. removes 'yellowcake' from Iraq - World news - Mideast/N. Africa - Conflict in Iraq | NBC News
I'm against the Iraq War but it seems very likely that Saddam would have restarted his nuclear weapons program once the sanctions were lifted. 550 tonnes of yellow cake is enough for twelve Hiroshimas.

 

[Foggy_Bottom]

Right, so I didn't want to make another thread for this. But our fellow member @US_statedept_retired made the following post about this issue, flag waving when it came to Iraq, and I promised him a rant.



And now my reply:



I find that insulting. You think I pick and chose whether civilian killing is bad on the basis of who it is that claims the kill?
No, Hell No. Saddam was a bast@rd (excuse my french), and he deserved to hang for his crimes. But.... there's FAR more to that story than you think.

Let me unleash the holy hell I'd like to see you counter... if you are so up for debate.



So Saddam was a murderous criminal, right? And the almighty and righteous powers of the west beat him down once, attempted to remove him from there on, and then dethroned him, executed him and then all live happily ever after right?

Let me tell you. I WONT go into the details of post invasion Iraq much. Because there were plenty of horrors, from mismanagement, to reckless murder, torture to political manipulation. It is the opinion of many Iraqis and was even back then, that Iraq was better off under Saddam. And now with ISIS eating away at their country, the IMPOSED sectarian governance(s) are also telling. Many in Iraq blame the US for bringing in a government that was indeed representing the interests of some but not all, and this is textbook post 9/11 style the US used in Afghanistan as well. Enter a war torn country with sectarian strife, pick the lesser of two evils and roll with it for the sake of your own goals. The entire democracy thing is a farce, a huge section of politicians and supporters were shunned, the Ba'athist elements were made enemies, the sunnis of Iraq were then also the ones who waged war.

Al Qaeda was not in Iraq before the US' intervention, now they have Al Qaeda, and the likes of ISIS, who make Al Qaeda look like day time TV.

Well, first of all, as you just said, the WMD thing was a lie. Or at the very least an incompetency of the highest possible degree. Mr Bush, Colin Powell, Cheney, Rumsfeld said the word 'Dubya Emm Dee' (WMD) in every speech, and how the entire world needed to support them on this noble cause. So the WMD thing didn't work out. So then it was about another noble cause of bringing about democracy...

Well, you should know that within the first month of two of the invasion of 2003, Saddam was gone, and many in the US were already calling it a success, just like they did in Afghanistan, prematurely. Do you know how many civil servants/leaders/government officials for example school teachers, government employed workers, and others were employed during that initial period? A few hundred, less than 400 if I recall correctly, in a country of 17 million. So first factor in post war Iraq... power vacuum, and power struggles. Add that to the fact that the US was at war with extremists, former Saddam supporters were banished and some communities in general were disillusioned. Civilian casualties mounting in a seemingly illegal war... It is no wonder, no wonder at all that elements like Al Qaeda stepped in and caused living hell in Iraq, if you can remember, the daily fatalities we used to hear about, 70, 100, 130. That was hell, courtesy of Uncle Sam & Co.

So, you might then say, Saddam committed crimes against his people. And he certainly did, but some added facts you seem to miss. Before Saddam became a threat to US oil interests in it's region, namely the Kuwait invasion. It was considered ally for furthering US interests in the region and with Iran in mind.

Starting in 1982 with Iranian success on the battlefield, the United States made its backing of Iraq more pronounced, normalizing relations with the government, supplying it with economic aid, counter-insurgency training, operational intelligence on the battlefield, and weapons.

The Spider's Web: The Secret History of How the White House Illegally Armed Iraq | Foreign Affairs

Another source not able to find on the internet, since it's from the Washington post and is an article from 1986

President Ronald Reagan initiated a strategic opening to Iraq, signing National Security Decision Directive 4-82 and selecting Donald Rumsfeld as his emissary to Hussein, whom he visited in December 1983 and March 1984.

Shaking Hands with Saddam Hussein

In 1982, Iraq was removed from a list of State Sponsors of Terrorism to ease the transfer of dual-use technology to that country. According to investigative journalist Alan Friedman, Secretary of State Alexander Haig was "upset at the fact that the decision had been made at the White House, even though the State Department was responsible for the list."

Source- 'The spider's web'

The Spider's Web: The Secret History of How the White House Illegally Armed Iraq | Foreign Affairs

Howard Teicher served on the National Security Council as director of Political-Military Affairs. He accompanied Rumsfeld to Baghdad in 1983. This is what he said about it...

'The United States actively supported the Iraqi war effort by supplying the Iraqis with billions of dollars of credits, by providing U.S. military intelligence and advice to the Iraqis, and by closely monitoring third country arms sales to Iraq to make sure that Iraq had the military weaponry required. The United States also provided strategic operational advice to the Iraqis to better use their assets in combat... The CIA, including both CIA Director Casey and Deputy Director Gates, knew of, approved of, and assisted in the sale of non-U.S. origin military weapons, ammunition and vehicles to Iraq. My notes, memoranda and other documents in my NSC files show or tend to show that the CIA knew of, approved of, and assisted in the sale of non-U.S. origin military weapons, munitions and vehicles to Iraq.'

http://www2.gwu.edu/~nsarchiv/NSAEBB/NSAEBB82/iraq61.pdf

About two of every seven licenses for the export of "dual use" technology items approved between 1985 and 1990 by the U.S. Department of Commerce "went either directly to the Iraqi armed forces, to Iraqi end-users engaged in weapons production, or to Iraqi enterprises suspected of diverting technology" to weapons of mass destruction, according to an investigation by House Banking Committee Chairman Henry B. Gonzalez. Confidential Commerce Department files also reveal that the Reagan and Bush administrations approved at least 80 direct exports to the Iraqi military. These included computers, communications equipment, aircraft navigation and radar equipment.

http://pqasb.pqarchiver.com/washingtonpost/doc/307528789.html?FMT=ABS&FMTS=ABS:FT&type=current&date=Jul 22, 1992&author=R. Jeffrey Smith&pub=&edition=&startpage=&desc=Dozens of U.S. Items Used in Iraq Arms

In conformance with the Presidential directive, the U.S. began providing tactical battlefield advice to the Iraqi Army. "The prevailing view", says Alan Friedman, "was that if Washington wanted to prevent an Iranian victory, it would have to share some of its more sensitive intelligence photography with Saddam."

Source, the book 'The spider's web', link given above.

On page 27 the author says...

'At times, thanks to the White House's secret backing for the intelligence-sharing, U.S. intelligence officers were actually sent to Baghdad to help interpret the satellite information. As the White House took an increasingly active role in secretly helping Saddam direct his armed forces, the United States even built an expensive high-tech annex in Baghdad to provide a direct down-link receiver for the satellite intelligence and better processing of the information...'

and on Page 38...

'he American military commitment that had begun with intelligence-sharing expanded rapidly and surreptitiously throughout the Iran–Iraq War. A former White House official explained that "by 1987, our people were actually providing tactical military advice to the Iraqis in the battlefield, and sometimes they would find themselves over the Iranian border, alongside Iraqi troops."'

Next point...

Donald Rumsfeld meets Saddam on 19–20 December 1983. Rumsfeld visited again on 24 March 1984, the day the UN reported that Iraq had used mustard gas and tabun nerve agent against Iranian troops. The NY Times reported from Baghdad on 29 March 1984, that "American diplomats pronounce themselves satisfied with Iraq and the U.S., and suggest that normal diplomatic ties have been established in all but name.

Shaking Hands with Saddam Hussein

According to retired Army Colonel W. Patrick Lang, senior defense intelligence officer for the United States Defense Intelligence Agency at the time, "the use of gas on the battlefield by the Iraqis was not a matter of deep strategic concern" to Reagan and his aides, because they "were desperate to make sure that Iraq did not lose."

OFFICERS SAY U.S. AIDED IRAQ IN WAR DESPITE USE OF GAS - NYTimes.com

Joost R. Hiltermann says that when the Iraqi military turned its chemical weapons on the Kurds during the war, killing approximately 5,000 people in the town of Halabja and injuring thousands more, the Reagan administration actually sought to obscure Iraqi leadership culpability by suggesting, inaccurately, that the Iranians may have carried out the attack.

Halabja - America didn't seem to mind poison gas - NYTimes.com

Iraqi military personnel received various types of guidance from their American counterparts on U.S. soil. According to Roque Gonzalez, an ex-Special Forces officer with multilingual expertise, Saddam's elite troops received instruction in unconventional warfare at Fort Bragg, North Carolina. "The idea was that, in the event of an Iranian victory, the Iraqi soldiers would be able to wage a guerrilla struggle against the occupying Iranian force", writes Barry Lando, former investigative producer with 60 Minutes.

Source- Lando, Barry Web of Deceit: The History of Western Complicity in Iraq, from Churchill to Kennedy to George W. Bush, Other Press, 2007.

Iraq acquired Mk. 82 bombs of US origin through the US themselves and Suadi. That sourced form the book the spider's web, again see link above.

More on Soviet weaponry rather then US built...

The United States assisted Iraq through a military aid program known as "Bear Spares", whereby the U.S. military "made sure that spare parts and ammunition for Soviet or Soviet-style weaponry were available to countries which sought to reduce their dependence on the Soviets for defense needs."

According to Howard Teicher's court sworn declaration:

If the "Bear Spares" were manufactured outside the United States, then the U.S. could arrange for the provision of these weapons to a third country without direct involvement. Israel, for example, had a very large stockpile of Soviet weaponry and ammunition captured during its various wars. At the suggestion of the United States, the Israelis would transfer the spare parts and weapons to third countries... Similarly, Egypt manufactured weapons and spare parts from Soviet designs and provided these weapons and ammunition to the Iraqis and other countries.

http://www2.gwu.edu/~nsarchiv/NSAEBB/NSAEBB82/iraq61.pdf

Now.. The next part is really interesting:

Chemical and biological weapons

On February 9th, 1994, Senator Riegle delivered a report-commonly known at the Riegle Report- in which it was stated that "pathogenic (meaning 'disease producing'), toxigenic (meaning 'poisonous'), and other biological research materials were exported to Iraq pursuant to application and licensing by the U.S. Department of Commerce." It added: "These exported biological materials were not attenuated or weakened and were capable of reproduction."

Secrets Of His Life And Leadership - Interview With Said K. Aburish | The Survival Of Saddam | FRONTLINE | PBS
U.S. Senate Commitee on Banking, Housing and Urban Development

The report then detailed 70 shipments (including Bacillus anthracis)from the United States to Iraqi government agencies over three years, concluding "It was later learned that these microorganisms exported by the United States were identical to those the UN inspectors found and recovered from the Iraqi biological warfare program."

Senator Riegle's Report

Donald Riegle, Chairman of the Senate committee that authored the aforementioned Riegle Report, said:

U.N. inspectors had identified many United States manufactured items that had been exported from the United States to Iraq under licenses issued by the Department of Commerce, and [established] that these items were used to further Iraq's chemical and nuclear weapons development and its missile delivery system development programs. ... The executive branch of our government approved 771 different export licenses for sale of dual-use technology to Iraq. I think that is a devastating record.

The U.S. Centers for Disease Control sent Iraq 14 separate agents "with biological warfare significance," according to Riegle's investigators.

Perspective: How Iraq built its weapons programs

Anthrax

Iraq purchased 8 strains of anthrax from the United States in 1985, according to British biological weapons expert David Kelly.
The Iraqi military settled on the American Type Culture Collection strain 14578 as the exclusive strain for use as a biological weapon, according to Charles Duelfer.

US supplied anthrax to Iraq
Iraq Purchased Anthrax From US Company:

Diplomatic support

In 1984, Iran introduced a draft resolution to the United Nations Security Council, citing the Geneva Protocol of 1925, condemning Saddam Hussein's use of chemical weapons on the battlefield. In response, the United States instructed its delegate at the UN to lobby friendly representatives in support of a motion to take "no decision" on the use of chemical munitions by Iraq. If backing to obstruct the resolution could be won, then the U.S. delegation were to proceed and vote in favour of taking zero action; if support were not forthcoming, the U.S. delegate were to refrain from voting altogether.

USDEL should work to develop general Western position in support of a motion to take "no decision" on Iranian draft resolution on use of chemical weapons by Iraq. If such a motion gets reasonable and broad support and sponsorship, USDEL should vote in favor. Failing Western support for "no decision," USDEL should abstain.

Representatives of the United States argued that the UN Human Rights Commission was an "inappropriate forum" for consideration of such abuses. According to Joyce Battle, the Security Council eventually issued a "presidential statement" condemning the use of unconventional weapons "without naming Iraq as the offending party."

http://www2.gwu.edu/~nsarchiv/NSAEBB/NSAEBB82/iraq47.pdf
Shaking Hands with Saddam Hussein

Thiodiglycol, MD-500, bell-212, TOW ATGM were all bought directly from the US without a backdoor route.
Spares for Soviet weaponry were granted by the US, and multi-billion dollar deals were made in weapons purchases either directly from the US or through a middle man like Israel or Saudi.

That above is a very small part of it... reports by UNSC showed 24 US firms who supplied weapons to Iraq and technology transfer was there too. then 2003, media reports revealed even more...

Made in the USA, Part III: The Dishonor Roll - Los Angeles | Los Angeles News and Events | LA Weekly

So.

In summary of the above, it's from an old post of mine.

Saddam was your poodle, you funded him, armed him, gave him diplomatic support and immunity. And even as he was using his dreaded arsenal of chemical weapons against Iran and his own people, you ignored and in fact supplied said weapons as best you could. UNTIL, he crossed your own interests. So don't give me this BS about humanitarian argument.

Now when it came to what happened after the Gulf War, many attempts were made to remove Saddam from power, including sanctions on Iraq. Under mounting pressure, Saddam allowed UN inspectors to show up and do what they needed to do, and they did. His arsenal (of US arms) was depleted, way past it's expiration and destroyed. But despite that US pushed on sanctions. Eventually food sanctions were imposed. led by the US of course, the champion of civilians of Iraq, the estimated death toll for these sanctions during the 90's was some 500,000 children. And many others were malnourished and had birth defects.

Iraq Sanctions Kill Children, U.N. Reports - NYTimes.com

Now on the birth defects, it was also believed that both in the 2003 invasion and the Gulf war, the US used DU and white phosphorus. Which led to birth defects in children.

Iraqi Birth Defects Worse than Hiroshima

The United States may be finished dropping bombs on Iraq, but Iraqi bodies will be dealing with the consequences for generations to come in the form of birth defects, mysterious illnesses and skyrocketing cancer rates.

Al Jazeera's Dahr Jamail reports that contamination from U.S. weapons, particularly Depleted Uranium (DU) munitions, has led to an Iraqi health crisis of epic proportions. Children being born with two heads, children born with only one eye, multiple tumours, disfiguring facial and body deformities, and complex nervous system problems, are just some of the congenital birth defects being linked to military-related pollution.

In certain Iraqi cities, the health consequences are significantly worse than those seen in the aftermath of the atomic bombing of Japan at the end of WWII.

(Dr Samira Alani/Al Jazeera])

The highest rates are in the city of Fallujah, which underwent two massive US bombing campaigns in 2004. Though the U.S. initially denied it, officials later admitted using white phosphorous. In addition, U.S. and British forces unleashed an estimated 2,000 tons of depleted uranium ammunitions in populated Iraqi cities in 2003.

Today, 14.7 percent of Fallujah's babies are born with a birth defect, 14 times the documented rate in Hiroshima and Nagasaki. Fallujah's babies have also experienced heart defects 13 times the European rate and nervous system defects 33 times that of Europe. That comes on top of a 12-fold rise in childhood cancer rates since 2004. Furthermore, the male-to-female birth ratio is now 86 boys for every 100 girls, indicating genetic damage that affects males more than females.

(Dr Samira Alani/Al Jazeera)

(On a side note, these pictures are rather sanitized compared to other even more difficult to look at images. See here if you can bear it.)

If Fallujah is the Iraqi Hiroshima, then Basra is its Nagasaki.



This isn't isolated to Fallujah and Basra. The overall Iraqi cancer rate has also skyrocketed:



As Grist’s Susie Cagle points out, that's potentially a more than 4,000 percent increase in the cancer rate, making it more than 500 percent higher than the cancer rate in the U.S.

(Dr. Samira Alani/Al Jazeera)

Instead, the international community, including the nation most responsible for the health crisis, is mostly ignoring the problem.

To make matters worse, Iraq's healthcare system, which was once the envy of the region, is virtually nonexistent due to the mass exodus of Iraq’s medical doctors since 2003. According to recent estimates, there are currently fewer than 100 psychiatrists and 20,0000 physicians serving a population of 31 million Iraqis.

Dahr Jamail was on Democracy Now this morning discussing the horrific effects of military-related pollution in Iraq:

Yanar Mohammad, President of the Organization for Women's Freedom in Iraq was also on Democracy Now and addressed the toxic legacy of birth defects in Iraq. (I interviewed Mohammed for a piece I wrote for Muftah about the deterioration of Iraqi women's rights since the invasion, which you can read here.)

courtesy. This thread on this forum: Iraqi Birth Defects Worse than Hiroshima

And also, further evidence of use of these sort of weapons by the US, again from an old post of my own:

In the gulf war, at least some 300 tons of DU were used according conservative military estimates, other more reasonable estimates range up to 800 tons. The UKAEA (UK atomic energy authority) highlighted the damage the use of DU would cause to health and the environment in Iraq.

The only thing 'depleted' about DU is the fact that is easily available, very cheap.
The UKAEA estimated up to an addition half a million cancer deaths in the 10 years following the gulf war as a result of DU use.

The contamination also causes birth defects, which is the primary topic of this thread, which you conveniently ignored.
DU is carcinogenic and can cause mutations. Even inhalation of tiny particles can cause ill health. And in the deserts where it was mostly used, once released into the environment, it can easily travel, if not at least cause harm to more local areas.
It has many effects on health. I can put a large list of effects.

Not to forget the number of miscarriages as a result. This is one area that is often ignored and is difficult to measure.

Further Evidence on Relation between Depleted Uranium, Incidence of Malignancies among Children in Basra, Southern Iraq

Also, the democracy argument was already addressed above but to add to it, the US oil interests also played a part, the Iraqi constitution is the only of it's kind in the world to explicitly allow large oil companies market penetration. Sounds like a Cold war goal right there. Moving on.

Then there is the issue of the legality of the Iraq war, which was questionable to say the least. It was not sanctioned by the UNSC, and Kofi Annan himself called it illegal, unsanctioned and against the UN charter. Clauses of the UN resolution 1441.

According to the Lancet, a peer reviewed study found that some 600,000 people died between 2003 and 2006 alone, as a result of the war. Some champion of the common Iraqi you people are. UN inspectors also claimed that some conditions were worse than under Saddam, again if a source is needed, just ask.

So..

In conclusion, the war was illegal, we were lied to once, and then again and then again. Saddam was your pet poodle, and you armed him while he committed atrocities. And then you attempted to overthrow him in 3 separate occasions, killing thousands, and millions of civilians along the way. And now, Iraq is worse off than it ever was under Saddam.

Courtesy you.


Disclaimer: This stuff was compiled from multiple sources, sub sources and online references. It is a compilation of what I know to be true and what I've written in the past. A lot of it is form old posts of mine.

I hate posts like these. They go from opinion to conspiracy to actual factual news to opinion to more conspiracies . And then you have a gazillion topics it jumps back and forth on. Take a core issue against the war and speak to it. Anyways, I have attempted my best to answer this cluster f of topics within topics


Context is important when quoting my reply. Which is- You and some of your fellow posters in a separate thread thought it was preposterous that Blair stated “Force is necessary in fighting Radical Islam.” Resulting in the typical and immediate dismissal him we've come to expect by throwing the ‘I’ (Iraq) word at it. This kind of immaturity and haste in dismissing someone over something completely not applicable in any way to the current statement, was what solicited a reply from me.

Btw, this “holy rant” is more of a screaming, hoping your louder voice will drown the facts and distract from the larger point made in my original reply. Or in this case adding a whole of distractions in text will somehow absolve you of the trait I mentioned above.

Now let’s address your points of contention. My goal here to is hopefully impress upon you that your mindset, albeit shared among many here, sees things in a narrow scope; and needs to broaden to look at things holistically and in context. Not everything is black and white, and not everything will be prefect. But you don’t give up on the “good” because it is not “prefect”.

You expectation of happily ever after befuddles me. No democracy, let alone where a system is changed from one form to another has had a smooth transition. You of all people should know this- Pakistan, what 60 years later? Is still struggling to maintain its democracy. Some of the other countries in S Asia are still struggling through it - but have progressed to be a greater nations than the day they were born. Nations that were a part of the USSR are struggling with democracy and are also getting better. But somehow you expected Iraq to achieve success sooner than anyone else?

Iraq when liberated had Iraqis extremely happy (Shia overwhelming population, perhaps some among the Sunni). Things turned sour not because the U.S. faltered initially, but because Muslim Sunnis went on a terror campaign. We could have done a better job but this was a big task and new one for us and we had a two war front going on too. Bombings everywhere, murder mayhem, torture, rape, kidnapping, ethnic cleansing from neighbors, blowing up mosques against fellow Muslims was not because of us firing Baathist. Yet majority would never have Saddam back. Ironically everyone (Islamic nations) around Saddam wanted him gone, maybe other than Syria.

The many in Iraq angry at the government in Iraq are the minority Sunnis and rightfully so. Among the majority the anger is because the government is providing adequate security (sounds family to you?) BUT look it is course correcting itself now. ISIS just a violent Sunni group that is left over. They will be done as a group in a couple of years tops.

What we need in Iraq is for Muslims to understand that everyone should be a part of the team.

You may say we should have seen this coming- maybe. We did not have a benchmark or have a historical perspective to go by to know the veracity and capacity of Sunni’s towards violence. BTW please don’t try to slip Afghanistan in the mix, they attacked us and when you do, you will feel the “HOLY” wrath of all of America’s might on you. Afghanistan, if the Taliban cajoled in Quetta, Pakistan don’t unleash their terror- can easily grow to be a success too.

To say that just because we had a friendly relationship with anyone, things can’t change is absurd. There are reasons behind the change and that is what I’m trying to address with you. Iraq attacking Kuwait was a global catastrophe waiting to happen. That Oil was not just about the U.S. It would have wreaked havoc on the global market and then we had no guarantee where he would stop. The man attacked a sovereign nation to simply annex it, let’s not forget. And nation that is important to global economic balance.


You could have saved a whole lot of time and links by asking me if we surreptitiously helped Iraq with weapons, we did and we intended to. But I still fail to see what that has to do with today with the last Iraq war or citing as excuse on everything going forward. Circumstances changed, some of the blame is on Saddam to keep pretending he had a nuclear program because he did not want Iran to know he did not have any. We know he was originally caught trying to build one and the Israeli’s did hit one of his sites.


The chemical case of us supplying them: It was a mistake wholeheartedly, but again it has no bearing on the last war. But toxigenic and pathogenic does mean we supplied anthrax or Sarin and those one off websites like clearinghouse plus claims from some individuals does not mean it to be true. Global policy link for example cites someone told the UN about it but there was no mention of it being corroborated by the UN in its final report. Surprisingly Baghdad never claimed that we sold it them, even up to the end. Would one not imagine Saddam declaring to the UN they bought from us originally in 85 to embarrass us?


If anything we put our blood and treasure to make sure they would not possess any after our initial blunder.


What does all of this mean? FIRST it means that none of this had do with Blair’s statement AKA the original reason I posted my initial reply to you. To pull Iraq in over it was unwarranted. It also shows that you look at the U.S to blame for everything because we failed to prove the evidence of WMD or supported him initially.


Finally, it was not an “illegal” war as you guys like to call it. It was a war of choice. Iraq had several U.N resolutions against it, failure of which meant they would be forcibly enforced. if it were illegal – the U.S would’ve be sanctioned.

 

[Jungibaaz]

I hate posts like these. They go from opinion to conspiracy to actual factual news to opinion to more conspiracies .

I hate posts like these, clear denial of some very basic facts, valid sources, multiple sources presented, all pretty much telling different aspects of the same story.

And then you have a gazillion topics it jumps back and forth on.

It's not an article. It's a compilation of a mess of different events and truths that make up a much larger and damning picture of the US' role in Iraq.

Take a core issue against the war and speak to it.

Core issues already covered, numerous times: Illegitimacy of the war. Illegitimacy of the war time rhetoric. The support for Saddam also along with other issues covered tells you that going back to YOU original argument, the US couldn't give less of a shit what civilian casualties are, what the costs of your interests are to others. It's all a big lie.

Anyways, I have attempted my best to answer this cluster f of topics within topics

If this is the best you can do, go take that pathetic effort somewhere else.

Context is important when quoting my reply. Which is- You and some of your fellow posters in a separate thread thought it was preposterous that Blair stated “Force is necessary in fighting Radical Islam.” Resulting in the typical and immediate dismissal him we've come to expect by throwing the ‘I’ (Iraq) word at it. This kind of immaturity and haste in dismissing someone over something completely not applicable in any way to the current statement, was what solicited a reply from me.

You can be damn sure, that for one, I accept what he's saying, he'd right, but it's a lot like Osama telling us we have to be tough on those who break international law. It's right, sure, but the person saying it should really keep their mouth shut.

Btw, this “holy rant” is more of a screaming,

That's why it's called a rant.

Get it?

I know your kind, and I also know I don't have the patience for this sort of polite, beating round the bush, BSing our asses off convo. It's a waste of time and patience.

hoping your louder voice will drown the facts and distract from the larger point made in my original reply.

So far, all you've said is: 'Blair is right'. 'Muslims kill Muslims, not us', 'Saddam justifies what happened to him and Iraq.'.
In so many words.

Yet, I see no facts, no substantial argument, no debate, no substance, no counter argument, no counter claim. And half baked rhetoric only.

Or in this case adding a whole of distractions in text will somehow absolve you of the trait I mentioned above.

You mentioned Saddam in trying to justify intervention, a whole side subject was Iraq. I gave you a THOROUGH breakdown of what you don't wanna hear and can't completely deny or counter. It is relevant to the discussion we had.

Sorry if you can't stomach that.

Now let’s address your points of contention.

About time.

My goal here to is hopefully impress upon you that your mindset, albeit shared among many here, sees things in a narrow scope; and needs to broaden to look at things holistically and in context. Not everything is black and white, and not everything will be prefect. But you don’t give up on the “good” because it is not “prefect”.

Of course I understand that not everything is black and white. Some of the evils committed in the name of good were unavoidable. It's unavoidable that Saddam after being propped up had to fall. Unavoidable that during war, people get killed, that's what it is by definition, and it's also known to me that there has been no clean war fought in a very long time.

But do argue substance, rhetoric will be looked down upon. And yet another paragraph of pure nothing.

You expectation of happily ever after befuddles me. No democracy, let alone where a system is changed from one form to another has had a smooth transition.Some of the other countries in S Asia are still struggling through it - but have progressed to be a greater nations than the day they were born. Nations that were a part of the USSR are struggling with democracy and are also getting better.

Sure, that's true. But it doesn't excuse the power vacuum left by the US that allowed extremists and separatists to take hold from very early on. it was mismanagement, and I'm not saying that the mismanagement is what gets me. No, the mismanagement worsened the situation, and directly and indirectly led to thousands more deaths. That was the point.

I was hoping I don't have to spell out my entire thought process to you.

You of all people should know this- Pakistan, what 60 years later? Is still struggling to maintain its democracy.

No.

YOU of all people should know that Pakistan has been a democracy for about 6 years now, not 60. Are you really State Department?

Shocking that you say this with that claim in your name.

[/QUOTE]But somehow you expected Iraq to achieve success sooner than anyone else?[/QUOTE]

No, not at all. I don't expect Iraq to achieve democracy.

What I also don't expect Iraq to achieve is civil war of the bloodiest order, a civil war maintained and worsened by those who intervened to bring an end to troubles of the Iraqi people by it's own confession.

Iraq when liberated had Iraqis extremely happy (Shia overwhelming population, perhaps some among the Sunni).

See. That is the problem.

Kurds were happy, Shias were happy. Sunnies not so much. When you invade and pick sides the way you do, you worsen sectarian strife. We see it in Iraq. And in Afghanistan where after 10 years of civil war, war between Tajik/Uzbek NA and the Southern Pashtun Taliban, and you then back a NA led ground campaign, NA men walk the roads of Southern Afghanistan as 'liberators' where just 10 years ago, they were famed for their barbarism. The Afghan government and security forces for a very long time was overwhelmingly Tajik, the most overrepresented group.

Is it any wonder that the war there had a sectarian colour too?

Things turned sour not because the U.S. faltered initially, but because Muslim Sunnis went on a terror campaign. We could have done a better job but this was a big task and new one for us and we had a two war front going on too.

Is that an excuse?
We messed up, but forgive us, we were busy messing up two places and not one. IF you bite off more than you can chew, that's your own damn fault, and if you bring a people to their knees in the process, don't expect any sympathy.

Bombings everywhere, murder mayhem, torture, rape, kidnapping, ethnic cleansing from neighbors, blowing up mosques against fellow Muslims was not because of us firing Baathist.

No it wasn't, it was because you had separatists fighting you, left over guys loyal to Saddam, and Al Qaeda like insurgents due to your own failures, who I may add were not seen in the country before you intervened.

Yet majority would never have Saddam back. Ironically everyone (Islamic nations) around Saddam wanted him gone, maybe other than Syria.

True. We did, Saddam was a butcher, an evil dictator, and his people were not fond of him. We wanted him gone. But we didn't want civil war in his place, nor did we want his former handlers to unleash holy hell on him, his country and the region in general.

The many in Iraq angry at the government in Iraq are the minority Sunnis and rightfully so. Among the majority the anger is because the government is providing adequate security (sounds family to you?) BUT look it is course correcting itself now.

Iraq is better than it was a few months earlier, sure. With Kurds practically breaking off, Iraqi forces in retreat, ISIS eating up land, and sectarian strife in the political arena.

ISIS just a violent Sunni group that is left over. They will be done as a group in a couple of years tops.

Sure, that's just chaos theory. It's maths. It's also Murphy's Law, ISIS is not an eternal entity. The real question is, was ISIS, the war and blood, worth removing Saddam? And for the US, was supporting Saddam worth removing him and worth what came after him.

What we need in Iraq is for Muslims to understand that everyone should be a part of the team.

Not just Iraq, everywhere. Well said.

You may say we should have seen this coming- maybe. We did not have a benchmark or have a historical perspective to go by to know the veracity and capacity of Sunni’s towards violence.

That's no excuse. And yes, no past experience would prepare you for the hornet's nest you shook up in Iraq and the ME in general.

BTW please don’t try to slip Afghanistan in the mix, they attacked us and when you do, you will feel the “HOLY” wrath of all of America’s might on you. Afghanistan, if the Taliban cajoled in Quetta, Pakistan don’t unleash their terror- can easily grow to be a success too.

Why? Afghanistan is relevant in many ways. I don't oppose the US going to war in Afghanistan, that was justified, I do feel it should have been done differently though.

To say that just because we had a friendly relationship with anyone, things can’t change is absurd.

Not the point.

You can't absolve the US of not caring for civilians when you consider that the same people you overthrew for the sake of civilians were the same people you propped up at the cost of civilians.

it certainly does not grant you any moral standing and punches some serious holes in the credibility of those in charge of the US.

There are reasons behind the change and that is what I’m trying to address with you. Iraq attacking Kuwait was a global catastrophe waiting to happen. That Oil was not just about the U.S. It would have wreaked havoc on the global market and then we had no guarantee where he would stop. The man attacked a sovereign nation to simply annex it, let’s not forget. And nation that is important to global economic balance.

The first Gulf war was justified. Again not my point. You're missing the point.

You could have saved a whole lot of time and links by asking me if we surreptitiously helped Iraq with weapons, we did and we intended to.

Brave of you to admit. I respect you more now.

But I still fail to see what that has to do with today with the last Iraq war or citing as excuse on everything going forward. Circumstances changed, some of the blame is on Saddam to keep pretending he had a nuclear program because he did not want Iran to know he did not have any. We know he was originally caught trying to build one and the Israeli’s did hit one of his sites.

Yes, Saddam did have the intent and the physical evidence of trying to posses WMDs and actually possessing and using banned weapons. But, it was due to the mistakes made during the Reagan era that helped him do so, allowed him to get away with it, and damned the US' story in Iraq, come a different war of a different era.

The chemical case of us supplying them: It was a mistake wholeheartedly, but again it has no bearing on the last war. But toxigenic and pathogenic does mean we supplied anthrax or Sarin and those one off websites like clearinghouse plus claims from some individuals does not mean it to be true. Global policy link for example cites someone told the UN about it but there was no mention of it being corroborated by the UN in its final report. Surprisingly Baghdad never claimed that we sold it them, even up to the end. Would one not imagine Saddam declaring to the UN they bought from us originally in 85 to embarrass us?

Brave of you to admit, again. And sure, like I said, I wrote a lot of this a very long time ago, and got it from various other sources, without going over everything, if the details aren't crystal, I accept it. But the premise is still correct as you just admitted.

If anything we put our blood and treasure to make sure they would not possess any after our initial blunder.

I salute your fallen men. May God give them rest. Soldiers following orders are never the ones to blame unless of course their individual conduct was wrong. But one cannot display any ill will to the fallen. May they RIP.

What does all of this mean? FIRST it means that none of this had do with Blair’s statement AKA the original reason I posted my initial reply to you. To pull Iraq in over it was unwarranted. It also shows that you look at the U.S to blame for everything because we failed to prove the evidence of WMD or supported him initially.

There were two arguments we had running parallel, to quote you here:

You ONLY seem to be worried about civilian deaths when non muslims are behind it, but we never hear or heard a word about the muslim dictator Saddam killing his people, gassed his people by numbers estimate near a million or more.

We don't hear from you saying "wait a minute- the U.S got rid of a genocidal maniac- murderer of women, children and civilians in his own country. Although the evidence of WMD was wrong, the evidence of him having killed and continue to kill his people nearing a million or more was NOT wrong! "

If Nazi germany was actually lead by a muslim man and not Hitler. You would be cursing at the allied invasion to get rid of him, which had higher casualties.

That would tell us that you really don't care about civilians, rather are more focused about an anti-west bias. Look at the post you are replying to as proof of where your priorities lie. Who is their right mind would say that military action is also not needed to kill fundamental jihadist? You are doing so right now in Pakistan too & through your military!

Somehow you think innocent civilians only get killed in western wars and never when say your army is going after the terrorists by bombing infrastructure, buildings, village and homes filled with civilians too.

More Iraqi civilians were killed by fellow muslims and by a ratio close to 8-10X

And about Tony Blair, he went against the will of most Britons, he know it was deeply unpopular with the electorate, and he was either lying himself or was fed lies and huge inadequacies. There's only two ways to look at it, it was either the BIGGEST foreign policy blunder in modern times, OR, an unjust war.

Finally, it was not an “illegal” war as you guys like to call it. It was a war of choice. Iraq had several U.N resolutions against it, failure of which meant they would be forcibly enforced. if it were illegal – the U.S would’ve be sanctioned.

You're arguing that UN resolution 660, 678 (double check that number) and the ones I mentioned already, 1441, granted you to invade?

Well the extra resolution you needed was not given, and a resolution about the illegality of it, won't happen because both the US and UK have veto power. But in order for the US and UK to be in compliance of the UN charter, they needed the UNSC, and they didn't have that. So they cited previous events of the 90's to justify the war, and not Saddam's illegitimate government/crimes or the WMD threat. It is dishonest to say the least.

BBC NEWS | Middle East | Iraq war illegal, says Annan
JURIST - O'Connell: UN Resolution 1441 - Compelling Saddam, Restraining Bush
Iraq war was illegal and breached UN charter, says Annan | World news | The Guardian
Blair blow as secret war doubts revealed | Politics | The Observer
http://www.theguardian.com/uk/2003/nov/20/usa.iraq1
http://www.worldpress.org/specials/iraq/

There for reference, I'm not asking you to read through or address them unless you want to.

U.S. removes 'yellowcake' from Iraq - World news - Mideast/N. Africa - Conflict in Iraq | NBC News
I'm against the Iraq War but it seems very likely that Saddam would have restarted his nuclear weapons program once the sanctions were lifted. 550 tonnes of yellow cake is enough for twelve Hiroshimas.

By many accounts Saddam neither possessed the weapons or the capability to have WMDs or to start a program. Any material he did posses was inadequate or way beyond it's usage limit. By the mid 1990's, after UN inspections, Saddam was taken to the cleaners.

On the yellow cake claim:

snopes.com: Yellowcake Uranium Removed from Iraq

 

[Solomon2]

I hate posts like these. They go from opinion to conspiracy to actual factual news to opinion to more conspiracies . And then you have a gazillion topics it jumps back and forth on...Context is important...immaturity and haste in dismissing someone...this “holy rant” is more of a screaming, hoping your louder voice will drown the facts...My goal here to is hopefully impress upon you that your mindset, albeit shared among many here, sees things in a narrow scope; and needs to broaden to look at things holistically and in context...

You've been working the Afpak theater for 20+ years and @Jungibaaz 's kind of thinking is new to you?

 

[Jungibaaz]

You've been working the Afpak theater for 20+ years and @Jungibaaz 's kind of thinking is new to you?

Even more shocking that he didn't understand some very basic points if he has worked in this region for so many years, you really only need a few hands on weeks to realise some of those things.

And don't worry, I don't expect you to know either what kind failures and mess-ups led to the hell you saw in Iraq and Afghanistan. Though at least, the fella admitted to some of them.

 

[Foggy_Bottom]

Even more shocking that he didn't understand some very basic points if he has worked in this region for so many years, you really only need a few hands on weeks to realise some of those things.

And don't worry, I don't expect you to know either what kind failures and mess-ups led to the hell you saw in Iraq and Afghanistan. Though at least, the fella admitted to some of them.

He was not complimenting you. And my initial reply here stands. The reason I did not reply back to you earlier was because- what is the use? I thought you would understand the basics but it turns out to I need to further explain some basic statements. Much to tedious now.

The fact you think information clearing house is a credible source or some one off opinions you have cited are credible, is surprising.

The fact you don't understand my point when I said ' Pakistan has been struggling with democracy for 60 years' ; and play it as, quote "YOU of all people should know that Pakistan has been a democracy for about 6 years now, not 60". Tells me debating you is going to be a tough slog. Which btw if you were going by literal years of a democratic government rule, then it is more than 6. I'd hoped you would understand my point here that Pakistan was founded on democratic principles and they've been struggling with keeping those principles.

What is left to say to person who thinks we left a power vacuum in Iraq? It is obvious you are unsure of the difference between a power vacuum and an elected government- which was in place when we left. If the government was not good that is an entirely different thing. You've had bad governments too.

As far leaving the opening for ISIS to come in? That could not be further from the truth. We spend trillions in that country and billions training their army and equipping them. If they all ran away, what do you want us to do and how are we to blame? In fact we told them you should have 20,000-40,000 of our troops stay behind for a few more years. But they disagreed, so we left.

Anyways I can continue to go back and address your counter narrative but it will mean an endless loop of trying to explain basic statements. And I have no desire to do so.

 

[Jungibaaz]

I'll soon shut this thread down. This was just a temporary buffer to stop our off topic ramblings from polluting the existing thread about Blair.

He was not complimenting you. And my initial reply here stands. The reason I did not reply back to you earlier was because- what is the use?

You're welcome not to respond, how can anyone defend the indefensible? Remember, I purposely attacked aspects that were indefensible. I did not mention the nation building, money and so on provided by the US. I didn't mention the possibility of a worse outcome had Saddam and the likes of him be left to their own devices.

I thought you would understand the basics but it turns out to I need to further explain some basic statements. Much to tedious now.

Okay, I'll let you off, like I said, I wasn't expecting a response to that huge and unnecessarily off topic rant. It was a rant, not a reasonable argument or discussion. I made it so that you couldn't respond.

The fact you think information clearing house is a credible source or some one off opinions you have cited are credible, is surprising.

Don't go back to that topic, move on. Like I said, you can't hopelessly try to defend the US' foreign policy vis a vis Iraq and the Middle East in general.

The fact you don't understand my point when I said ' Pakistan has been struggling with democracy for 60 years' ; and play it as, quote "YOU of all people should know that Pakistan has been a democracy for about 6 years now, not 60". Tells me debating you is going to be a tough slog. Which btw if you were going by literal years of a democratic government rule, then it is more than 6. I'd hoped you would understand my point here that Pakistan was founded on democratic principles and they've been struggling with keeping those principles.

Perhaps a misinterpretation on my part. I apologize then. But you ought to make it clearer, 'Pakistan in 60 years of struggling with/through democracy' or struggling to get democracy.

What is left to say to person who thinks we left a power vacuum in Iraq? It is obvious you are unsure of the difference between a power vacuum and an elected government- which was in place when we left. If the government was not good that is an entirely different thing. You've had bad governments too.

I said that with the first weeks, months and years of the conflict, there was a very substantial power vacuum, and where there was such a power vacuum, extremists not been seen before took hold. How do you think it is that you faced an active and large insurgency, entirely from within, only months after you'd supposedly cleared Iraq of it's menace, how could elements like that take hold if the country at the time was ran like a tight ship?

And also, elected governments in Iraq faired a little better, take Afghanistan, the power vacuum thing is even worse. Despite an invasion, despite many people declaring victory as early as Jan 2002, the power vacuum was real, and it was also real when Karzai came to power in 2004, and it is also real today. Karzai is widely known around these parts as the mayor of Kabul, troops were given the impossible task of being police and administrative/local government authorities. And when official government set ups were made, they were shoddy, corrupt and incomplete. Translation, power vacuum that led to renewed insurgency in 2003/4, that aided the talibs in one of the most remarkable and scary comebacks in modern times.

As far leaving the opening for ISIS to come in? That could not be further from the truth. We spend trillions in that country and billions training their army and equipping them. If they all ran away, what do you want us to do and how are we to blame? In fact we told them you should have 20,000-40,000 of our troops stay behind for a few more years. But they disagreed, so we left.

How on earth are you confusing what is going on Syria, with the FSA, with the shady elements, with Assad, with Northern Iraq, the Kurds and the Iraqi government. You do realise that there is a huge black zone, a dead zone where you can't see between friend and foe. Where masses of weapons and money were moved to, to help out the cause against Assad, whom I also have no love for, but this situation... what is that but a power vacuum?

Anyways I can continue to go back and address your counter narrative but it will mean an endless loop of trying to explain basic statements. And I have no desire to do so.

Have it your way.

 

[Solomon2]

...The reason I did not reply back to you earlier was because- what is the use? I thought you would understand the basics but it turns out to I need to further explain some basic statements. Much to tedious now. The fact you think information clearing house is a credible source or some one off opinions you have cited are credible, is surprising. The fact you don't understand my point...Tells me debating you is going to be a tough slog...I can continue to go back and address your counter narrative but it will mean an endless loop of trying to explain basic statements. And I have no desire to do so.

With all due respect, sir, you give up too easily and do not recognize "the basics".

You think "the basics" are the facts. These are not the basics!

The basics are the kind of thinking and reasoning involved. Pakistanis seem to stick to what they are first taught or what their teachers push and then scrabble to find arguments to justify such, discarding whatever doesn't fit. And they think this is valid reasoning!

The subject matter need not be political or religious. For example, I know a Pakistani graduate student who failed his project because he had blind faith in German engineering. He spent months checking and re-checking his calculations looking for errors because he was convinced the Germans must be right. No arguments otherwise swayed him. It turned out the Germans were wrong and his calculations were correct. Consequently a NASA telescope was deployed in orbit with a faulty attitude control system. Correcting this cost the U.S. millions of dollars.

The preferred solution of Pakistanis - to fix the madrassas or textbooks - does not address the deeper problem, a cultural bias that has been created or reinforced by the need to invoke prejudices for political purposes. Such a system will continue to produce smart yet irrational graduates like @Jungibaaz.

 

[haviZsultan]

The US only cares about its interests and uses country after country for its interests no matter how detrimentally said country is affected. If we had even slightly done the same we would be in a far different position. What stops us from going into Afghanistan and killing Mullah Fazlullah and others like him? The US did not hesitate in pursuing so called militants fleeing into Pakistan even though we did. We are partly to blame for being in an alliance with the US where we aren't getting much.

They will talk about aid and other such benefits but all benefits are invalid when there are losses of 100 billion $ plus in the war on terror, and still we failed to eliminate all terrorists and they just as easily cross the border as they did before. Afghanistan has also been used as a launching pad by militants to launch attacks on us Pakistanis. Lower Dir, Bajaur all are examples. Even terrorists infiltrating into Swat come from the border in lower dir or from Bajuar.

 

[OldenWisdom...قول بزرگ]

Hmm Solomon2 a very generalized and self contradictory statement. I'm not here to prove or disprove anything. We all have biases like it or not!

 

[Jungibaaz]

With all due respect, sir, you give up too easily and do not recognize "the basics".

You think "the basics" are the facts. These are not the basics!

The basics are the kind of thinking and reasoning involved. Pakistanis seem to stick to what they are first taught or what their teachers push and then scrabble to find arguments to justify such, discarding whatever doesn't fit. And they think this is valid reasoning!

The subject matter need not be political or religious. For example, I know a Pakistani graduate student who failed his project because he had blind faith in German engineering. He spent months checking and re-checking his calculations looking for errors because he was convinced the Germans must be right. No arguments otherwise swayed him. It turned out the Germans were wrong and his calculations were correct. Consequently a NASA telescope was deployed in orbit with a faulty attitude control system. Correcting this cost the U.S. millions of dollars.

The preferred solution of Pakistanis - to fix the madrassas or textbooks - does not address the deeper problem, a cultural bias that has been created or reinforced by the need to invoke prejudices for political purposes. Such a system will continue to produce smart yet irrational graduates like @Jungibaaz.

If you think that I am the least bit representative of my clueless countrymen, then you haven't seen me post, either that or you truly know nothing about Pakistanis despite having been on this forum for 6 years. Odd it seems that you say such things, apply them to me, yet accurately depict the nature of Pakistanis in your post. Either you don't know me, or you don't know Pakistanis, or what you're saying has no value for the topic at hand.

The Pakistani system produces religious nuts, loyalist nuts, nationalist nuts, anti-xyz nuts. That mentality of mine is very separate from those of my countrymen, I am regularly beating down my fellow countrymen for their absurdity. Instead of trying to paint me with the same shit you shovel at them. Perhaps tell em what is so absurd about the most basic truth I have been implying this whole time.

My opinions on the Iraq war were formed solely as a Brit. My heritage had nothing to do with it. Afghanistan on the other hand was a conflict I best understood through the stupidity and the wisdom of my own countrymen.

Excuse me if I don't buy into it.

The US only cares about its interests and uses country after country for its interests no matter how detrimentally said country is affected. If we had even slightly done the same we would be in a far different position. What stops us from going into Afghanistan and killing Mullah Fazlullah and others like him? The US did not hesitate in pursuing so called militants fleeing into Pakistan even though we did. We are partly to blame for being in an alliance with the US where we aren't getting much.

They will talk about aid and other such benefits but all benefits are invalid when there are losses of 100 billion $ plus in the war on terror, and still we failed to eliminate all terrorists and they just as easily cross the border as they did before. Afghanistan has also been used as a launching pad by militants to launch attacks on us Pakistanis. Lower Dir, Bajaur all are examples. Even terrorists infiltrating into Swat come from the border in lower dir or from Bajuar.

The US is just like any other nation. Blood on it's hands, monsters in it's closet. The only difference is, the holier than thou attitude, the long reaching arms of it's foreign policy and the aggressive protection of it's interests globally due to it's economic stature. The Cold War bred the US you see before you.

When it comes to foreign policy it is no, different, what-so-ever to what it was during the Cold War. The Middle East mess, economic alliances and trading blocks, really haven't changed much at all. The Cold War gave us a starting point for this new century.

And our war against extremism is inherently different to the US' style of war. They have the luxury of leaving, and the luxury of choosing the lesser of two evils when it comes to who takes their side. The enemy is common now.

Hmm Solomon2 a very generalized and self contradictory statement. I'm not here to prove or disprove anything. We all have biases like it or not!

He doesn't realise that. Pushing his own agenda when it comes to a certain country and a few certain country's pet poodles is fine. But even criticism of that from anyone and suddenly you're accused of toeing the line.

It's like catching someone red handed, and they toss the evidence back over to you and expect others to buy it.

This is too precious!
Ain't that right? @Solomon2

 

[Solomon2]

...Perhaps tell em what is so absurd about the most basic truth I have been implying this whole time.

If you are only willing to employ facts and logic when they support your favored hypothesis and are not willing to do so with facts and logic that point to a different explanation then you are depriving yourself bases for making sound judgments and thus are, by definition, behaving irrationally.

Yes, I can think of a few Pakistanis who I believe recognize this collective weakness of their countrymen. However, they mostly use their insight to exploit the masses for personal or political gain rather than enlighten Pakistanis about what is wrong. And as @US_statedept_retired demonstrates, Pakistan's closest ally for decades doesn't recognize the core problem at all - or prefers not to deal with it.

 

[Jungibaaz]

If you are only willing to employ facts and logic when they support your favored hypothesis and are not willing to do so with facts and logic that point to a different explanation then you are depriving yourself bases for making sound judgments and thus are, by definition, behaving irrationally.

So you're accusing me of making use of facts and logic only when it's convenient. Let me ask then where do you think it is that I have ignored a certain perspective and chosen not to represent said explanation without facts and logic, thus have behaved irrationally. Point it out and be specific.

Remember what I said about you writing up fudged statements with an extra few throw away phrases and enhanced vocabulary? You like to do it a lot, and unfortunately for you, I don't find it the least bit intimidating or difficult to decipher, in each case, the end result derived from trekking through said statements is always the same... a generic and empty statement about nothing that can so conveniently be used to mean nothing, so that you may fall back on the lack of substance as a way to disguise what was a meaningless reply as a valid dig. I can do it too, it's easy, ye see?

So in plain English. Quote, point out exactly where you decided that I had behaved irrationally and picked a side to argue, and then also let me know very specifically what I missed out.

I emphasise once more on the polite request to be specific. After all, my pathetic bias is clearly blinding me, such that general statements aren't enough for me to see my error. Draw me a map if you like.

Yes, I can think of a few Pakistanis who I believe recognize this collective weakness of their countrymen. However, they mostly use their insight to exploit the masses for personal or political gain rather than enlighten Pakistanis about what is wrong.

Another brilliantly disguised statement. Too bad I have this terrible habit of busting up sentences in my head, my derangement once again requires you to elaborate and be specific.

Please and thank you.

 

[OldenWisdom...قول بزرگ]

Somebody is towing a line... is it this hard to let go? Or the rational mind wouldn't abrogate.