Wars in the middle east

Discussion in 'Politics' started by windcatcher, Feb 27, 2010.

  1. windcatcher

    windcatcher
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Apr 28, 2007
    Messages:
    2,764
    Likes Received:
    0
    Bush’s War of Terror, Prelude
    Part One
    By Deanna Spingola
    25 July 2005

    Join Email List to receive notification of new Spingola articles


    To better understand our current “war on terror” it is incredibly important to briefly examine the more recent history of the United States relationships with the oil producing countries of the Middle East. We cannot presume to accurately evaluate today’s events in a vacuum. Nor can we evaluate the legislation of merely one administration. The insider agenda transcends administrations and decades. Our greatest omission appears to be our complacency in connecting the proverbial dots. This is aided and abetted by a complicit media promoting the party line while distracting us with the unimportant. As you read some of the following, relate it to plausible circumstances in our own country.

    On Wednesday, 19 March 2003, by order of George W. Bush, General Franks invaded Iraq. They used a “Shock and Awe” aerial campaign against the ancient city of Baghdad. This was a “decapitation attack” directed at Iraqi President Saddam Hussein and other top leaders. This war was the administration’s “target of opportunity”. [ii] The attack included 1,663 United States aircraft (B-52, B-1, and B-2 bombers). They flew 20,753 combat missions dropping 18,467 smart bombs and 9,251 dumb bombs. The navy fired 802 cruise missiles. The professed objective of the invasion was the claim that Saddam Hussein possessed weapons of mass destruction. The invasion officially ended three weeks later on 9 April 2003 though we are still in Iraq under the auspices of establishing democracy. Ironically, this campaign was code named “Operation Iraqi Freedom”. A minimum of 22,850 civilians have died as a result of our current altruistic “save the citizens from Saddam” liberation efforts.

    The planning and plotting that went into this “Shock and Awe” invasion is not without significance. One country is not supposed to arbitrarily attack another country without justification. There are three anticipated reasons for starting a war:

    · Accuse the current leader (dictator) of crimes against humanity.

    · Provoke them to attack us which requires a response - protect the homeland.

    · Convince the masses that the target is going to attack – cause for a preemptive war. Get them before they get us. This is not the foreign policy of our founding fathers. [iii]

    It wasn’t that we had not been in Iraq before. We were actually, at one time, on working terms with Iraq’s leader, an early CIA asset Saddam Hussein. To grasp current issues, we must place them into the context of Iraq’s relatively recent history.

    Anti- American Qasim, Qassim and Kassem (various spellings) had overthrown the American friendly Iraqi monarchy in July 1958. He immediately began the process of nationalizing the foreign oil companies. He nationalized part of the British controlled Iraq Petroleum Company (IPC). He took measures to withdraw from the anti-Soviet Baghdad Pact and decriminalize the Iraqi Communist Party, the biggest in the Middle East. He purchased arms from the Soviets and filled government posts with local communist party members. In 1961 Kassem intended to occupy Kuwait and nationalize their oil. [iv]

    On 7 October 1959, anti-communist Ba¢ath Party member Saddam Hussein, with five others, attempted to assassinate Kassem, but this CIA supported plot failed. Slightly injured, Saddam went to Beirut where he received CIA training while living in an apartment maintained by them. Saddam Hussein was created, bought and paid for by America’s CIA. Potential dictators rarely succeed without sustained support coupled with ulterior agendas. After training in Beirut, he lived in Cairo, where he made numerous visits to the American Embassy “where CIA specialists such as Miles Copeland and CIA Station Chief Jim Eichelberger were in residence”. [v] He returned to Iraq after the assassination of Kassem on 8 February 1963. This coup was planned by Richard Helms and orchestrated by William Lakeland, the U.S. assistant military attaché in Baghdad. Richard Helms was the Director for Plans at the CIA, the top position responsible for covert actions. This coup put the Ba¢ath Party in power for the first time, though not for long. [vi]

    Saddam Hussein then became head of the Al-Jihaz al-Khas, the clandestine Ba¢athist Intelligence organization whose objective was to remove political opposition. The new CIA sponsored regime soon abolished Kassem’s anti-American policies. Not only were Kassem’s policies wiped out but thousands of his communist supporters were purged by the CIA’s compliant machine gun toting Iraqi National Guardsmen.

    Persecution reigned driven by CIA intelligence. This intelligence was received from dissidents or agents and contained the names of certain Iraqi professionals (always the first to go via a multitude of methods) such as doctors, lawyers, teachers and professors. Up to 10,000 people were either imprisoned or murdered. The new regime waged a vendetta against the Kurds. No one was spared – pregnant women, children. Without the CIA’s bloody involvement, the small Arab socialistic nationalist Ba¢ath Party’s efforts would have failed. The CIA used the willing Ba¢ath Party who had close connections to the military. In return, the party agreed to the eradication of the leftists and communists. [vii]

    Saddam and the CIA see nothing wrong with eliminating enemies. People are expendable under particular circumstances and objectives. It is the epitome of situational justifications. Saddam Hussein when once questioned by an interviewer about disposing of one’s opponents said the following: “What do you expect if they oppose the regime?” If a country’s leader will not be manipulated then assassination is apparently justified according to the One World Order agenda. This frequently used methodology is a type and model for all countries.

    The socialistic Ba¢athists lost power for a few years causing many members to be imprisoned, including Saddam Hussein who was a political prisoner for short periods in the mid sixties. With CIA help, the Ba¢ath party regained power in 1968. Saddam became the second man in charge under his relative Muhammad Bakr, the general who became President.

    Despite CIA help in putting the Baath Party back in power, Iraq signed a 15 year friendship pact with the Soviets in April 1972. The Soviets supplied Iraq with arms and cooperated with them in political, economic and military affairs. President Bakr nationalized Iraq’s oil industry. All foreign oil companies “lost their holdings” including the twenty-five percent share of the Iraq Petroleum Company owned by U.S. based Exxon and Mobil. The Soviet Union, and later France, provided technical aid and capital to Iraq's oil industry.” [viii]

    In July 1979, Saddam Hussein gained complete control of the Ba¢ath Party and became president of Iraq. Under Saddam and the Ba¢ath Party, Iraq, with oil money and Soviet foreign aid developed into a progressive environment with modern conveniences. He was totally ruthless with opponents but his secular policies generally improved the lives of the acceptable Iraqis. His abhorrent treatment of the northern Kurds is well substantiated. [ix]

    Other significant things were happening in the Middle East that would have great impact on us. The pro American Shah of Iran, Mohammed Reza Pahlavi, succeeded his father in 1941. In 1953 America supported the Shah in a power struggle with his prime minister who wanted to nationalize Iran’s oil industry.

    To ensure our Iranian oil supply we provided a vast amount of economic aid. For Iran, western aid was not without the accompanying western influence. The ultra-conservative Muslims wanted to retain the harsh punishments and the veil. They resisted the western intrusion of tobacco, alcohol, movies, gambling and foreign dress. Only those individuals who were increasing their wealth by way of these cultural changes supported the Shah who was trying to bring social change and modernization. A few of the more modern clerics also supported the Shah while others were absolutely outraged. [x]

    The popular Ayatollah Khomeini issued a fatwa (religious edict) against these social changes. The Shah used government owned radio to ridicule the ultra- conservative clergy. The clerics banned together behind Khomeini. There was rioting by some theology students who opposed the opening of liquor stores. Hundreds were killed by the Shah’s paratroopers. Again, the clerics were understandably outraged.

    The Shah forcefully suppressed all opposition which included the 5 June 1963 arrest of Khomeini, the people’s fearless hero, who opposed the student killings. Demonstrations against the government became rampant. The Shah imposed martial law with orders to shoot and kill the rioters. After two days of rioting, thousands were dead, including twenty-eight clerics. [xi]

    Khomeini was banished from the country on 4 Nov 1964 and went to Turkey – thereafter he lived in Najaf, Iraq for thirteen years until Saddam exiled him in October 1978. He then went to Paris. Though absent, he continued to exert great influence in Iran and persisted in building a political and religious power base. With compelling charisma he recorded messages which were smuggled into Iran. The cassettes were repeatedly reproduced and distributed throughout the country. His persuasive rhetoric urged people toward disobedience.

    Part 1 continues next post:
     
  2. windcatcher

    windcatcher
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Apr 28, 2007
    Messages:
    2,764
    Likes Received:
    0
    Part 1 continued

    Meanwhile, the Shah spent billions on the economy. Iran’s oil production increased. Manufacturing increased. Public education and health services improved. However, the people did not forget the bloody riots of 1963. Censorship increased – books were burned. More liberal divorce laws were instituted in 1967. Secular courts replaced religious courts.

    The absent Khomeini, armed with religious zeal and western hatred, continued to gain popular support. The Shah’s repression of political freedom created the perfect environment for a religious, political revolution. Losing control, the Shah fled on 16 January 1979 and never returned. He arrived in America in October where he was treated for cancer.

    Enter the exiled infamous rabid anti-American Ayatollah Khomeini on 1 February 1979. Then the process of radical Islamization began. He quickly manipulated popular civilian discontent into hatred for anything America and smoothly seized power on 11 February 1979. All signs of western influence were immediately removed. On 5 November 1979 he declared that the United States was the “great Satan”. Female and male Islamic dress codes were strictly enforced. He suspended the criminal justice system in favor of religious courts. Any opposition to religious rule or Islam received harsh punishments, even torture. Khomeini’s policies set the agenda for a worldwide Islamic revolution. An analysis of his book: “Guardianship of the Islamic Jurists” would give more enlightenment on the current Islamic fundamentalist movement than reading the Koran.

    Khomeini popularized the fatwa. They have become notoriously and generally accepted as part of Islam. The fatwa inspires and motivates the practice of terrorist tactics in the spread of Islamic fundamentalism. They are utilized to declare war or death on anyone who displeases the one who issues the edict. [xii]

    With spewing fundamentalist hatred, Khomeini incited his fervent followers to storm the United States Embassy in Tehran on 4 November 1979 where they captured fifty-two American hostages. This was Iran’s response to the United States refusal to return the Shah to Iran for trial. [xiii] Our response was that we cut off diplomatic relationships with Iran and closed our financial reservoir. This terrorist incident was only a foreshadowing of things to come. Terrorism is an effective military tactic against any targeted populace. It may be utilized by any faction seeking complete control, including one’s own government. Its greatest advantage is unpredictability which keeps the intended victims apprehensive and vulnerable.

    It was a watershed year - 1979. Events were engineered and fashioned into opportunities for political bloodshed, terrorist tactics, population reduction and demoralization, government infiltrations and takeovers. Saddam Hussein seized power of the more secular Iraqi government and was first placed on the United States list of terrorists. Khomeini seized religious and political power in Iran. They were both tyrants with opposing ideologies. Iran became the Islamic Republic of Iran, a government ruled by ultra-conservative Islamic clergy. After grabbing power, Khomeini promoted similar Islamic revolutions throughout the Middle East.

    Every revolutionary event, whether in the Middle East, the USSR, China or elsewhere is merely indicative of the powerful CFR One World Order agenda that receives support and resources, mostly from the United States. The dictator tactics used in the so called developing third world countries can and will be used everywhere. It is merely a matter of time. Like the game of dominoes, nations will topple. It is interesting to note that although Khomeini was a notorious, ruthless enemy of the West he was named Time Magazine’s man of the year for 1979. (CFR) He told Time Magazine: “There is no room for play in Islam. It is deadly serious about everything.” And he was deadly serious!

    Go to Part 2

    Bibliography:
    Geneva Convention
    Wikipedia
    The Iranian Revolution
    2005 Censored, Peter Phillips & Project Censored
    The Grand Chessboard, Zbigniew Brzezinski

    U.S. Launches Cruise Missiles at Saddam
    [ii] Ibid
    [iii] United States Foreign Policy, Ezra Taft Benson
    [iv] Regime Change, Saddam Hussein
    [v] Exclusive: Saddam key in early CIA plot
    [vi] Ibid
    [vii] How west helped Saddam gain power and decimate the Iraqi elite One of these undercover agents was William McHale, Time Magazine Beirut correspondent. He apparently produced a very long list.
    [viii] A History of Iraq
    [ix] Chronology of U.S. Iraqi Relations 1979-1993
    [x] The Iranian Revolution
    [xi] Ibid
    [xii] Ayatollah Khomeini In July 1988 Khomeini issued a Fatwa stating that all Mojahedin (regime dissidents and opponents of the Islamic Republic) currently in prison that have not since changed loyalties were to be hanged. Each prisoner was dragged out of prison and posed the loyalty question. Those that answered incorrectly were immediately taken outside and dangled from cranes. More than thirty thousand lost their lives in this manner.
    [xiii] Attack on Tehran Embassy

    Comments?

    Back To Political Points

    © Deanna Spingola 2005 - All rights reserved

    Deanna Spingola's articles are copyrighted but may be republished, reposted, or emailed. However, the person or organization must not charge for subscriptions or advertising. The article must be copied intact and full credit given. Deanna's web site address must also be included.

    http://www.spingola.com/bush_war1.htm
     
  3. windcatcher

    windcatcher
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Apr 28, 2007
    Messages:
    2,764
    Likes Received:
    0
    Part 2

    Bush’s War of Terror, Proxy War
    Part Two
    By Deanna Spingola
    25 July 2005


    Join Email List to receive notification of new Spingola articles

    Our interest in the Middle East has always been driven by our oil dependence. Could we have developed our own oil resources? Was it orchestrated obsolescence designed to create weakness and vulnerability? Our own resource development would have fostered a huge industry providing jobs and continued economic growth. What prevented that – socialistic government supported policies? Was it the activist environmental groups supported by tax free foundations set up by big money and covert power?

    President Carter’s 23 January 1980 State of the Union Address defined our concerns. On 24 December 1979 the Soviets invaded Afghanistan, a relatively small defenseless but strategically positioned oil rich nation. Carter responded to this invasion as follows: “The Muslim world is especially and justifiably outraged by this aggression against an Islamic people.” We were also outraged and denounced the Soviet aggression by imposing economic sanctions against them. We also refused to participate in the Olympic Games scheduled in Moscow.

    Carter continued: “The Soviet Union must realize that its decision to use military force in Afghanistan will be costly to every political and economic relationship it values. The region which is now threatened by Soviet troops in Afghanistan is of great strategic importance: It contains more than two-thirds of the world's exportable oil. Let our position be absolutely clear: An attempt by any outside force to gain control of the Persian Gulf region will be regarded as an assault on the vital interests of the United States of America, and such an assault will be repelled by any means necessary, including military force.” [ii] This was not merely “humanitarian issues” outrage against the Soviets. It was about oil – it has always been about oil.

    Much of the internal Muslim conflict is a result of outside interference. After World War 1 and the fall of the Ottoman Empire, the British took control of Iraq. During the war Iraq was promised that they would have independence. However, under the League of Nations, Iraq was placed under British supervision while preparing for complete independence. This understandably enraged the Iraqis and they rebelled in 1920. British aerial bombardment soon put down the rebellion. Iraqi resentment grew over this obvious imperialistic British mentality.

    Modern Iraqi borders were designed by the arrogant, interfering British who lopped off Kuwait and then combined three very antagonistic Ottoman areas: the Kurdish to be ruled from Mosul, the Sunni Arab district including Baghdad and the southern Shiite district which included Basra. Kuwait had always been a part of the Basra district. The Sunni, Shia and Kurds had diverse history, interests and goals. But the British had their eye on the oil plus an easy land route to India. This division created an unstable nation that would never unite. This planned instability would lend itself to outside control. The Iraqis are not oblivious – they recognize imperialism and the greed for their oil.

    Meanwhile, the Anti-American Ayatollah Khomeini went into an expansionist mode and began inciting Iraq’s Shi¢ite and Kurdish populations to rebel against his enemy, Saddam Hussein. His main goal was to overthrow Saddam Hussein. The Ayatollah attempted to weaken Iraq via the Iranian-backed rebel group Al Dawaa by attempting to assassinate certain Iraqi leaders including an attempt on 1 April 1980 of Iraqi Foreign Minister Tariq Aziz. Saddam outlawed the group and deported individuals who had been born in Iran. In June 1980 the two nations severed diplomatic relations. Khomeini then began to call for the overthrow of Saddam. On 22 September 1980 Saddam Hussein retaliated and invaded Iran for the purpose of squelching the growing influence of the Ayatollah Khomeini on the Iraqi Shi¢ite majority.

    By early 1982 Iran appeared to be winning. Iran sent suicide missions against Iraqi strongholds. They also waged terrorist attacks on third parties such as the French and American embassies in Kuwait. In February 1982 our State Department removed Iraq from the list of countries sponsoring international terrorism. In March 1982 Ronald Reagan signed National Security Study Memorandum (NSSM 4-82) requesting a review of our policies in the Middle East with an eye towards assisting Iraq. To prevent the growth of Islamic fundamentalism throughout the Middle East which would greatly impact us economically, the United States offered covert assistance to our old ally, Saddam Hussein.

    After Reagan signed the National Security Decision Directive 99 (NSDD 99) on 12 July 1983 regarding “regional stability” (our ability to obtain oil) we provided Saddam with satellite images of Iranian forces. We also channeled $5.5 billion in U.S. Agriculture Department provided taxpayer-guaranteed loans under the auspices of promoting American farm exports but were actually for the purchase of weapons.

    In spite of opposition by congress in August 1983, the sale to Iraq of 60 Hughes helicopters and 10 twin engine Bell helicopters was approved. In 1984, the State Department pushed through the sale of 45 Bell 214ST helicopters designed for military purposes worth $200 million to Iraq. [iii]

    Our shipments to Iraq were not always the most obvious implements of war – like guns. As early as 1982, we started shipping dual use biological agents [iv] like Bacillus Anthracis (anthrax), a key component of the Iraqi biological warfare program. We also shipped them Clostridium Botulinum, Histoplasma Capsulatum, Brucella Melitensis, and Clostridium Perfringens. [v] Declassified U.S. government documents indicate that Iraq was using chemical weapons "almost daily" during the Iran-Iraq conflict as early as 1983. Iran complained about this to the U.N. Security Council as it was against the Geneva Convention. [vi] The Iraqis were also using our chemicals against the Kurds in 1983. We obviously had first hand knowledge of this chemical warfare because we supplied them with the chemicals.

    In as much as we had some culpability in this issue – we had to respond. Our administration responded: we have decided to limit our “efforts against the Iraqi chemical warfare program to close monitoring because of our strict neutrality in the Gulf war, the sensitivity of sources, and the low probability of achieving desired results.” [vii] So basically we will watch them use the chemicals that we supply and profess neutrality because they are going to use the chemicals anyway. Besides they needed to keep an upper hand over the Iranians.

    Reagan issued National Security Decision Directive (NSDD) 114 on 26 November 1983 regarding our policies toward the Iran-Iraq war. There is no mention of chemical weapons but rather mentions oil flow concerns: defending oil facilities and an assurance of our readiness to prevent disruption oil flow traffic.

    The use of chemical weapons is against the 1925 Geneva Protocol. And in 1984 the United States issued a public condemnation of the use of chemical weapons in the Iran-Iraq war. However, at that particular time the use of chemical weapons was not justification for regime change. The Ayatollah Khomeini refused to end hostilities unless Saddam Hussein was removed from power. We responded: “The United States finds the present Iranian regime's intransigent refusal to deviate from its avowed objective of eliminating the legitimate government of neighboring Iraq to be inconsistent with the accepted norms of behavior among nations and the moral and religious basis which it claims.” [viii]

    So Khomeini had a stubborn insistence that Saddam Hussein be ousted as the legitimate leader of another country because of his chemical weapons usage and the United States responded that it was entirely inconsistent with accepted political policies among governments. Ah, situational circumstances again. This arbitrary policy certainly should raise questions about George W. Bush’s hypocritical use of humanitarian reasons as current justification for regime change.

    In December 1983 and again in March 1984, Ronald Reagan sent his personal emissary, Donald Rumsfeld, a former secretary of defense, to meet with Saddam Hussein along with Reagan’s handwritten note. This first meeting on 20 December 1983 was for the reestablishment of diplomatic relations between Iraq and the United States, the first since the 1967 war. We did not formally restore diplomatic relations with Iraq until November 1984.

    On 24 March 1984, the day of Rumsfeld’s visit, the United Nations expressed their understandable allegations about Iraq using chemical weapons against Iran. In spite of this, Rumsfeld continued his talks with Iraq Foreign Minister Tarek Aziz. Whatever appears expedient is justifiable. It is very significant to note that when Rumsfeld called on Saddam Hussein, he was the President and CEO of Searle Pharmaceuticals (1977-1985). Searle developed the first oral birth control pill – Enovid which had a dramatic societal change.
     
  4. windcatcher

    windcatcher
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Apr 28, 2007
    Messages:
    2,764
    Likes Received:
    0
    Part 2 continued

    With regard to chemicals, Rumsfeld has never been overly concerned about grave health issues for anyone, whether a foreign enemy during a proxy war or fellow American citizens. It is about money, power and the greater insider agenda. There are no mistakes or miscalculations, but one must wonder about the multitude of coincidences. Rumsfeld knew about Saddam’s use of chemical weapons then – where was his outrage? He said nothing about the gassing of Halabja in 1988. He said nothing until two years later when he was interviewed on an ABC News Special in August 1990 after Iraq invaded Kuwait and the United States needed compelling invasion justification. It’s all about serving that agenda.
    In 1985, the U.S. Secretary of State convinced Representative Howard Berman to kill House legislation adding Iraq on the State Department’s list of countries that support terrorism. It was Secretary of State, George Shultz’ assertion that Iraq and the United States had developed a diplomatic dialogue concerning this and that Iraq would not be engaged in international terrorism. And should Iraq’s actions prove otherwise then the U.S. would return Iraq to the terror list. [ix]

    Iraq also received millions of dollars in economic aid and loans between 1983 and 1990. There was justifiable concern among some U.S. officials that Iraq would be unable to repay the increasing foreign debt because of their military expenditures. In 1985 The U.S. Export-Import Bank extended more than $684 million in credits so Iraq could build the Aqaba oil pipeline through Jordan. That construction was done by Bechtel Corporation. Reagan Secretary of State, George Schultz was a former Bechtel President. What a coincidence - it is the same privately owned company engaged, since April 2003, in rebuilding Iraq’s infrastructure! Interesting, this construction was contracted by the U.S. Agency for International Development (USAID). It is significant to note that the reconstruction did not begin until we reestablished our presence in Iraq but prior to Saddam’s publicly announced capture. Saddam was not captured until December, or so we are told! “Bechtel has maintained strong relationships with officials in many United States administrations, including those of Reagan, George H. W. Bush, and George W. Bush. The company also has strong ties to other governments, particularly the Saudi Royal Family.” [x]

    Go to Part 3

    Bibliography:
    Geneva Convention
    Wikipedia
    The Iranian Revolution
    United States Foreign Policy, Ezra Taft Benson
    2005 Censored, Peter Phillips & Project Censored
    The Grand Chessboard, Zbigniew Brzezinski

    Soviet Invasion of Afghanistan
    [ii] Jimmy Carter, 23 January 1980 State of the Union Address
    [iii] The Saddam in Rumsfeld’s Closet
    [iv] Biochemical and nuclear material shipped to Iraq
    [v] Ibid
    [vi] Geneva Protocol
    [vii] Shaking Hands With Saddam Hussein
    [viii] Shaking Hands With Saddam Hussein
    [ix] US support of Iraq's unconventional weapons programs during 1980s
    [x] Bechtel Company association provided by Wikipedia.

    Comments: deannaATspingola.com
    To avoid attracting spam email robots, email addresses on this site are written with AT in place of the usual symbol. Replace AT with the correct symbol to get a valid address.

    Back To Political Points

    © Deanna Spingola 2005 - All rights reserved

    Deanna Spingola's articles are copyrighted but may be republished, reposted, or emailed. However, the person or organization must not charge for subscriptions or advertising. The article must be copied intact and full credit given. Deanna's web site address must also be included.

    http://www.spingola.com/bush_war2.htm
    On 13 March 1984 Iraq uses weapons at Hoor-ul-Huzwaizeh. The United Nations verifies this attack in addition to six others between 26 February and 17 March 1984.
     
  5. poncho

    poncho
    Expand Collapse
    Banned

    Joined:
    Mar 30, 2004
    Messages:
    19,657
    Likes Received:
    128
    Isn't fascism wonderful?
     
  6. windcatcher

    windcatcher
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Apr 28, 2007
    Messages:
    2,764
    Likes Received:
    0
    Part 3

    Bush’s War of Terror, 1990-1991
    Part Three
    By Deanna Spingola
    25 July 2005

    Join Email List to receive notification of new Spingola articles

    On the evening of 16 March 1988 Iraqi airplanes, provided by the United States, began dropping chemical bombs on Halabja, a predominantly Kurdish city of 80,000 people in Northern Iraq. The chemical bombardment continued through the night and did not subside until the 19th. The Kurds sympathized with Iran during the Iran-Iraq War. It was the largest chemical weapons attack against a civilian population in modern history. The attack concentrated on the city in addition to the roads out of the city.

    On 8 September 1988 the Senate passed the “Prevention of Genocide Act of 1988” which would render Iraq ineligible to receive U.S. loans, military and non military aid, credits, credit guarantees and any item subject to export controls. This law would make the importation of oil into the United States illegal. The bill did not pass the House because the Reagan administration launched a lobbying campaign to prevent its passage in the House. Apparently, other agendas were more important to the U. S. government than those pesky human rights violations. [ii]

    Ten months prior to the Iraqi invasion of Kuwait, George H.W. Bush signed, on 2 October 1989, National Security Directive 26, (update of NSDD 114) which states “Access to Persian Gulf oil and the security of key friendly states in the area are vital to U.S. national security.” Regarding Iraq, the document states “Normal relations between the United States and Iraq would serve our longer term interests and promote stability in both the Gulf and the Middle East.” This document also provided $1 billion in agricultural loan guarantees which would allow the Iraqi government to continue the development of its weapons. At this time all international banks had cut off any loans to Iraq. Within weeks Iraq received additional financial aid as well as additional access to “dual use” technology for both military and civilian purpose.

    National Security Directive 26 came at the height of attempts by the Agriculture Department and other agencies to cut the largest U.S. aid program to Iraq, commodity loan guarantees. Analysts were skeptical about Iraq's ability to repay its increasing foreign debt because of its huge arms expenditures.

    Our relationship with Iraq remained collaborative until Iraq invaded Kuwait on 2 August 1990. Iraq had long insisted that they had a claim to Kuwait which is not without historical basis. But it was not just about land. Kuwait demanded repayment of $14 billion dollars in outstanding loans. Iraq also claimed that Kuwait dropped the price of their oil which economically affected Iraq’s ability to repay the loan. Iraq additionally claimed that Kuwait was slant drilling into Iraqi territory. George H. W. Bush declared that this “naked aggression would not stand”. There is reason to believe that the U.S. knew about the planned invasion of Kuwait months ahead and that we gave Saddam a “green light”. Indicative of U.S. invasion approval was the Bush approval of the sale of $395 million dollar sale of advanced data transmission devices to Iraq just the day before. This was but one item in the 1.5 billion dollars of technology that the Reagan and Bush administrations sold to Hussein from 1985 to 1990.

    Kuwait had its own tyrant who suppressed freedom with an iron fist and had the money and power to do it. Their government engaged in foreign slave labor while the rich upper class behaved like the rich upper class. Knocking Kuwait off would have been a piece of cake to the strength of the Iraqi Army even after their long battle with Iran. They were seasoned for war. Why would America even want to go and spend their strength in Kuwait? It would cost billions of dollars and squander our military.

    So how could Bush convince us to liberate a spoiled little super rich country, even one who suppressed personal freedoms? And the other major hurdle would be to convince America that their former friend was now their arch enemy. All he had to do was to convince the public that Kuwait was trying to establish a freedom loving democracy and that Saddam was the epitome of evil?

    Public relations can go far in changing public perceptions to the point that they will sanction our country going to war. Governments, including our own, hire public relations firms whenever they wish to create a perceived reality. This is also true during the elections. Americans have been tutored on media commercials and are quite willing to spend money on the latest gadget or toy to maintain status with the neighbors.

    The oil rich tiny independent Kuwaiti government hired Hill & Knowlton and paid them the hefty price of $10 million dollars to convince Americans to fight against the invasion of the wicked warmonger, Saddam Hussein. [iii] The United States and our ally Saddam had a long and workable relationship through the administration of three presidents and before. Why the big change? What happened? Even through the bloody Iran-Iraq years wherein thousands died, including Saddam’s own citizens, we still remained Saddam’s solid soul mates.

    Hill & Knowlton, the public relations specialists were good at their job. They provided tearful witnesses about defenseless Kuwaiti babies thrown out of incubators and left to die. This provided political fodder and justification for war – George H. W. Bush repeated this fairy tale ten times in three days. Americans always fall for a noble cause.

    In addition to Hill & Knowlton, then the world's largest PR firm, Kuwait also hired other public relations firms such as the Rendon Group (George W. Bush used them to gain acceptance for the 2001 Afghanistan invasion [iv]) for a retainer of $100,000 per month for media work. [v] They also used Neill & Company which was paid $50,000 a month for lobbying Congress. Millions to be used for advertising, lobbying and pro-war rallies were funneled through two front groups: The Coalition for Americans at Risk and the Freedom Task Force.

    All of this foreign propaganda to manipulate American opinion was illegal but the Justice Department did not enforce the law. Another front group was organized called Citizens for a Free Kuwait. This group was designed to hide the complicity of the Kuwaiti government and George H. W. Bush.

    Hill & Knowlton made a financial killing off this very lucrative deal. Their Washington D.C. official, Craig Fuller, was a close friend and political advisor of; you guessed it – George H. W. Bush!! Another one of those big coincidences! He was in fact Bush’s Chief of Staff when Bush was the vice-president.

    So we turn on friends, even the tyrant types, for money, oil, prestige and political points. Public relations firms are hired by lots of dictators, in and out of our own government. This wasn’t even bipartisan – the companies lobbied everyone. The senior vice-president of Hill & Knowlton was the Pentagon spokesman during the Carter administration. Hill & Knowlton used Vice-chairman Frank Mankiewicz to manage the news media. He was formerly press secretary and advisor to Robert F. Kennedy and George McGovern. After which he was the president of National Public Radio.

    Hill & Knowlton managed to expose actual scenes of torture and other abuses by the Iraqis. There were bumper stickers and T-shirts pushing the “Free Kuwait” agenda. There were a total of 119 Hill & Knowlton account executives working nationwide on the Kuwait account. They manage to produce a book entitled “The Rape of Kuwait” defining the alleged Iraqi atrocities. The Kuwait embassy purchased 200,000 copies to whip our American troops into a hateful frenzy against the Iraqis. The media saturation was never recognized for what it was. It was propaganda delivered as real news. The more people watched TV the more they backed Bush. It was easy to buy all of this because Saddam had committed slaughter against his own people.

    Based on the prevalent propaganda, a Congressional Human Rights Caucus was held on 10 October 1990 facilitated by California Democrat Tom Lantos and Illinois Republican John Porter co-chairs of the Congressional Human Rights Foundation, another legitimate noble sounding front group, who had free office space in Hill & Knowlton's Washington, DC office. [vi] They presented witnesses with trumped up charges against the Iraqis. One of the witnesses was actually a member of the Kuwaiti royal family posing as a hospital volunteer. She could have been an actress for all of her tears and stories. Essentially they lied to Congress. But then lying does not appear to be a punishable crime in certain government circles. The lies were repeated over and over. The American public bought it, hook, line and sinker. It was just three months later that we went to war in Kuwait. The Congressional vote was narrow but that fake testimony undoubtedly swung the vote to Bush’s favor.
     
  7. windcatcher

    windcatcher
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Apr 28, 2007
    Messages:
    2,764
    Likes Received:
    0
    Part 3 continued

    Along with appropriate public relations to spin the propaganda, like father, like son, the presidents Bush receive counsel and support from the exact same war hawk individuals: Dick Cheney, Paul Wolfowitz and Colin Powell. Iraq’s Kuwaiti aggression, even though silently sanctioned by the United States, was justification for a more aggressive U.S. foreign policy. Noble and strong, we, the defenders of the weak, would lead a coalition and fight this aggression with aggression. Hey, that ought to work – aggression with aggression – NOT! If someone pushes you, you just automatically push back! Unless you fight dirty – as in genocide. Arab leaders wanted negotiation instead of war. Bush wanted a war that would not only establish but entrench America into the oil rich Middle East.

    George H. W. Bush, an obedient United Nations supporter, ran to the United Nations Security Council and they passed Resolution 660 which demanded immediate withdrawal of Iraq, to no avail. Bush contended that Iraq was going to invade Saudi Arabia, whose royal family is close to the Bush family. On 7 Aug 1990 George H. W. Bush launched a “wholly defensive” mission called Operation Desert Shield to keep Iraq out of Saudi Arabia which was never the target nor was it ever announced as the target. On 8 August 1990 Iraq declared that parts of Kuwait were extensions of the Iraqi province of Basra and that the rest was the 19th province of Iraq. These claims also have a historical basis. (See Part 2) American Battleships showed up on 8 Aug 1990. A 34 nation coalition with 750,000 troops served – 540,000 from the United States. Iraqis were outnumbered from the beginning having only 450,000.

    On 11 September 1990 Bush addressed a joint session of Congress, saying: “Within 3 days, 120,000 Iraqi troops with 850 tanks had poured into Kuwait and moved south to threaten Saudi Arabia. (Satellite photos proved this statement false.) It was then that I decided to act to check that aggression.” “We stand today at a unique and extraordinary moment. The crisis in the Persian Gulf, as grave as it is, also offers a rare opportunity to move toward an historic period of cooperation. Out of these troubled times, our fifth objective -- a New World Order -- can emerge: a new era -- freer from the threat of terror, stronger in the pursuit of justice, and more secure in the quest for peace.” [vii] This joint session of Congress was exactly eleven years to the day before 9-11. Was this another coincidence?

    There were many proffered justifications for our involvement in that conflict:

    · Importance of oil to the American economy.

    · U.S. friendship with Saudi Arabia. (Not the target - used to engender support)

    · Later justifications included Iraq's history of human rights abuses.

    · Chance that Saddam Hussein might develop weapons of mass destruction.

    · "Naked aggression will not stand."

    On 12 January 1991 Congress authorized the use of military force to drive Iraq out of Kuwait. Desert Shield (invasion - 7 Aug 1990) became Desert Storm as we launched a massive air campaign. The first priority was to destroy the Iraqi air force and anti aircraft facilities – this was quickly achieved. Several weeks prior to the bombing of Baghdad on 17 January 1991, U.S. intelligence agents introduced a virus into Iraq's military computers which was designed to disable Baghdad's air defense system. [viii] This only left Iraq with ground forces – from the air, they were easy vulnerable targets on an open desert. It was like shooting fish in a barrel.

    Gulf War media coverage was handled by Deputy Secretary of Defense for Public Affairs (read that propaganda minister) Peter Williams. Our government arranged for good friend Saudi Arabia to issue appropriate visas which means that access to the U.S. press was denied. Despite Williams’ appearances at trying to gain access for the press, they were never allowed. Anyone that was allowed had to go by military escort which also included censorship. Media coverage showed the “smart bombs” which apparently were not smart enough to distinguish children from soldiers.

    Our troops were fresh, technologically advanced and angered by trumped-up Iraqi atrocities. The United States won – surprise, surprise! It is estimated that there were over 100,000 civilian deaths – collateral damage is what they call it. And Kuwait, who had no qualms about using foreign labor for grungy oil rig work, felt perfectly justified in having America fight their invaders. Hey, they paid big bucks for that labor. I wonder, did George W. Bush and his willing minions use the very experienced Hill & Knowlton public relations company or did they give most of their business to the Rendon Group, the PR firm used for the Afghanistan invasion?

    Go to Part 4

    Geneva Convention
    Wikipedia
    United States Foreign Policy, Ezra Taft Benson
    2005 Censored, Peter Phillips & Project Censored
    The Grand Chessboard, Zbigniew Brzezinski

    The 1988 Chemical Weapons Attack on Halabja, Iraq
    [ii] U.S. Intervention Timeline: Iraq
    [iii] NSA, Crypto AG, and the Iraq-Iran Conflict by J. Orlin grabbe
    [iv] Weapons of Mass Deception, page 49: It was a 4 month contract for $397,000. This was in addition to the Office of Strategic Influence which was disbanded after public outcry over their false reports provided to foreign reporters.
    [v] How PR Sold the War in the Persian Gulf
    [vi] Ibid
    [vii] Joint Session of Congress It was exactly 11 years to the day from the New World Order address that 911 occurred.
    [viii] Little Known Info On the War



    Comments: deannaATspingola.com
    To avoid attracting spam email robots, email addresses on this site are written with AT in place of the usual symbol. Replace AT with the correct symbol to get a valid address.

    Back To Political Points

    © Deanna Spingola 2005 - All rights reserved

    Deanna Spingola's articles are copyrighted but may be republished, reposted, or emailed. However, the person or organization must not charge for subscriptions or advertising. The article must be copied intact and full credit given. Deanna's web site address must also be included.

    http://www.spingola.com/bush_war3.htm
     
  8. windcatcher

    windcatcher
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Apr 28, 2007
    Messages:
    2,764
    Likes Received:
    0
    Part 4

    Bush’s War of Terror, Genocide
    Part Four
    By Deanna Spingola
    25 July 2005


    Join Email List to receive notification of new Spingola articles

    On 23 January 1991, Iraq began dumping approximately one million tons of crude oil into the gulf, causing the largest oil spill in history. Our focus was the military targets throughout Iraq and Kuwait: scud missile launchers, weapons of mass destruction sites, weapons research facilities and naval forces. In addition we besieged the following military and civilian installations: electricity production facilities, nuclear reactors, telecommunications equipment, port facilities, oil refineries and distribution, railroads and bridges. The Pentagon admitted in a report on 23 June 1991 that their targets were not limited to military targets but that they “deliberately did great harm to Iraq’s ability to support itself as an industrial society.”

    By the end of the war Iraq had only 4% of it prewar electricity. Fifty railroad and highway bridges between Basra and Baghdad were damaged or rendered inoperable. Bombs destroyed eight multi-purpose dams, four of the seven pumping stations and thirty-one municipal water and sewerage facilities - twenty in Baghdad, resulting in sewage pouring into the Tigris, Iraqi’s water source. Water purification plants were incapacitated throughout Iraq. [ii] A U.N. report from the middle of March described “near apocalyptic” damage to Iraq's infrastructure which has consigned the country to a “pre-industrial age”. “According to the survey team report, the destruction of 9,000 homes has left some 72,000 Iraqis homeless.” [iii]

    General Merrill "Tony" McPeak, Air Force Chief of Staff, declared in a 15 March 1991 briefing that this war was “the first time in history that a field army has been defeated by air power”. He estimated that 88,500 (only 7.4 % were precision guided) tons of bombs had been dropped in 109,876 aircraft sorties. This was more intense than the 34,000 tons per month during the Vietnam War or the 22,000 tons per month during the Korean War. [iv]

    The results of the allied bombing campaign were obvious when Dr. David Levenson visited Iraq immediately after the Gulf War, on behalf of International Physicians for the Prevention of Nuclear War. He said: “For many weeks, people in Baghdad - without television, radio, or newspapers to warn them - brought their drinking water from the Tigris, in buckets.” “Dehydrated from nausea and diarrhea, craving liquids, they drank more of the water that made them sick in the first place.” “Dr. Levenson estimates many thousands died from polluted water.” [v]

    Two American “smart bombs” tore their way into a bomb shelter located in Al-Amariyah on 13 February 1991. Unfortunately, for the 400 Iraqis sheltered there the exit doors jammed and they were unable to escape. The temperature rose to 900 degrees Fahrenheit, bursting pipes. Between the boiling water and the bomb blast 400 Iraqis were boiled or incinerated alive. The scorched shelter now serves as a memorial where the victim’s pictures are posted on the blackened walls. The spiritually astute may sense the surreal unrelenting horror of the mass fiery tomb.

    Demoralized and beaten, Iraq agreed to a Soviet proposed cease fire on 22 February 1991. They had three weeks to withdraw their troops to within their pre invasion borders. Monitoring for the cease fire and withdrawal was via the United Nations Security Council. Although the United States was not in favor of the total proposal they indicated that retreating Iraqi soldiers would not be harmed and that the withdrawal would begin within twenty-four hours.

    Our continuing campaign for the retreating Iraqis was called Operation Desert Saber which began on 24 February 1991. Many Iraqi ground troops were entrenched defending a fortified line. Two U.S. brigades from the 1st Infantry Division used a “bulldozer assault”. Driving along side the trenches in earthmoving plows mounted to tanks they buried the terrified defeated occupants alive. To escape this horrible fate two thousand Iraqis surrendered. One brigade commander estimated that they only buried between 80 and 250 Iraqis. Understandably, thousands of other Iraqi soldiers deserted to the death of the desert but were followed by our Marines. Although they had agreed to a cessation of battle, the U.S. claimed they were fearful that the Iraqis would use chemical weapons. If they did, the U.S. was prepared to destroy the remaining dams on the Tigris and Euphrates rivers which would have completely flooded Baghdad.

    Iraq did not resort to chemical weapons. They started leaving Kuwait by way of the main Iraq-Kuwait highway, beginning on 25-26 February. They set fire to Kuwaiti oil wells on their retreat. The Bechtel Corporation handled the reconstruction of Kuwait's oil fields after the Gulf War for the Kuwait Oil Company.

    The convoy of retreating Iraqi troops was repeatedly bombed for several hours – to the point that the road became known as the “parking lot”. Over 1,500 Iraqi tanks, armored vehicles, trucks, jeeps, ambulances and automobiles were destroyed along the “highway of death”. There were hundreds of horrifically charred and twisted cadavers entombed in the burnt remains.

    So Kuwait was “liberated” and the Iraqis were retreating. And George H. W. Bush’s popularity ratings were up to 91% – another, though unstated, reason for the war. In spite of the cease fire, there was a two day systematic massacre of the Iraqis under the direction of General Barry McCaffrey but he was never held accountable for this slaughter. Instead, he apparently was rewarded. McCaffrey later became a member of President Clinton's cabinet and director of the Office of National Drug Control Policy – oh the rewards of service! Our troops, usually unaware of many of the orders issued to the top brass, comply with instructions.

    On 10 March 1991, our troops began leaving the gulf. Like the Iraqis, many of them would never be the same. Coalition military deaths amounted to about 378. The U.S. lost 148 in battle. There was another 145 non battled related deaths. According to a report by our government there were twenty to twenty-two thousand Iraqi combat deaths. The Iraqi government claimed that 2,300 civilians died during the air campaign. There have been higher casualty figures – from 100,000 to 300,000. Former President Jimmy Carter has publicly stated that “maybe more than 150,000 Iraqi civilians were killed in the massive bombing.” Colin Powell, who directed Desert Storm, in referring to civilian deaths remarked: “That's not really a number I'm terribly interested in.”

    Iraq continues to have serious internal social problems due to the differing factions that the British pushed together into a nation. Many of the Kurds left the country. From what the CIA had told them, the Kurds thought the Americans would support them in an uprising but that did not occur. Completely vanquished, Iraq has become a toxic wasteland. Her people will never be the same. The foreigners were leaving but the disease and death would continue unabated – thanks to the prevalent depleted uranium dust and the disease caused by the loss of sanitation facilities within Iraq’s infrastructure. Unfortunately, reconstruction would not occur immediately, by the Bechtel Corporation or anyone else.

    There are politically powerful people who prey upon their own citizens, as if they were mere pawns, just to enrich themselves, their business friends and to further the agenda of the globalist One World Order. The worst of them are the pretenders who are nothing more than wolves in sheep’s clothing. A tyrant, no matter what ethnicity, is a tyrant! We should have compassion for the millions of victims of war, internal ethnic cleansing, and discrimination and for those who are otherwise vilified by governments. Greed, power and hate drive the powerful to squander the lives and resources of others.
     
  9. windcatcher

    windcatcher
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Apr 28, 2007
    Messages:
    2,764
    Likes Received:
    0
    Part 4 continued

    I quote the following from a small booklet written by an acquaintance:

    “Are there consequences? If there are consequences, who is accountable?

    “So, I ask you, who is the enemy? The guy shooting at you – or the folks who set it all up and lied to you to make you believe that the guy shooting at you is ‘evil’ and want to ‘destroy your way of life’? The guy shooting at you probably doesn’t have anything against you personally at all. He may be just as much a victim of the lying puppets set up in his own government by the same cabal of international power brokers, financiers and industrialists. But the key question is this: do people have a responsibility to know what’s really going on before marching off to kill other human beings? Can war ever be justified by the phony, self serving lies of political and economic interests that people could and should know are lying?” [vi]

    “The brave, young Americans who have spilled their blood in the desert of Iraq did not die defending their country. They died to further a diabolical political agenda. They innocently believed the "democratic" propaganda and willingly gave their lives to what they thought was a great and noble cause: to improve the existence of foreign strangers. They merit our respect for their good hearted intentions. However, they also deserve a healthy portion of our pity for they, because of their naïveté, have been manipulated. They served with honest and honorable hearts just like the thousands of individuals who have served in previous devised battles. But certainly, their blood and the blood of thousands are a permanent stain on this land and its leaders who squander our nation’s greatest resource, her people, in wars designed, not to strengthen or defend us, but to weaken us. Our leaders are pushing this great country into impoverishment and slavery within the United Nations. The United Nations, the real axis of evil, and those who promote its malevolent existence and growth are the authentic and very sinister enemies.”
    Go to Part 5


    Geneva Convention
    Wikipedia
    United States Foreign Policy, Ezra Taft Benson
    2005 Censored, Peter Phillips & Project Censored
    The Grand Chessboard, Zbigniew Brzezinski

    Allied Air War Struck Broadly in Iraq
    [ii] Article 54 of the Geneva Convention states: “It is prohibited to attack, destroy or render useless objects indispensable to the survival of the civilian population” and includes foodstuffs, livestock and “drinking water supplies and irrigation works”. Allies Deliberately Poisoned Iraq Public Water Supply In Gulf War
    [iii] The Dirty Little Weapons
    [iv] Ibid
    [v] Ibid
    [vi] The Myth of the Innocent Civilian by Harold Thomas, 2002, page 17
    [vii] Warfare, American Style by Deanna Spingola, last paragraph

    Comments: deannaATspingola.com
    To avoid attracting spam email robots, email addresses on this site are written with AT in place of the usual symbol. Replace AT with the correct symbol to get a valid address.

    Back To Political Points

    © Deanna Spingola 2005 - All rights reserved

    Deanna Spingola's articles are copyrighted but may be republished, reposted, or emailed. However, the person or organization must not charge for subscriptions or advertising. The article must be copied intact and full credit given. Deanna's web site address must also be included.

    http://www.spingola.com/bush_war4.htm
     
  10. windcatcher

    windcatcher
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Apr 28, 2007
    Messages:
    2,764
    Likes Received:
    0
    Part 5

    Bush’s War of Terror, Sanctions
    Part Five
    By Deanna Spingola


    Join Email List to receive notification of new Spingola articles

    There are five permanent members on the United Nations Security Council along with other member states who are elected for a specific period of time. This council is charged with maintaining peace and security between nations. The permanent members attained that status because they were considered victorious at the conclusion of World War II: the People’s Republic of China as of 1971 (formerly the Republic of China), France, Russian Federation as of 1991 (formerly the Soviet Union), United Kingdom and the United States of America. Council decisions are known as resolutions and according to the United Nations Charter must be carried out.

    According to the United Nations Charter, these five permanent members are the only nations permitted to have nuclear weapons under the auspices of the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty. But not all of the nations who have nuclear weapons signed the said treaty. And enforcement is apparently arbitrary.

    It was certainly no secret that Saddam threatened to invade Kuwait for some months prior to the actual invasion on 2 August 1990. That very day the U.N. Security Council issued Resolution 660 condemning the invasion and demanded that “Iraq withdraw immediately and unconditionally all it forces to the positions in which they were located on 1 August 1990.”

    On 6 August 1990 the United Nations Security Council issued the following resolution 661: (part only) [ii]

    Acting under Chapter VII of the Charter,

    1. “Determines that Iraq so far has failed to comply with paragraph 2 of resolution 660 (2 August 1990) and has usurped the authority of the legitimate Government of Kuwait;

    2. Decides, as a consequence, to take the following measures to secure compliance of Iraq with paragraph 2 of the resolution 660 (1990) and to restore the authority of the legitimate government of Kuwait;

    3. Decides that all states (191 member countries) shall prevent:

    (a) The import into their territories of all commodities and products originating in Iraq or Kuwait exported there from after the date of the present resolution;

    (b) Any activities by their nationals or in their territories which would promote or are calculated to promote the export …”


    Economic sanctions became a part of the U.N. Charter in 1945 as a method of control. They have been used fourteen times - twelve times since 1990. [iii]

    The major allegation against Saddam was the attempted overthrow of another country’s leader which is clearly inappropriate according to the U.N. Charter as well as international respectability among nations. We exhibited this same mindset when Khomeini insisted that we oust Iraqi leader Saddam Hussein in the early 80’s. We rejected his suggestion as completely inappropriate behavior, despite covert CIA tactics frequently used to eliminate government leaders incompatible with United States objectives. For this infraction, Iraq was placed under United Nations sanctions within four days of the invasion. Ironically, when Iraq invaded Iran the United States voted against the U.N. Security Council’s resolution opposing this invasion. However, Saddam’s Kuwaiti invasion rapidly changed his lengthy standing from good friend and complicit ally to a Hitler style tyrant. This change was probably motivated by oil greed, increased political aspirations and giant egos.

    Sanctions against Iraq, the worst in modern history, were originally imposed to halt their aggression against Kuwait. They were imposed prior to U.S. entry into the conflict. They should have and would have ended with Iraq’s withdrawal from Kuwait if not for the combined influence of the United States and Britain. Sanctions would ultimately constitute a legitimized but immoral weapon of unmitigated slaughter against the 22 million citizens of Iraq - every man, woman and child. Sanctions did not end after Iraq abided by the U.N. resolutions and left Kuwait.

    It was the administration’s expectation that the Iraqis would rise up and oust Saddam but they were consumed with just maintaining their rapidly declining existence. The purpose of the sanctions changed from the Iraqi invasion to regime change – ousting Saddam - and they would remain until he was gone – no matter how many lives it cost. [iv] And since the war was over there had to be another justification: weapons of mass destruction. Our own weapon of mass destruction was the embargo. An estimated 500,000 Iraqi children under the age of five have died because of sanctions – almost three times the number killed by our bombs at Hiroshima and Nagasaki.

    Our grand air entry, authorized by congress after all of the high priced public relations party propaganda, began 12 January 1991. The cease fire supposedly occurred on 22 February 1991 although some troops did not abide by this. Technically, from the time of the Iraqi invasion to the cease fire, the war lasted six months and twenty days. From all appearances, it was a relatively short war. However, we used other opportunities to bomb Iraq in the interim between 1991 and 2003.

    The war against Iraq did not really end when our troops started leaving the gulf on 10 March 1991. It has never really ended from that day to the present time - only the tactics and weapons have changed. The Iraqis fight daily merely to feed themselves and their children and to survive the rigors of disease without medication. They’re helpless as they witness their precious children expire for want of common medicines or food. Where they once enjoyed modern conveniences and reliable health care, many have sold much of what they owned just to exist day to day.

    There were many follow-up U.N. resolutions. One resolution 686 dated 2 March 1991 mentions the letter of 27 February 1991 from the Deputy Prime Minister and Minister of Foreign Affairs of Iraq which was addressed to the President of the U.N. Security Council and the Secretary General pledging Iraq’s full compliance with previous resolutions. The next resolution 687 dated 3 April 1991 called for “the destruction of all chemical and biological weapons and all ballistic missiles with a range greater than 150 kilometers.” This resolution also mentions letters from the Deputy Prime Minister of Iraq dated 3 March and 5 March 1991. Iraq had signed the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons on 1 July 1968 which made the destruction of any such weapons obligatory. [v]

    As far as disarmament, Scott Ritter, ex-Marine and former United Nations weapons inspector from 1991 to 1998 testified on 6 February 2003 regarding Colin Powell’s “irrefutable and undeniable” allegations that Iraq was concealing weapons of mass destruction made before the U.N. Security Council in October 2002. Ritter dismissed the allegations and said that they were based on circumstantial evidence. Ritter said that Powell lied and “misled people.” Powell’s questionable testimony used to be on the CIA web site but has been removed. (Kyodo World News Service; 2/6/2003)

    Resolution 688 dated 5 April 1991

    1. “Condemns the oppression of the Iraqi civilian population in many parts of Iraq, including most recently in Kurdish populated areas, the consequences of which threaten international peace and security in the region;

    2. Demands that Iraq, as a contribution to removing the threat to international peace and security in the region, immediately end this repression, and in the same context expresses the hope that an open dialogue will take place to ensure that the human and political rights of all Iraqi citizens are respected;

    3. Insists that Iraq allow immediate access by all international humanitarian organizations to all those in need of assistance in all parts of Iraq and make available all necessary facilities for their operations.” [vi]

    Judging from the official documents, Iraq appeared to abide by the U.N. resolutions. Resolution 688 condemned the oppression of the Iraqi civilian population – shouldn’t that include the heinous crime of depriving them of the basics of survival? George H. W. Bush preferred to attribute the serious post war health problems of the Iraqis on Saddam rather than the fact that we had purposely destroyed their entire infrastructure and their water supply which is egregious and completely against the Geneva Convention. This is indicated in a document dated 15 November 1991. [vii]

    America appears to be the lackeys for the United Nations. We are the enforcers and we deserve the global heat for our growing heartlessness that is quickly catching up to our hedonism. We waged the war against Iraq in behalf of the United Nations. Our elected politician, George H. W. Bush, sold his soul to the United Nations and got his presidential ego fed. While it appears that the United States is the entity driving the sanctions against Iraq, it was with the complete blessings of the United Nations. Otherwise, we would have been reprimanded appropriately for the very same human abuses that we accuse Saddam of. If the United Nations is supposed to maintain the security of all nations, they certainly fell down on the job when it comes to Iraq. This establishes a precedent as well as a preview for wide scale national abuses – no U.N. compliance – no food. If the globalists succeed in their complete takeover then it will be because of our complacency and the complicity of our elected officials.
     
  11. windcatcher

    windcatcher
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Apr 28, 2007
    Messages:
    2,764
    Likes Received:
    0
    Part 5 continued

    A report entitled “Iraq Water Treatment Vulnerabilities” dated 22 January 1991 said that unless water is purified with chlorine, epidemics of such diseases as cholera, hepatitis, and typhoid would occur. In May of 1991 cholera and measles were evident in the refugee camps due to inadequate water and poor sanitation. [viii] In the months just after the termination of the war, malnutrition was evident. Diseases always affect the most vulnerable – the young and the elderly. These conditions have not improved.

    There have been many justifications offered for the civilian devastation, including the efforts to damage “civilian morale”, especially by the Air Force which claims that Iraqi civilians share some of the blame for Saddam’s invasion of Kuwait. “The definition of innocents gets to be a little bit unclear,” states a senior Air Force officer, noting that many Iraqis supported the invasion of Kuwait. “They do live there, and ultimately the people have some control over what goes on in their country.” [ix] The same could be said for the citizens of this country. Are we then guilty for all the infants and children who perished as a result of the sanctions?

    How do the Iraqis view us? Do we suppose that they were glad to see us return as “liberators” in 2003? Did they roll out the welcome mat? Do they want us there? [x] I think not. Our economic sanctions have been a continued horrific onslaught against Iraq as well as our own integrity, respect and every shred of human decency.

    According to a poll, ninety-eight percent of the Iraqis view us as occupiers. The other two percent are probably the government puppets we have installed who now have a better life as a result of their complicit comradeship with the United States against their own people. Bin Laden contended that one of the three reasons for 9-11 was the death of innocent children due to our sanctions. [xi] The people of other nations have distinct reasons for anger against our foreign policies. [xii]

    Lesley Stahl asked the previous U.S. Ambassador to the United Nations Madeleine Albright about the half million Iraqi children that died. … “That is more children than died in Hiroshima. And, you know, is the price worth it?” Albright answered: “I think this is a very hard choice, but the price, we think the price is worth it. [xiii] How did these words affect the Arab world? THE PRICE IS WORTH IT?” And we wonder at their anger!!! Apparently Albright and Powell, who was not concerned with civilian numbers, have much in common. [xiv] This indifference is appalling!

    His military budget under attack and falling in the polls, George H. W. Bush used the Desert Storm victory, claimed to be the “clean war”, in his second bid for the presidency. Something as spectacular as a war victory, even if there wasn’t one, would boost his ratings. It would also enrich his military complex friends, keep congress from cutting military spending and convince the public that the world was still a terrifying place from which they needed protection. [xv] Like father, like son, George W. Bush used the 2003 Iraqi war in his second bid – pretty much vilifying anyone who dared question the war effort as being unpatriotic. This is not a liberal or a conservative issue. It is not a partisan issue.

    Our government should be held accountable if they are killing or starving the citizens of another country in our behalf. Are we accountable also? Do our citizens even realize what is going on with our censored media? And please, don’t send me email accusing me of being un-American or being a part of the “Blame America First Crowd” or suggest that I move to France. Our government’s behavior in our behalf is un-American!!!

    Though relatively few of our troops died as a direct result of Gulf War combat, tens of thousands are afflicted with a variety of disabling and life threatening psychological and physical symptoms known as Gulf War Syndrome (GWS). The actual causes may include the multiple injections of vaccines, the pesticides used to spray tents, exposure to nerve gas, and the widespread inhalation of depleted uranium dust. It appears that any human being is expendable to further the cause of globalism.

    Apparently, son George felt compelled to complete the job his father started – taking out Saddam Hussein. It wasn’t that George H. W. Bush, who lost his 2nd bid for president, didn’t give it his all - tons of depleted uranium tipped munitions and precision guided missiles had been used on a nation one-third smaller than the state of Texas over a forty-three day period. The despicable result of this self serving genocidal war supposedly to liberate Kuwait and save Saudi Arabia from a pretended Iraqi assault, destroyed and continued to negatively affect the country of Iraq and its people. The magnanimous George W. Bush finally called for an end to economic sanctions on 16 Apr 2003. [xvi]

    Fully three fourths of the world's oil reserves are now under U.S. control (Caspian reserves via a trans-Afghanistan pipeline, and two-hundred-fifty billion barrels via Iraqi occupation). The country that controls the oil controls the world. Is this what Albright meant when she said it was worth it?

    Go to Part 6

    Bibliography:
    Cool War: Economic sanctions as a weapon of mass destruction by Joy Gordon
    The Secret Behind the Sanctions by Thomas Nagy
    Geneva Convention
    Wikipedia
    United States Foreign Policy, Ezra Taft Benson
    2005 Censored, Peter Phillips & Project Censored
    The Grand Chessboard, Zbigniew Brzezinski

    United Nations Resolutions 1990
    [ii] Ibid
    [iii] Cool War: Economic sanctions as a weapon of mass destruction by Joy Gordon, Harper’s Magazine, November 2002
    [iv] End Iraq Sanctions, Says Bush
    [v] United Nations Resolutions 1991
    [vi] Ibid
    [vii] Iraq: Assessment of Current Health Threats and Capabilities
    [viii] Iraq Water Treatment
    [ix] Iraqi Sanctions and American Intentions
    [x] Sunnis Demonstrate in Baghdad
    [xi] Iraqi Sanctions and American Intentions
    [xii] Causes and Consequences, see page 14.
    [xiii] Ibid
    [xiv] See Bush’s War of Terror, Genocide, Part 4 by Deanna Spingola
    [xv] Iraq 1990-1991
    [xvi] End Iraq Sanctions, Says Bush

    Comments: deannaATspingola.com
    To avoid attracting spam email robots, email addresses on this site are written with AT in place of the usual symbol. Replace AT with the correct symbol to get a valid address.

    Back To Political Points

    © Deanna Spingola 2005 - All rights reserved

    Deanna Spingola's articles are copyrighted but may be republished, reposted, or emailed. However, the person or organization must not charge for subscriptions or advertising. The article must be copied intact and full credit given. Deanna's web site address must also be included.

    http://www.spingola.com/bush_war5.htm
     

Share This Page

Loading...