The UN, US and Iraq IV

blatham, the opinion pieces included aside, every study cited in the BBC article you provide concludes there is no observable radiologic ill effect attributable to DU. There simply is no scientific evidence supporting the hysteria.

Blatham,

I have never said that the US has anything more than it's own concerns at heart when I speak of foriegn policy. This isn't Star Trek, and we are NOT the federation...

So, some nations have evil regimes running things, you can bet your bottom dollar that our government knows about it and is doing something about it.

So, shall we stop all this talk about the US going into Iraq 'to free the poor oppressed', and just be honest and say it went in for power and money?

Its a matter of perspective, Tart. The way I see it, "the other nations" are disinclined to do much about bullies, state or stateless, beyond bemoaning their existence, if even that. It is they who fail to cooperate in the matter of making the planet a safer place to live for all concerned.

And while I am not so disingenuous as to ascribe a universal altruism to US foreign policy, neither am I sufficiently disingenuous as to infer an overweening venality in US policy. Simple answers may be convenient, but do not stand up well in respect to complicated issues.

It's not what I consider, it's compared to other wars.

proactively address the urgent issues of global security

Up to 4,300 of the dead were civilian noncombatants.

By paying civilians to handle military tasks, the Bush administration is freeing up U.S. troops to fight. But the use of contractors might hide the true costs of war. Their dead aren't added to official body counts. Their duties -- and profits -- are hidden by executives who won't give details to Congress. And, as their coffers and roles swell, companies are funneling earnings into political campaigns and gaining influence over military policy -- even getting paid to recommend themselves for lucrative contracts....

To the consternation of U.S. lawmakers, there is little or no congressional oversight of contractors hired by the executive branch of government -- whether through the State Department, Pentagon or the CIA.
Some private contracts look like covert operations once handled by the CIA -- such as cocaine eradication in South America now done by companies that fly crop-dusters in Colombia....

The connection between companies and politicians in Washington raises the specter of executives lobbying for a hawkish U.S. foreign policy since they profit from war, Avant said.
Iraq contractors DynCorp, Bechtel Inc. and Halliburton donated more than $2.2 million -- mainly to Republican causes similar to the 2000 Bush presidential campaign -- between 1999 and 2002, according to the Center for Responsive Politics.
In the case of Halliburton, the U.S. government hired the company in Iraq without a competitive bid, after the company recommended itself in a study. Halliburton's Iraq oil services contract, worth $1.6 billion so far, will be extended until December or January....

http://www.statesman.com/nation/content/auto/epaper/editions/saturday/news_f33a968a3425f09d00cc.html

sorry for the repeat entry ! will have to learn how to DELETE, or be more careful before submitting. hbg

Just how do figure we "Installed" Saddam, Gel?
The way I remember it, he pretty much installed himself, with a little help from having married fortuitously. While a student, in '57, he became involved in anti-King Faisal activities, and joined the then-nascent Ba'ath Party, which pressed a platform of trans-national Arabic socialism. Following the '58 revolution which ousted Faisal and elevated Abdul Kassim, a pro-Communist who opposed the unification of Iraq, Syria, and Egypt into a United Arab Republic, Saddam participated with increasing vigor in violent clashes between Ba'athists and the Kassim government.
In '59, he got his "Big Break"; he gained the recognition of Ba'ath Party bigwigs by virtue of killing one of their more vocal opponents, a distant relative who happened to be a prominent Communist leader in the Tikrit area (an assassination with perhaps more personal than political motivation). Saddam was picked for a team of assassins which was assembled to take out Kassim, and which failed. In the abortive attempt, Saddam was wounded, but managed to escape to Syria- disguised, depending on the version of the story, either as a bedouin or a woman. From Syria he made his way to Egypt, where he became a member of the Intelligence Service of the UAR's Arab Interest Bureau, and was enrolled in lawschool at Cairo University, where he distinguished himself by being quite visibly present at the more violent protests, and by frequently being involved in the beatings or disappearances of folks with whom the regime were at issue.
In '63, the Ba'athists, admittedly with some help from the CIA - mainly intelligence and a bit of communications gear, a few small arms and some bribe money, ousted Kassim. While difficult to establish with any exactitude, CIA contributions amounted, apparently, to something on the order of a few $10s of thousands total value, if that. Saddam, having had no direct involvement in the coup, returned to Iraq, where he married the daughter of a prominent Ba'athist, a fellow who had more or less been Saddam's mentor in the earlier years. He became head of the party's security apparatus, which then set about eliminating Kassim's supporters and known and alleged Communist sympathizers, under the direct control and supervision of Saddam. The first Ba'athist heyday came to an abrupt end later that year, in what amounted to a counter-revolution. The Ba'athists went back underground, and Saddam advanced steadily through party ranks, due in part to his performance and in part to his family connections. He was in and out of jail a few times over the next several years, and worked assiduosly at building the then-clandestine party's militia, enrolling and training every politically-reliable thug he could attract. This militia was a key factor in the successful '68 military coup which established the rule of the Revolutionary Command Council of party stalwart and Army General Ahmad Bakr, who rewarded his cousin-by-marriage Saddam with a cabinet-level security position and the attendent party seniority. Saddam set about installing his own cohorts and cronies into as many governmental and military positions of influence as he could manage, all the while seeing to the elimination of such folks as he deemed might be threats to his growing power.
In '72, he became Vice President of the Revolutionary Command Council, and, effectively, of the country. He began playing a role in foreign policy, particularly with regard to trade and support agreements with France and The Soviet Union (not withstanding his earlier anti-communist beginnings ... go figure). In '75, he signed the Algiers Accord, aimed at resolving a long-running Iran-Iraq border dispute and Iranian-sponsored Kurdish anti-Iraqi insurgency.
In '77-'78, strains developed between Saddam and Bakr, centering on Shia unrest. Bakr supported compromise and accommodation, while Saddam favored repression and subjugation of the majority sect. Saddam prevailed. In mid-'79 Bakr found himself under house arrest, Saddam became President of Iraq, Chairman of the Revolutionary Command Council, and Secretary General of the Ba'ath Party. From his new position, he initiated a thorough purge of the government, the Revolutionary Command Council, the Ba'ath Party, the military, local and provincial officials, trade and student unions, and anyone else he thought less than enthusiastically supportive of him. Enriched by the windfall of soaring oil prices due to the Iranian Revolution, he lavished salary increases and outright gifts on his more notably ardent supporters throughout the civil and military infrastructures, while effectively melding the two.
Though funding the restoration and renovation of Shia shrines and such, he none the less excluded members of the sect from positions of power.
By 1980, he felt strong enough, and thought Shia Iran enough weakened by its own revolution, to attack his neighbor. Much to Saddam's surprise, the Iranians, though at first sent reeling, managed, by mid/late '82, not only to repulse the invasion but to gain territory within Iraq. Alarmed by the prospect of Iranian victory, The US, The Soviet Union, and France alike all stepped up support for Saddam in the interest of quelling Iranian Fundamentalism. The US provided primarilly anti-Iranian intelligence, while The Soviet Union and France both provided direct military and financial aid.
The Iran-Iraq War slogged on, involving the entire Persian Gulf region and bringing about "The Tanker War" of '87-'88, which effectively brought US Naval assets against Iran in direct conflict.
In '88, Saddam massively deployed chemical weaponry against Iranian troops occupying Iraqi territory, and the subsequent Iraqi counter-attack ejected Iran from Iraq, restoring the former borders, and forcing Iran to accept a UN-Mandated ceasefire pursuant to 1987's UNSCR 598.
With the Iran matter settled, Saddam found himself with an experienced, well equipped, fanatically loyal army, a military-industrial complex with capacity for sophisticated weapons production, and a centralized, authoritarian government awash in oil revenue. He turned his attention to his own Kurds, who had, historically to their detriment been pro-Iranian.
Emboldened by lack of strong international response to his internal depredations, he focused on Kuwait. The rest, as we say, is history. But nowhere do I see any history of The US having "Installed" Saddam, or ever having provided him with material support..