1
   

Did Saddam gas the Kurds...or was it Iran?

 
 
Reply Mon 15 Aug, 2005 09:57 pm
This may be old hat, but I have come accross some old news and I'd like to hear some perspectives on this.

Quote:
Halabja was the "most notorious and the deadliest single gas attack against the Kurds," killing 5,000 civilians. But as Power notes, it was just one of some forty chemical assaults staged by Iraq against the Kurdish people.

The official U.S. government reaction to Halabja? At first the government downplayed the reports, which were coming from Iranian sources. Once the media had confirmed the story and pictures of the dead villagers had been shown on television, the U.S. denounced the use of gas


Source

Quote:


Source

There is a plethora of "information" out there, but none from reliable sources.
What is the possibility that the gassing of the Kurdish was an Iranian liability?
The Kurds, as I understand it, had it pretty good under Saddam, and many of the civilian deaths were a result of the Iraq-Iran conflict, not a bombing mission to bomb the civilian Kurds, as it is made out to be by the Bush administration.

At any rate, I await the responses from those individuals who are more familiar with the events than I.
  • Topic Stats
  • Top Replies
  • Link to this Topic
Type: Discussion • Score: 1 • Views: 694 • Replies: 18
No top replies

 
Merry Andrew
 
  1  
Reply Mon 15 Aug, 2005 10:27 pm
Interesting. I had not, frankly, heard of a possible Iranian connection, always assumed it was Saddam. Bookmarking.
0 Replies
 
candidone1
 
  1  
Reply Mon 15 Aug, 2005 10:42 pm
Quote:
Most current accounts of the incident regard Iraq as the party responsible for the gas attack, which occurred during the Iran-Iraq War. The war between Iran and Iraq was in its eighth year when, on March 16 and 17, 1988, Iraq dropped poison gas on the Kurdish city of Halabja, then held by Iranian troops and Iraqi Kurdish guerrillas allied with Tehran


Source

If the Kurds were innocent "Iraqi civilians", why were they allied with Tehran, and why were Iranian troops "holding" Halabja?

Sounds to me that if Bush can justify the collateral damage from his shock and awe campaign, Saddam's actions should fall under less scrutiny. Sure it was gas, and sure the Geneva conventions were ignored...but maybe the Geneva conventions don't apply there.
Sound familiar?

Or digging deeper, if this is truly a war crime, what about the A bomb dropped on Japan? How many civilians died there, or in the fire raids throughout Japan?

Do we have to revisit Vietnam?

My point is there has been a lot of spin doctoring to make Saddam out to be such a terrible man, and I'm not denying this. But the little shrub of a man really needed to pound this point home when justifying the illegitimate war in Iraq, and I find it would prudent to clear the air on at least one point.
0 Replies
 
McGentrix
 
  1  
Reply Tue 16 Aug, 2005 07:32 am
We know the left believes Bush to be a much bigger villain than Saddam ever was. There is no need to keep demonstrating that, is there?
0 Replies
 
candidone1
 
  1  
Reply Tue 16 Aug, 2005 08:48 am
McGentrix wrote:
We know the left believes Bush to be a much bigger villain than Saddam ever was. There is no need to keep demonstrating that, is there?


Well, you could go through every thread stating completely irrelevant and self-serving points...or you could respond to the question.
Although conservatives seem to acknowledge the shrub as the second coming of Christ, his presidential term(s) pale in comparison to that of Hussein.
There is plenty of time to take a few jabs at a Democrat....if that would make you feel better and make a meaningful contribution.
0 Replies
 
candidone1
 
  1  
Reply Wed 17 Aug, 2005 09:08 am
Nothing?
0 Replies
 
Ticomaya
 
  1  
Reply Wed 17 Aug, 2005 09:42 am
candidone1 wrote:
Nothing?


You're just not having much luck trolling today, are you?
0 Replies
 
candidone1
 
  1  
Reply Wed 17 Aug, 2005 09:57 am
Ticomaya wrote:
candidone1 wrote:
Nothing?


You're just not having much luck trolling today, are you?


Apparently when someone is looking for an educated response, you are incapable.
I am asking for information/opinions on this matter and am completely open to whatever is posted...should you have anything of substance to offer.
Two conservatives comment, but contribute nothing meaningful.
I'm shocked.
0 Replies
 
pngirouard
 
  1  
Reply Wed 17 Aug, 2005 10:20 am
The Halabja affair has always been marred in controversy and given the short memory span of America and the rest of the world, it is easy to forget that at the time, the CIA concluded that it was an Iranian gas attack and not one from Saddam on his own people.

That obviously doesn't serve Bush's WMDs false war pretence as he basically always denounced Saddam as one capable of gazing it's own people (the Kurds) and was therefore to be pre-empted on WMDs.

Fact of the matter is that under Reagan and his dad as Vice-president, the whole matter was set in matter of responsibilities clearly on the shoulders of Iran and not Saddam. That was the official position and was substantially reported in 2003 as the war arguments were more and more floated:

A War Crime or an Act of War?
Friday 31 January 2003

Excerpts:

Quote:
It was no surprise that President Bush, lacking smoking-gun evidence of Iraq's weapons programs, used his State of the Union address to re-emphasize the moral case for an invasion: "The dictator who is assembling the world's most dangerous weapons has already used them on whole villages, leaving thousands of his own citizens dead, blind or disfigured."

The accusation that Iraq has used chemical weapons against its citizens is a familiar part of the debate. The piece of hard evidence most frequently brought up concerns the gassing of Iraqi Kurds at the town of Halabja in March 1988, near the end of the eight-year Iran-Iraq war. President Bush himself has cited Iraq's "gassing its own people," specifically at Halabja, as a reason to topple Saddam Hussein.

But the truth is, all we know for certain is that Kurds were bombarded with poison gas that day at Halabja. We cannot say with any certainty that Iraqi chemical weapons killed the Kurds. This is not the only distortion in the Halabja story.

I am in a position to know because, as the Central Intelligence Agency's senior political analyst on Iraq during the Iran-Iraq war, and as a professor at the Army War College from 1988 to 2000, I was privy to much of the classified material that flowed through Washington having to do with the Persian Gulf. In addition, I headed a 1991 Army investigation into how the Iraqis would fight a war against the United States; the classified version of the report went into great detail on the Halabja affair.

This much about the gassing at Halabja we undoubtedly know: it came about in the course of a battle between Iraqis and Iranians. Iraq used chemical weapons to try to kill Iranians who had seized the town, which is in northern Iraq not far from the Iranian border. The Kurdish civilians who died had the misfortune to be caught up in that exchange. But they were not Iraq's main target.

And the story gets murkier: immediately after the battle the United States Defense Intelligence Agency investigated and produced a classified report, which it circulated within the intelligence community on a need-to-know basis. That study asserted that it was Iranian gas that killed the Kurds, not Iraqi gas.

The agency did find that each side used gas against the other in the battle around Halabja. The condition of the dead Kurds' bodies, however, indicated they had been killed with a blood agent -- that is, a cyanide-based gas -- which Iran was known to use. The Iraqis, who are thought to have used mustard gas in the battle, are not known to have possessed blood agents at the time.

These facts have long been in the public domain but, extraordinarily, as often as the Halabja affair is cited, they are rarely mentioned. A much-discussed article in The New Yorker last March did not make reference to the Defense Intelligence Agency report or consider that Iranian gas might have killed the Kurds. On the rare occasions the report is brought up, there is usually speculation, with no proof, that it was skewed out of American political favouritism toward Iraq in its war against Iran.


More at: http://www.propagandamatrix.com/a_war_crime_or_an_act_of_war.htm

It well might be that Saddam did gas his own people. Yet to ascertain it as an obvious thruth flies against the official position America then took. Furthermore, the same gazing would only have been possible with America's technical support. Saddam's lawyers if allowed under normal rules will have a field day, nothing Bush and republicans should be looking forward to. After all Rumsfeld played an important role in America's support of Saddam all during the Iraq-Iran war.
0 Replies
 
candidone1
 
  1  
Reply Wed 17 Aug, 2005 03:42 pm
Watch it...you may be labelled a troll.

Thanks for the info.
So is that it? No one from the right can counter these claims with anything other than the predictable ad hominem?
Just looking for some balance.
0 Replies
 
pngirouard
 
  1  
Reply Wed 17 Aug, 2005 06:36 pm
I have been called a lot of things (some nice some not so). But a troll, not yet. Just looking forward to it if it so happens. Might be interesting who would call me so.
0 Replies
 
candidone1
 
  1  
Reply Thu 18 Aug, 2005 09:24 am
I was just poking at the fact tthat I was earlier called a troll for
1. asking if any information had been dug up on this issue
2. requesting that someone respond to an ongoing discussion

I guess to some around here "Ask the Experts" means "only-ask-the know-it-all-POS-things-that-make-them-feel-all warm-and-fuzzy-about, and-don't-attempt-to-have-an-honest-question-answered-or-I'll-call-you-a-troll".
0 Replies
 
Ticomaya
 
  1  
Reply Thu 18 Aug, 2005 09:48 am
I called you that for more than just your posting in this thread, as you well know. And I just spotted another instance in yet another thread... but I didn't say anything.
0 Replies
 
candidone1
 
  1  
Reply Thu 18 Aug, 2005 09:55 am
Ticomaya wrote:
I called you that for more than just your posting in this thread, as you well know. And I just spotted another instance in yet another thread... but I didn't say anything.


Mighty noble of you Tico...I did that to test your will.


I don't live on a2k (save the past 2 days that it's been pissing rain), and I often have lively discussion die in my absence.
I won't be around 'till September, so I was hoping to get some closure on the few discussions I did have going.
If that makes me a troll, then by all mean highlight the occasions. I'm just glad to be policed by someone with such integrity.
0 Replies
 
Ticomaya
 
  1  
Reply Thu 18 Aug, 2005 10:25 am
Perhaps you're a troll with an explanation.
0 Replies
 
candidone1
 
  1  
Reply Thu 18 Aug, 2005 10:30 am
Ticomaya wrote:
Perhaps you're a troll with an explanation.


I guess repeatedly handing out troll cards is a truly virtuous endeavor, and not, in and of itself, by definition, trolling....then troll on Tico, troll on.
0 Replies
 
Ticomaya
 
  1  
Reply Thu 18 Aug, 2005 10:32 am
Only done when appropriate. :wink:
0 Replies
 
candidone1
 
  1  
Reply Thu 18 Aug, 2005 11:47 am
Ticomaya wrote:
Only done when appropriate. :wink:


As do I Tico, as do I.

Now, anything relevant, beyond a2k etiqueette, to add to the thread topic?
If not, take a walk.
0 Replies
 
Ticomaya
 
  1  
Reply Thu 18 Aug, 2005 12:29 pm
See 'ya in the funny papers.
0 Replies
 
 

Related Topics

Obama '08? - Discussion by sozobe
Let's get rid of the Electoral College - Discussion by Robert Gentel
McCain's VP: - Discussion by Cycloptichorn
Food Stamp Turkeys - Discussion by H2O MAN
The 2008 Democrat Convention - Discussion by Lash
McCain is blowing his election chances. - Discussion by McGentrix
Snowdon is a dummy - Discussion by cicerone imposter
TEA PARTY TO AMERICA: NOW WHAT?! - Discussion by farmerman
 
  1. Forums
  2. » Did Saddam gas the Kurds...or was it Iran?
Copyright © 2024 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.09 seconds on 05/14/2024 at 06:24:16