Why I seriously doubt the "Iraq mass graves" rhetoric:

[LynnTheDem]

-First because bush & Cartel are LIARS;

They lied about the "incubator babies".

They lied about "Iraqi troops massing on the Saudi border".

They lied about their "huge coalition".

They lied about their "darn good intell" that "there is no doubt" of "WMD" in Iraq.

They lied by implying Iraq did 911.

They lied about al Qaeda ties to Iraq.

They lied about Iran-Contra and IraqGate.

They are LIARS PERIOD.

-Second, because the number used and then exaggerated upwards was NEVER anything to do with "mass graves";

Do you know where the "300,000" figure originated? It came from an estimate of an estimate of 290,000 given to Human Rights Watch of Iraqis UNACCOUNTED FOR, many assumed dead, during the Ba'athist regime, NOT about any "mass graves". This included Iraqis who left Iraq for whatever reasons (fell in love with someone not their spouse, went AWOL, committed a crime & ran away, etc); Iraqis disappeared by family or enemies or random criminals or the Iraqi government; Iraqis missing from the decade-long Iran-Iraq war; missing from the 1991 Gulf War, etc.

And that 290,000 was rounded up to 300,000 and termed "Iraqis in mass graves killed by Hussein"...by the BUSH Cabal in 2003. And that 300,000 then got rounded up to 500,000 by bush & his Cartel and bushbots...until recently. Notice bush only says "thousands" now?

-Third, because to date not one body has been exhumed by the US or "coalition" forces;

-And fourth, as Islam requires immediate burial, mass graves are what happens during wartime...how many were killed by the US; during the Gulf War -mass-graving thousands of Iraqis by bulldozing over them, the Basra Highway massacre, and more bombs dropped during the Gulf War than the entire tonnage dropped in WWII...during a decade of almost daily bombing...during a decade of killing sanctions...and now during another 2 years of war and daily "shock and awe" bombing the crap out of Iraq cities and slaughtering of Iraqis.


Unrecorded victims
July 21, 2004

Tony Blair and others claim 300,000 bodies have been found in Iraqi mass graves. In fact, there have been no official exhumations - or count.

So what is the coalition's evidence to substantiate the numbers cited? The coalition's claims are based less on investigation and excavation than on guesswork.

Blair stated that the graves of 300,000 have already been found. Yet when I asked Joanna Levison of the US state department how many bodies have been exhumed, she said: "Through official procedures? None." Jonathan Forrest of Inforce, the International Forensic Centre for the Investigation of Genocide at Bournemouth University, also says that no bodies have been exhumed, except unofficially by Iraqi communities.

Forrest believes that he might, inadvertently, have played a part in giving prominence to this figure. He says journalists in Iraq constantly asked his team how many were in the graves. "So we adopted the Human Rights Watch figure of 290,000, and rounded it up to 300,000." Yet HRW's figure is an estimate for the number of Iraqis who disappeared under the Ba'athists, "many of whom are believed to have been killed" - not for the number buried in mass graves.

HRW itself refuses to use its figure of 290,000 as an estimate for the number of bodies in mass graves. The group's senior researcher in Baghdad says: "How can we conclude that they are all in mass graves? We won't know that until there have been full-scale exhumations of the grave sites. There have been no official exhumations yet."

http://www.guardian.co.uk/analysis/story/0,3604,1265520,00.html

One week later:

PM admits graves claim 'untrue'
July 18, 2004

Downing Street has admitted to The Observer that repeated claims by Tony Blair that '400,000 bodies had been found in Iraqi mass graves' is untrue, and only about 5,000 corpses have so far been uncovered.

http://observer.guardian.co.uk/politics/story/0,6903,1263830,00.html

"Iraqi Mass Graves" In Perspective

In the past few months the graves of thousands of civilians have been unearthed in war-torn Iraq. Not surprisingly, the White House has wasted no time in declaring the dead to be prime examples of Saddam Hussein's brutality and a further justification for our invasion. But a check of the historical record on this matter reveals yet another calculated distortion by the administration and its supporters.

At the end of the 1991 Gulf War legions of Shia radicals - the kind we've seen clamoring for an Islamic state - attacked and killed anyone connected to Iraq's secular government. Urged to "take matters into their own hands" by the first Bush administration and mistakenly believing that Iraq's army had been destroyed, armed militants went from city to city in southern Iraq mercilessly butchering scores of innocents.

All told, several thousand military personnel, policemen, clerks, and employees of the government were slain, according to Omar Ali, another regional authority.

Accepting Washington's pronouncements about a vanquished Iraqi military, up to 400,000 Kurds undertook a ferocious spree of mayhem that rivaled that of the Shia. According to Mackay, in the city of Kirkuk "no one bothered to count how many servants of Baghdad were shot, beheaded, or cut to shreds with the traditional dagger stuck in the cummerbund of every Kurdish man. By the time Kurdish rage had exhausted itself, piles of corpses lay in the streets awaiting removal by bulldozers."

http://www.democraticunderground.com/articles/03/09/12_graves.html

Human Rights Watch agreed:

The Uprising In Iraq

In the immediate wake of Iraq's withdrawal from Kuwait, a new human rights crisis unfolded, this time in war-ravaged Iraq itself. Residents of at least two dozen southern Iraqi cities, joined in many cases by disaffected returning soldiers, rose up against the government in early March, ousting government forces from nearly all of those cities. Similar rebellions broke out within days throughout the predominantly Kurdish north of the country.

For their part, rebels and their sympathizers in both northern and southern cities killed hundreds, if not thousands, of members of the security forces and others allegedly working for the Baath Party or the government. While many were killed in battle, others were summarily executed after they had surrendered and were taken into custody, sometimes after summary people's "trials."

http://www.hrw.org/reports/1992/WR92/MEW1-02.htm

"It was a revolution," says one Basrawi rebel named Mohamad, who deserted his army unit after the intifada began and eventually made it to the United States. "It was glorious. There were demonstrations and shooting. There were bodies all over the place. The persons who got killed on the Ba'athi side deserved to be killed."


http://www.motherjones.com/news/feature/2001/11/iraq.html

This, then is the primary source of the "mass graves" of Iraq.

What government in the world would refrain from using all necessary means to quell a violent uprising of this kind? No one denies that the regimes response was swift and merciless, or that many innocents were caught up in the retaliation and destruction. But if blame is assigned, shouldn't it start with the instigators of the carnage along with the foreign government who misled them about the forces they were going up against and yet egged them on?

Like claims about Iraq's weapons of mass destruction or Baghdad's links to al Queda, the mass graves of Iraq are another example of history and reality being distorted to fit the ulterior motives of the White House.

http://usa.mediamonitors.net/content/view/full/433

Saddam's 'Mass Graves': The Third Big Bush Lie?

The mass graves announcement was made November 8, 2003 by (bush appointee) Sandra Hodgkinson, at the time director of the Provisional Authority’s Mass Graves Action Plan. Hodgkinson reported that there were “reports” from Iraqis and that they believed the estimates of sites and bodies. She said they had confirmed 40 sites and identified 2,115 bodies.

But in July of 2004 Tony Blair’s office admitted that the number of bodies that had been found in mass graves had been exaggerated by 88%. The number of bodies was put at 5,114 and the estimates of 300,000-400,000 unsubstantiated.

The British are the source of USAID’s report on the subject. Therein they also cite Human Rights Watch. But Human Rights Watch did not consider the conditions in Iraq defensible in terms of humanitarian intervention: "The lack of ongoing or imminent mass slaughter was itself sufficient to disqualify the invasion of Iraq as a humanitarian intervention.” Amnesty International is also enlisted as support.

Is this Strike Three? Has mass graves taken its place with WMD and the 9/11-Iraqi-Al Qaeda connection? Has Bush struck out in his attempt to provide any justification for the Iraq War?

To exaggerate the scale of human liquidation for geopolitical ends is the moral equivalent of a capital crime, not a successful at bat in a political game.

http://edstrong.blog-city.com/read/1040713.htm

Thousands of Iraqi troops were buried alive in their trenches, with US troops bulldozing over top of them;

"Many Iraqi soldiers were killed by the simple expedient of burying them alive: in one report, American earthmovers and ploughs mounted on tanks were used to attack more than 70 miles of trenches. Colonel Anthony Moreno commented that for all he knew, 'we could have killed thousands'.

One US commander, Colonel Lon Maggart, estimated that his forces alone had buried about 650 Iraqi soldiers.

"What you saw was a bunch of buried trenches with peoples arms and things sticking out of them,' observed Moreno.
http://www.thetruthseeker.co.uk/article.asp?ID=45

The US Pentagon defended this atrocity, saying there was a "gap" in international law that allowed for burying the troops alive.
http://jeff.paterson.net/aw/aw4_buried_alive.htm

********

Poll: Only 2% of Iraqis View the US as Liberators, 97% as Occupiers
http://www.independent-media.tv/item.cfm?fmedia_id=7752...

Study puts Iraqi toll at 100,000
Most killed by US & "coalition" forces; 2003-2004
http://www.cnn.com/2004/WORLD/meast/10/29/iraq.deaths /

Human Rights Watch; Iraq invasion cannot be justified as humanitarian intervention
http://www.commondreams.org/headlines04/0126-07.htm

********

If "hundreds of thousands" of remains are uncovered in those "mass graves", and if it's proven by forensics they were not killed by US forces during the Gulf War, or the current invasion & occupation, then I will believe the "Hussein mass-graved hundreds of thousands" rhetoric.

Until then, the facts say otherwise.

But every lie helps when one is lying a nation to death & destruction.

[applegrove]

1. Saddam Husseing killed over a million people in wars, invations,

draining farmland, opposing UN reguations, killing oponents, etc. etc.

The story on him is long and old and sad (since he was a favoured allie of the Right Wing in the USA). These same people who take him out now are the very same ones ... Cheney & Rumsfield who made deals with him to start wars and give good deals to USA corporations back 15 to 30 years ago). They put him in place. He ended up funding the terrorists in Israel. They had to take him out. The problem is the policy of supporting 'strongmen' if they give good oil deals to begin with.

These assholes in the WH also had a chance to get Saddam to leave willingly just before they went to war.

Don't fall for the old trick of making the enemy of your enemy (the WH) your friend. Saddam Hussein is no friend to manking or the millions he terrorized, marginalized, stole from, killed, gassed, started needless wars against, raped, tortured, impoverished, etc. etc.

[LynnTheDem]

2. I've read your posts.

You're entitled to your opinion.

Your FACTS are incorrect, but you've made it very clear you will not allow any facts to stand in your way.

Good day to you. :)

[Name removed]

9. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[LynnTheDem]

11. I wish I did!

I'd rather NOT know all this shit...but that doesn't help anything either, does it. Because the rest of the world knows. The Iraqis know. And our pretending we don't know, or remaining ignorant won't change anything other than make things worse because until we all realize what has been and is being done in our names, we will not be able to stop it and put things right.

The issue of Hussein is seen by so many Americans as a black-white issue only; he was a "moster" or you're a "Saddam lover". Neither is true.

He was very ruthless and very brutal to ANYONE who threatened his power; bush calls Fallujah a "base of Saddam loyalists". NO, bush. Fallujah OPPOSED Saddam Hussein for years; when Hussein demanded Fallujah religious services include a prayer for him, Fallujah's SUNNI clerics said piss off and refused to do so.

But he did do good things for the people of Iraq as well, and that's just a fact. That doesn't make me a "Saddam-lover", it makes me a FACT-lover.

As so many Iraqis have said (and no one in America bothers to hear) as long as you left his government alone, they left you alone.

GOOD GOD people! When the US military declared a "weapons amnesty", the SHIA were TURNING IN TANKS! The SHIA MILITIA and BADR BRIGADES refused to give up their weapons, told the greatest military power in the world to get lost; staged 2 uprisings that the US forces had to back down from; the only reason the Shia haven't run the US out of Iraq is because Sistani has told them to wait.

Iraqis never wanted us to invade & occupy and "liberate" them. A bunch of exiles said they did; like Iranian spy and master liar Chalabi who had NEVER been in Iraq under Hussein's reign; like car-bombing terrorist and "Iraq can launch WMD within 45 minutes" liar Allawi; and like the "they raped me and killed my husband" lying prostitute, THEY were saying the Iraqis would greet us as liberators; the IRAQIS didn't say that.

And the Iraqis have made their feelings very well known. Too bad America wasn't and isn't listening.

[Old and In the Way]

24. Leaving Saddam Hussein aside.

We are destroying one of the most progressive, most democratic, most moderate society, and most secular countries in the Middle East. What we've done is facilitate the rebirth of Islamic extremism and insure a more radical pan-Islamic future for that area of the world. Were I an Iraqi, I know what I would curse the name Bush as view it as synonymous with evil.

I rea.lly appreciate this research. I have found very little about the mass graves on the Internet....most probably because it is not true. In the adsence of facts, propaganda and lies bloom.

[Make7]

35. "Let him who is without sin cast the first stone."

LynnTheDem wrote:
You're entitled to your opinion.

Your FACTS are incorrect, but you've made it very clear you will not allow any facts to stand in your way.

LynnTheDem from the original post:
-Third, because to date not one body has been exhumed by the US or "coalition" forces;

"Mass grave unearthed in Iraq - Wednesday, October 13, 2004
BAGHDAD, Iraq (CNN) -- U.S. forces have exhumed a mass grave in northwestern Iraq and uncovered the remains of hundreds of people."

Source: CNN

-Make7

[countryjake]

36. "Ignorance is preferable to error; and he is less remote from the truth...

who believes nothing, than he who believes what is wrong."
-- Thomas Jefferson


Just as Lynn is saying, those graves contain victims who were shot, not gassed. And they are far from the 50,000 claimed, even farther from the 300,000 claimed earlier, when all we heard, daily, was that he "gassed his own people"

I saw the footage when those graves were being exhumed, live as it was happening, on CNN, & the Iraqis were adamant to the point of being hostile that they wanted no help from the Americans who were present. That forensic fellow who was quoted in the article was interviewed & stated they were in a very difficult position, as it was necessary to treat it as a crime scene, but the relatives were intent on doing their own digging & identifying remains of their kin, to ensure they were treated with proper respect & tradition & allowing families to grieve.

If you're interested in finding higher numbers, try googling
"Graves in Guatemala".

Edited to add this link:
http://www.rightsaction.org/articles/Archive_O04/0797p2.htm

[LynnTheDem]

47. Not quite;

1. US troops don't do exhumations. Especially when all evidence of mass graves is to be preserved for prosecution evidence.

Forensic experts do them.

2. The Iraqi government has identified about 40 mass graves, but until now none has been scientifically exhumed -- in part because European forensic teams won't collect evidence that might be used to win death penalty convictions.

http://www.boston.com/news/world/articles/2004/10/13/in_iraq_grave_evidence_of_regimes_horrors?mode=PF

3. Ask the Turks what they did to the 30,000 Kurds they killed.

4. Sure glad that's the only thing you found to disagree with in my entire OP.

:eyes:

[Make7]

53. not one body has been exhumed by the US or coalition forces?

LynnTheDem wrote:
1. US troops don't do exhumations. Especially when all evidence of mass graves is to be preserved for prosecution evidence.

Forensic experts do them.

2. The Iraqi government has identified about 40 mass graves, but until now none has been scientifically exhumed -- in part because European forensic teams won't collect evidence that might be used to win death penalty convictions.

http://www.boston.com/news/world/articles/2004/10/13/in...

3. Ask the Turks what they did to the 30,000 Kurds they killed.

4. Sure glad that's the only thing you found to disagree with in my entire OP.

• The military has forensic experts. "The U.S. Army Criminal Investigation Laboratory, located at Fort Gillem, Georgia, provides forensic laboratory services to DoD investigative agencies and other federal law enforcement agencies. The USACIL also operates an Army school to train forensic laboratory examiners and manages the USACIDC criminalistics and visual information programs." - US Army Criminal Investigation Command
  
  
• "U.S. forces have exhumed a mass grave in northwestern Iraq and uncovered the remains of hundreds of people. Many of the bodies found at the site near al-Hatra are believed to be the bodies of Kurdish women and children thought slaughtered by the Saddam Hussein regime. A pool reporter recently was taken to the site, and the evidence gathered at the site -- a remote wadi, or valley that cannot be seen by passing vehicles -- is expected to be used in the war crimes trial against Saddam Hussein and his Baathist allies." - CNN October 13, 2004
  
  
• The Turks won't return my phone calls.
  
  
• I didn't respond to your original post.
  

-Make7

[LynnTheDem]

54. You're entitled to your opinion.

"Yet when I asked Joanna Levison of the US state department how many bodies have been exhumed, she said: "Through official procedures? None."


Have a nice day. :)

[Make7]

77. Perhaps you've heard of a thing called a calender.

One can be used to place the following in chronological order:

LynnTheDem posted on March 6, 2005:
-Third, because to date not one body has been exhumed by the US or "coalition" forces;

Guardian Unlimited - July 21, 2004
Yet when I asked Joanna Levison of the US state department how many bodies have been exhumed, she said: "Through official procedures? None."

CNN - October 13, 2004
U.S. forces have exhumed a mass grave in northwestern Iraq and uncovered the remains of hundreds of people.

Many of the bodies found at the site near al-Hatra are believed to be the bodies of Kurdish women and children thought slaughtered by the Saddam Hussein regime.

A pool reporter recently was taken to the site, and the evidence gathered at the site -- a remote wadi, or valley that cannot be seen by passing vehicles -- is expected to be used in the war crimes trial against Saddam Hussein and his Baathist allies.

That really isn't too difficult, is it?

---

LynnTheDem posted on March 6, 2005:
Your FACTS are incorrect, but you've made it very clear you will not allow any facts to stand in your way.

-Make7

[clem_c_rock]

56. SElf DEleted

[LynnTheDem]

59. A few;

-draining farmland

Marshlands were drained...the VERY SAME PLAN the US had.

-They (US govt) put him in place.

No, they did not. The US installed the Ba'ath Party in Iraq, and they supported Hussein after he was in power.

-He ended up funding the terrorists in Israel.

I suspect the poster means he paid monies to the surviving families of Pakistanis who'd lost family members who were suicide-bombers; the very same thing Egypt, Saudi, Jordan, Kuwait etc did and still do.

-millions he killed...raped...

Geez even bush doesn't try to claim Hussein killed and raped "millions". Exaggerating such things is "a moral capital crime".

-started needless wars

If Canada publicly called for overthrowing the bush regime; if Canada paid liberals to try overthrowing the bush regime; if Canada bombed border towns in NY and Washington State and N. Dakota etc; if Canada attempted several assassination attempts (some successful) against members of the bush regime; if Canada told the UN they would not stop their attempts to overthrow/kill the bush regime, would the USA attack Canada and would the USA call their attack on Canada a "needless war"?

Invading Kuwait was stupid on Hussein's part, because he took America's word on what they'd told him. Needless? With their slant-drilling of oil and undercutting OPEC, Kuwait dropped oil prices down to $11/barrel. I'd call it "needless" myself, but
most of the world didn't care at all...until the bush41/Saudi lies.

-He was a threat to Israel

Israel has one of the largest stockpiles of WMD in the world. Iraq had nothing. Israel gets $US billions yearly from us for their defense. For the past decade, Iraq had nothing. The "threat to Israel" is Sharon, imo.

-many Liberals believe that whenever genocide takes place of psychopaths get into power and start wars of aggression, many believe all over the world that it is fine to take the monster out.

Then why do the overwhelming majority of Americans say humanitarian intervention is NOT a justification to "take the monster out", and why did the ICRC, the HRW, and AI all say the invasion of Iraq does NOT qualify as a humanitarian intervention?

-During a war a government can use propaganda

Where does it say it's ok and legal for America to lie us to war?

As well as posts in many other threads by the poster; a DU "search by author" will provide you those other threads in which the poster made incorrect claims in regards to Hussein, Iraq, and bush's invasion of.

[clem_c_rock]

60. Sorry self deleted - you were right - I wasn't reading things

closely enough.

Great sources by the way.

[LynnTheDem]

62. No problem!

I thought your question was totally legit. :)

Ta re the sources. I have tons more links, but I don't use them often coz they're considered "partisan" by anyone to the right of Howard Dean. :D

[clem_c_rock]

57. Self Deleted

[DemoTex]

3. Spell-check is available and free.

Increase the power of your post. Spell-check it! Scroll down and look for the Check Spelling button.

[LynnTheDem]

4. Facts would be a fine thing, too.

I'm "fall(ing) for the old trick of making the enemy of your enemy your friend"...even though I posted solid credible evidence.

Real progressives don't chant RW talking points and ignore factual and credible evidence.

[applegrove]

6. I hated Saddam Hussein, the gassing he did to the Kurds and his

backers in the WH in 1988. I was there and alive and polical at the time.

You could likely find 1000 arguments saying that Saddam Hussein was no threat and I agree he was no threat to the USA directly. He was a threat to Israel and all the people in Iraq. They think hundreds of thousands of kids died during the UN sanctions. So you cannot let a situation like that go on.

Many, many Liberals believe that whenever genocide takes place of psychopaths get into power and start wars of aggression, many believe all over the world that it is fine to take the monster out. And that the UN should be doing that and being more aggressive.

Saddam should have been taken out 20 years ago but he fell into the immidiate short term needs of people like Rumsfield, Cheney, George Bush Sr. and Reagan.

Saddam was a monster. You will see when the trial starts.

That only means that Bush White House was stupid to invade under the guise of WMD. They should have just said Saddam will not leave and 50,000 will die this year. That is what the UN should have done.

Bush and Co. are a bunch of scary creepy people. They utopianly invaded Iraq thinking they didn't need the troops they needed. They lied about reasons for going to war. They use propaganda and represent the elites just as sure as they did when they were friends with Saddam Hussein.

Saddam a dangerous strongman and a psycho. Do not be sad for Saddam Husseing and I know this because I was an adult and watching the news before George Sr. was even elected in 1998. Liberals hated Saddam Hussein before he even gassed the Kurds.

Hating monsters is Liberal and it is old.

[Media_Lies_Daily]

40. Hmmmm..."gassing of the Kurds". Yet another unverified piece of....

...propaganda generated for the convenience of the Bushies, both old and new.

The first story about gassing anyone was during the Iran-Iraq War where our intel guys stated that the gas was of Iranian origin. That was because the Iraqis did not have that kind of gas during that time frame.

[applegrove]

73. Yes they did. The Brits & USA helped them to develop it. Gas was

a cool thing before Saddam used it. It was a toy.

[applegrove]

7. Double post n/t

[LynnTheDem]

10. Did he?

Did he "gas the Kurds"? There are a lot of reports out that say no he didn't. And his lawyer says they have witnesses that can prove he didn't.

But if he did, so did Iran.

So did Britain "gas the Kurds".

In fact, so is America using chemical weapons RIGHT NOW in Iraq.

You say Iraq "needlessly invaded" other nations. Oh really? That shows you know nothing about the facts of the Iran-Iraq war and while I agree he was stupid to have invaded Kuwait, there were valid reasons for him having done so, including getting the green-light from America.

He was NOT a threat to Israel or any of his neighbors. Israel has one of the largest WMD stockpiles in the world and every neighboring country of Iraq's said before bush's illegal invasion that Iraq WAS NOT a threat to them. They also didn't support bush's illegal invasion.

You're now trying to say the invasion was justified because the US refused to ease the UN sanctions which were killing hundreds of thousands of Iraqis?????!!

:wow:

You know nothing about the facts of Iraq under Saddam Hussein's government, you boviously don't know about the awards Iraq won, the improvements Hussein's government made to Iraqis' lives, or how under Hussein Iraqi women had the most freedoms of any nation in the area.

I bet you also believe in the 1991 Gulf War "incubator babies" and the 2003 "people shredder".

Maybe you should ponder just why the International Committee of the Red Cross, Amnesty International, and Human Rights Watch all say bush's invasion CAN NOT be called a "humanitarian intervention".

And "I'll see" when the trial starts, will I? Oh really? Here's another link you'll not bother to read;

Saddam trial 'may lack evidence'

...experts said at a Washington meeting organised by the American Enterprise Institute that any trial of Saddam could simply get bogged down over the lack of evidence.

http://www.theage.com.au/articles/2003/12/18/1071337066012.html

But hey, you don't require any actual EVIDENCE, do you! Nope, without one single shred of proof, you swallowed the "hundreds of thousands in mass graves" and chide me for "falling" for it.

Why not try opening that mind a wee bit and reading up on some facts before chanting the meaningless "he's a monster" bushCartel rhetoric? He was bloody ruthless, you bet. And how are we ourselves now in Iraq? Gee, so far in 2 years we've killed more Iraqis than Hussein did in the past decade, women are "no better off" and are going to be far worse off soon, and already Iraqis are saying they were better off under Hussein. What an improvement!

As for your belief that ANYONE is "SAFER" now, gee but you're so WRONG on that one, too;

”We have a stronger jihadi presence in Iraq today than in March 2003,” noted Roger Cressey, the former director for Transnational Threats in Bush's National Security Council at a briefing at the libertarian Cato Institute earlier this week.
http://www.commondreams.org/headlines04/0911-01.htm

Worldwide terrorism-related deaths on the rise
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/5889435%20 /

US Losing the War on Terror in Iraq; The invasion of Iraq has increased, not decreased. the threat of terrorist attack
http://www.intellectualconservative.com/article2629.html

Occupation Made World Less Safe, Pro-War Institute Says
http://www.globalpolicy.org/empire/terrorwar/analysis/2004/0526iissreport.htm

Iraq Invasion Hurt War on Terror
http://www.commondreams.org/views04/0719-10.htm

Musharraf: World more dangerous because of Iraq War
http://www.dailykos.com/story/2004/9/25/03544/7945

Blix Says Iraq War May Have Worsened Terror Threat
http://www.commondreams.org/headlines04/0319-02.htm

Poll: Aussies, Brits, Italians say Iraq war increased terrorism
http://www.startribune.com/stories/1576/5027215.html

Iraq intervention increased threat of terrorism
http://www.scoop.co.nz/mason/archive/scoop/stories/c7/9d/200409100845.68f9c878.html

UK Government; Iraq war 'increased terror threat'
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/3451239.stm

Iraq war has swollen ranks of al Qaeda
http://www.guardian.co.uk/international/story/0,3604,1063717,00.html

US State Department Corrects Report to Show Rise in Terrorism
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/5264512 /

Iraq has become a terrorist spawning ground, CIA admits
http://www.smh.com.au/news/After-Saddam/Iraq-a-terrorist-spawning-ground-CIA-admits/2005/02/17/1108609349394.html?oneclick=true

Iraq Conflict Feeds International Terror Threat
http://news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&u=/nm/20050216/us_nm/security_usa_dc_9

But the majority of Americans -62%- thought before bush's illegal invasion that invading Iraq would increase terrorism; they were correct;
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2003/02/07/opinion/meyer/main539846.shtml

And just one little thing...shouldn't it have been up to the IRAQIS to decide if they wanted to overthrow THEIR government???

[Old and In the Way]

25. You just wait, LynnTheDem

I'm sure he's researching all the RNC talking points nowand, failing to refute a single point you make, he'll beg you not to make us look like crackpot theorists. Reality sucks in Happyville.

My guess is Saddam dies before he gets his day in court. What he knows will never be allowed to be exposed in the court of world opinion.

[LynnTheDem]

31. But what the rightwingnuts are so incapable of understanding is the rest

of the WORLD KNOWS already about the articles I posted. MOST of the articles are from the UK mainstream media. THEY KNOW.

Yet if we in America dare to post such articles, we're "crackpot Saddam-lovers"!

WHO THINKS THIS? Other AMERICANS? Certainly not anyone else in the world because THEY ALREADY READ these articles, and there are plenty more of them.

So remaining IGNORANT of what the rest of the world already knows makes us "crackpots"??? Noooo, rightwingnuts; it just makes you the stupidest MFers on the planet. And the rest of the world knows that, too.

[applegrove]

5. Thank you for the advice on Spell Check. Yes I am dependent

on it but am not at my regular computer. Thanks for informing me it is right here on the site. I could have gone years and not noticed:yourock:

[K-W]

13. Your logic is unsound.

Basically you are arguing that because we know he did at least some bad things, we might as well just believe every claim against him.

Nobody is making anyone thier enemy or friend, cliche's and generalizations rarely do more than distort. You seem to have fallen for that old trick.

Saddam is our enemy because he is a nationalist and believes in Iraqi self-determination(meaning he retains economic control) and nationalized Iraqi oil. We got really enthusiastic after the success of Saudi Arabia and thought our old ally Saddam would make a similar deal with us. We pressured him and pressured him and pressured him but in the end he refused to sign his oil over to us. The crooks in washington felt betrayed and put him at the top of thier enemies list.

The simple fact is these are liars with a motivation to make Saddam look as bad as possible. You simply cannot take thier claims at face value no matter how plausible they are.

[Media_Lies_Daily]

39. Oh, please....give it a rest. We all know who started this war in Iraq...

...and we all know that the war was based on a pack of lies perpetrated by the Busch Junta.

We also know that 90% of what our Government told us about Saddam was bs propaganda designed to fool as many people as possible and make them believe that a war was necessary, whatever the reason. Did you fall for that stuff, too?

Looks like the only person in this thread that's fallen for any tricks at all is you...and the tricks were created by the Busch Junta.

[hector459]

55. Great post and research. I agree, especially about many of the dead

killed by the US during Desert Storm. And not to mention the number Iraqis also killed by the Kurds and Iranians. Not that the Saddam regime didn't kill many, but the numbers just don't add up and Saddam was not directly responsible for many of the murders committed by his ruthless Baathists. If we hold Saddam accountable, then we must hold Bush accountable for the all the police brutality that kills people in this country.

[evilqueen]

8. good work, lynn n/t

[LynnTheDem]

12. Ta, EvilQueen. You have a very green thumb, I see...

Very healthy looking palm tree ya got there. :D

[applegrove]

14. Saddam did invade Kuwait. That gave the UN the right to utter some

propaganda (and USA was part of the UN responce). The babies and the Iraqi satellite photos were all propaganda and a tool of war just like a gun is.

During a war a government can use propaganda. Now as to WMD - they were just dupes (and wanted to be duped). History will record it.

History will also record how henious a person Saddam was.

[K-W]

15. I cant make out your whole post, but

No, during wars governments cant use propaganda on thier citizens and allies. Being at war doesnt give the government to right to become tyranical despite the fact that most governments do so.

[soothsayer]

16. Kuwait was slant drilling into Iraq's oil (using US equipment)

Soooo....defending himself perhaps in that case?

[K-W]

17. It was an oil rights dispute between a feudal monarchy and a dictator.

So the dictator took over the country that the feudal monarchy was unjustly ruling.

I think we can say that the invasion wasnt really the big problem with the situation, the fact that we have supported totalitarian regimes in both Iraq and Kuwait might be a better place to point some blame.

[LynnTheDem]

19. American involvement in Gulf 1991 was a pack of BS, too

General Colin Powell; "I think we could go to war if they invaded Saudi Arabia. I doubt if we would go to war over Kuwait."

On 24 July 1990 the US State Department spokeswoman, Margaret Tutwiler, asked whether the US had any military plans to defend Kuwait, replied: ‘We do not have any defense treaties with Kuwait, and there are no special defense or security commitments to Kuwait.’

On July 25th, US ambassador to Iraq, April Glaspie, met with Saddam Hussein to discuss the coming invasion;

Glaspie: "But we have no opinion on the Arab-Arab conflicts, like your border disagreement with Kuwait. The instruction we had during this period was that we should express no opinion on this issue and that the issue is not associated with America. James Baker has directed our official spokesmen to emphasize this instruction."

On July 31, two days before the invasion, Assistant Secretary of State John Kelly testified before Chairman Lee Hamilton of House Foreign Affairs. Asked repeatedly if we would come to the defense of Kuwait if it were attacked, he insisted there was no obligation on our part to do so.

Meanwhile, Iraq prepared for a meeting the following day with Kuwait to negotiate a deal on the oil issues. The talks ended badly, with the Kuwaiti emir refusing to attend.

http://www.polyconomics.com/searchbase/02-19-98.html

And then BRING ON THE LIES!

Colin Powell said he had "top secret satellite photos" showing thousands of Iraqi troops massed on the Saudi border, showing that Iraq intended to invade into Saudi. That was a total lie.

Satellite photos taken at the exact same time in the exact same place showed...nothing. Miles and miles of empty sand.

It never happened.

http://www.csmonitor.com/2002/0906/p01s02-wosc.html

Another lie, one which galvanized the American public's support for the 1991 Gulf War, was the horrendous story of Iraqis in Kuwaiti hospitals dumping babies out of incubators and leaving them to die on the floor. This was totally untrue, made up by the PR firm Bush41 had hired (the same PR firm Bush43 now uses). President Bush mentioned the incubator babies in five speeches and seven senators referred to them in speeches backing a pro-war resolution...motion for war passed by just five votes.

Later, Amnesty International, who had also been duped by the testimony, admitted it had got it wrong.

It never happened.

http://foi.missouri.edu/polinfoprop/nocasusbelli.html

[K-W]

20. Yep, we backstabbed Saddam because we decided he was

more trouble than he was worth when he was becoming increasingly independent of washington. We knew he was going to attack Kuwait, we made sure he thought he could get away with it, and we were ready to spring into action and go after him for it. And as an extra special bonus we had time to forge evidence to convince Saudi Arabia that Iraq was going to attack them and we got an extra bonus prize out of Saudi Arabia letting us move our military in.

[clem_c_rock]

58. Nice work - I'm looking into more of this. One question:

At what point did Iraq move troops into Kuwait? This is the part that confuses me.

[LynnTheDem]

61. Aug 2, 1990

On 24 July 1990 two Iraqi armoured divisions moved from their bases to take up positions on the Kuwaiti border.

Aug 1, 1990 was to be a meeting between Iraq & Kuwait; Kuwait refused to show up.

Aug 2, 1990, Iraqi troops moved into Kuwait.

http://www.polyconomics.com/searchbase/02-19-98.html

http://demopedia.democraticunderground.com/index.php/Iraq_War

[clem_c_rock]

63. Thanks - you rock

I'm putting together my own research site with articles just like this.

Much obliged.

You do your homework.

[LynnTheDem]

64. Thanks, clem; may I have the link to your site when you're up & running?

I'd love to add another research site to my list and know several people who would like, as well.

[clem_c_rock]

65. It's here for now

http://reseaudesign.com/research/

Don't turn me in now.

[LynnTheDem]

66. Thanks! And I promise not to turn you in....

if you promise not to turn me in.

:D :D :D

[clem_c_rock]

67. Only as long as you keep posting all these articles

will you be safe.

[LynnTheDem]

72. Using coercion and blackmail???!!! Why you...you...you...BUSHIE!

:D :D :D

Actually I think I've about posted every past article I had in my collection, lol! Now we just wait for new ones...non-M$M, of course.

WAIT! I got one I bet 99% of the world don't know about...

Remember right after the actual invasion, bush & bLiar were DEMANDING the world and the UN lift all the UN sanctions against Iraq??? They made a big stink about France and Germany etc being bastards for not wanting them lifted until the UN weapons teams verified Iraq was WMD-free...exactly as the UN sanctions resolution called for?

Well what I think most the world doesn't know, because I don't think it was ever reported in any media, is that at the same time, bush did THIS:

Bush Renews Sanctions on Iraq, July 31, 2003

(Certifies to Congress That Iraq Is a Continuing Threat)

President Bush has formally renewed the U.S. sanctions against Iraq, citing continued instability in the country, as well as the need to "ensure the establishment of a process leading to representative Iraqi self-rule."

To extend the sanctions, the president certified to Congress that Iraq continues to pose a threat to the United States. Former President George Bush first imposed sanctions on Iraq on August 2, 1990.

http://www.usembassy.it/file2003_07/alia/a3073102.htm


Ahhh yes...here's what some rightwingnuts had to say about the UN wanting to follow the UN Resolution THAT THE US WROTE about sanctions not being lifted until Iraq was verified by the UN as being WMD-free;

ParaPundit: Axis Of Weasels Refuse To Lift UN Sanctions On Iraq

http://www.parapundit.com/archives/001151.html

The Command Post - Iraq - Putin Opposes US, Britain on Iraqi Sanctions

http://www.command-post.org/2_archives/007052.html

A wonderful assortment of rightwingnut moranity and ignorance within. :D

[clem_c_rock]

69. Sorry, now I'm all confused

If, on the 24th of July, the Iraqi troops were amassed on the Kuwaiti border, wouldn't the satelite images have shown that?

[LynnTheDem]

71. Yep sure; but Powell's lie was of Iraqi troops massing on SAUDI'S border.

Not Kuwait's.

No one in the region, or in the US, particulary cared about Iraq invading Kuwait. As Powell said:

"I think we could go to war if they invaded Saudi Arabia. I doubt if we would go to war over Kuwait."

Apparently Powell was very surprised when he came back from a trip & was told the US was planning to attack Iraq. And then came Powell's satellite pics, supposedly showing Iraqi troops massed on Saudi's border; Time got the same sat pics...nothing but empty sand for miles. The pics were so clear, you could see the airplanes at Baghdad airport...and NO troops along Saudi's border.

Powell's pics were never shown to the public, and they're still marked as classified.

And then came the "incubator babies" BS. And it all went downhill fast from there.

[clem_c_rock]

74. Ok - now I'm straight

It's just amazing how terrified they are of public opinion. That's why they have Nayirah's incubator testimony, the Gulf of Tonkin, Op Northwoods, and the 8 step Pearl Harbor plan, and now the WMD's.

And the public never fails to eat it up every single time.

Thanks much

[LynnTheDem]

75. They are terrified, yep.

They know telling the truth won't get them what they want.

Gotta wonder about the average American IQ; how many times will they let this very same bunch lie to them???!

Amazing.

[bvar22]

68. It is especially embarrassing that the USA....

...restored a Feudal Monarchy to power after chasing Saddam from Kuwait.

No spreading freedom and democracy for Poppy Bush!.

[LynnTheDem]

18. What is so hilariously IRONIC about the Kuwaitis slant-drilling; July 2003

AMERICA caught Kuwait. Slant-drilling. Iraq's oil.

And told Kuwait stop, don't do it again...OR ELSE.

:eyes:

[applegrove]

21. Never heard that. But sounds like something an MBA suggested.

[LynnTheDem]

22. Theft of Iraqi Oil

On May 25, while scanning the Air Force Defense Meteorological Satellite Program images pipelined into his desktop from 450 miles in orbit, Hank Brandli skidded at a nighttime photo of Iraq. It looked familiar. But not exactly.

Brandli retrieved another DMSP image he'd archived from May 3. He compared the two. The most recent photo showed a blazing corridor of light running the length of Kuwait, south to north, all the way to the Iraqi border. The image wasn't there on May 3.

'It's going right up to Iraq's oil fields,' says the retired Air Force colonel from his home in Palm Bay.

http://www.therandirhodesshow.com/randirhodes/messageboards/lofiversion/index.php?t2026.html

http://www.sxlist.com/techref/other/war4oil.htm

Arrows point to progress of construction in Kuwait from May 3 (left) and May 25 (right). Brandli says soft-glowing areas represent burning gas from oilwells. Sharp-edged areas indicate lighting. Yellow lines are borders.



Satellite Eyes Secret Project

http://www.popularmechanics.com/science/technology_watch/1286771.html

Can't find the article where the US denies giving Kuwait permission, tells Kuwait to knock it off; will post when I find it, it's here somewhere in my files...

[Igel]

82. Don't know about slant drilling being that visible

from the air.

On the other hand, all three of the brightly lit lines running north, south, and east perfectly correspond to the main roads.

If you ask me, it looks like they put lights up along the highways.

[Name removed]

41. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[LynnTheDem]

23. "Mass graves to reveal Iraq war toll"

The task of identifying thousands of Iraqi soldiers and civilians who died during this year's war has begun with the exhumation of a mass grave at one of Saddam Hussein's former palaces in Baghdad.
The Iraqi Red Crescent, the Islamic version of the Red Cross, which is coordinating the exhumations, said 45 bodies had been recovered since the palace beside the Tigris river, now used as the coalition headquarters.

Nobody knows exactly how many Iraqis died in the war (actual invasion of Iraq), but an Anglo-American research group, the Iraq Body Count, has estimated the number of civilian fatalities at between 6,000 and 7,800. The number of military casualties is between 10,000 and 45,000.

Many places where retreating Iraqi troops or arriving Americans buried the dead are known to locals, but the Red Crescent has urged people not to disturb the graves in order to avoid the destruction of identification evidence. . . .

"During the war the American soldiers told my volunteers not to go near the bodies in burnt-out tanks, because they would almost certainly have been attacked with depleted uranium," he said.

"We never knew what the Americans did with these bodies, and we probably never will."

http://www.guardian.co.uk/Iraq/Story/0,2763,1021466,00.html

[LynnTheDem]

26. A very interesting email from Jude Wanniski to Howell Raines, NYTimes

Over the last several weeks, Howell, your paper has run several accounts of “mass graves” being unearthed in Iraq. ... The very first report, as I recall, was of mass graves that turned out to be cemeteries. But because the news accounts on CNN repeated incessantly that they were “mass graves,” it simply confirmed the public’s predisposition to believe that Saddam Hussein was a genocidal maniac.

(snip)

In an e-mail I received a few days ago from Joost Hilterman, the lawyer for Human Rights Watch who for the last decade has been the most insistent in arguing Saddam committed genocide. There has
been a conflict with our intelligence agencies on this matter, as they have acknowledged there has been no evidence that Saddam Hussein used WMD against his own people. It has been Hilterman’s
position that when the regime ended and a search could begin, mass graves containing upward of 100,000 Iraqi Kurds would be found in mass graves. He and Human Rights Watch originally believed
they had been “gassed,” but now contend they were rounded up in the final months of the Iran-Iraq war, trucked to remote areas south of Kurdistan, machine-gunned to death, and buried in mass graves.

As far as I know, these are the only alleged “acts of genocide” by the Baghdad government over the years, as Hilterman has acknowledged that the Iraqi Kurds who died at Halabja in March 1988 were caught between the warring Iraqi and Iranian armies.

http://www.casi.org.uk/discuss/2003/msg05044.html

Now THAT is VERY interesting. HRW themselves admitting no proof of gassing and now they believe the Kurds were "machine-gunned". Funny how the US M$M has never said one word about any of this.

[Old and In the Way]

27. How You and I Got Snookered, Jeanne Kirkpatrick

Memo To: Jeanne Kirkpatrick, former U.N. Ambassador 10/7/02
From: Jude Wanniski
Re: Why We Supported the Gulf War

Holy smokes, Jeanne, I saw you on LateEdition with Wolf Blitzer yesterday, talking about what a bad guy Saddam Hussein was for invading Kuwait in 1990. But then you said he was about to invade Saudi Arabia too. I’m amazed that after all these years you still think Saddam was going to gobble up Saudi Arabia after he digested Kuwait. Do you remember how skeptical both of us were about why we should get excited about why Iraq went into Kuwait, when nobody in the neighborhood seemed to be bothered? You had written an op-ed, I recall, which is probably why you got invited to the Saudi Embassy for a briefing by Saudi’s Ambassador to the United States, Prince Bandar, who is still there. I’d also written about why the United States should war with Baghdad when everyone knew the Kuwaiti Emir was stealing oil from Iraq and had driven the price of oil down to $11 a barrel by cheating the other oil producing countries on its promises to limit production. That’s how I got invited. I think we even shared a taxi from Empower America and went over together. I know for sure we sat next to each other in that little briefing room, where Prince Bandar told us why King Fahd had suddenly decided that Saddam was a threat to Saudi Arabia and to the peace of the region.

It was late August or early September, if I am not mistaken, because it did take a while for the Saudis and Egyptians to get their danders up after Saddam invaded Kuwait on August 2. The “evidence” that Saddam was about to hurl his military machine against the Saudis were photographs which Prince Bandar said he was shown in a Pentagon briefing, photos taken by “Naval Intelligence” which showed Iraqi tanks lined up at the Kuwait/Saudi border, ready to pounce! Wow, I remember thinking, this guy Saddam Hussein, who we backed in the war against Iran, turns out to be a Hitler after all. So did you. And we got behind President Bush and Defense Secretary Dick Cheney and his deputy secretary for policy, Paul Wolfowitz, and cheered our troops on. A few days later, on September 11, President Bush told a joint session of Congress that "following negotiations and promises by Iraqi dictator Saddam Hussein not to use force, a powerful army invaded its trusting and much weaker neighbor, Kuwait. Within three days, 120,000 troops with 850 tanks had poured into Kuwait and moved south to threaten Saudi Arabia. It was then I decided to act to check that aggression."

It was only later I discovered I had been snookered, Jeanne, and so had you. I was sure you had learned those photographs we saw showed tanks that were nowhere near the Saudi border – and Saddam never had the slightest intention of going anywhere near it. This has been confirmed in several different ways in the years since, but the first inkling that the photos were not what they were purported to be showed up in the St. Petersburg Times (Florida) of January 6, 1991. Jean Heller, a Times reporter, wrote "Public Doesn't Get Picture with Gulf Satellite Photos." She was interviewed last month, September 6, by Scott Peterson of The Christian Science Monitor after President Bush included the canard in his bill of indictment against Saddam in his United Nations speech. (We may hear it again tonight when he addresses the nation at 8 pm EDT). Ms. Heller told the Monitor “It was a pretty serious fib.” In 1991 she had written:

<snip>

rest here: http://polyconomics.com/PrintPage.asp?TextID=2240

[LynnTheDem]

30. Just found another from Jude Wanniski.

(Geeez I am spittin' mad!)

In Defense of Saddam Hussein

To: Barbara Crossette, New York Times
From: Jude Wanniski
Re: The Gassing of Iraq’s Kurds

http://www.polyconomics.com/searchbase/12-14-00.html

But what REALLY burns my toast is HRW!!! They decided it WASN'T GAS, it was MACHINE GUNS and never said so PUBLICLY???! That could have stopped this bullshit illegal invasion, occupation & slaughter cold.

[Hissyspit]

80. Kick

[Abelman]

28. Thank you

I have a Freeper friend who has been using this when I talk about the civilians dead from war. Now I have something to use against him.

[Old and In the Way]

29. Here's a good resource

Don't know if you've seen this paper....well footnoted as well:



U.S. Diplomatic and Commercial Relationships with Iraq, 1980 - 2 August 1990

Prepared by Nathaniel Hurd.
15 July 2000 (updated 12 December 2001 by Nathaniel Hurd and Glen Rangwala).

<snip>

1988
The CD approved exports in January and February to Iraq’s SCUD missile program’s procurement agency. These exports allowed Iraq to extend SCUD range far enough to hit allied soldiers in Saudi Arabia and Israeli civilians in Tel Aviv and Haifa.<26>
On 23 March, London’s Financial Times and several other news organizations reported from Halabja, located in Iraqi Kurdistan, that several days prior Iraq used CWs on Halabja’s Kurds.<27>
In May, two months after the Halabja assault, Peter Burleigh, Assistant Secretary of State in charge of northern Gulf affairs, encouraged U.S.-Iraqi corporate cooperation at a symposium hosted by the U.S.-Iraq Business Forum. The U.S.-Iraq Business Forum had strong (albeit unofficial) ties to the Iraqi government.<28>
The U.S. Senate Foreign Relations Committee sent a team to Turkey to speak to Iraqi Kurdish refugees and assess reports that Iraq "was using chemical weapons on its Kurdish population."<29> This report reaffirmed that between 1984 and 1988 "Iraq repeatedly and effectively used poison gas on Iran," the UN missions’ findings, and the chemical attack on Halabja that left an estimated 4,000 people dead.<30>
Following the Halabja attack and Iraq’s August CW offensive against Iraqi Kurds, the U.S. Senate unanimously passed on 8 September the "Prevention of Genocide Act of 1988" the day after it is introduced.<31> The act cuts off from Iraq U.S. loans, military and non-military assistance, credits, credit guarantees, items subject to export controls, and U.S. imports of Iraqi oil.<32>
Immediately after the bill’s passage the Reagan Administration announced its opposition to the bill,<33> and SD spokesman Charles Redman called the bill "premature".<34> The Administration works with House opponents to a House companion bill, and after numerous legislation compromises and end-of-session haggling, the Senate bill died "on the last day of the legislative session".<35>
According to a 15 September news report, Reagan Administration officials stated that the U.S. intercepted Iraqi military communications marking Iraq’s CW attacks on Kurds.<36>
U.S. intelligence reported in 1991 that the U.S. helicopters sold to Iraq in 1983 were used in 1988 to spray Kurds with chemicals.<37>
"Reagan administration records show that between September and December 1988, 65 licenses were granted for dual-use technology exports. This averages out as an annual rate of 260 licenses, more than double the rate for January through August 1988."<38>
A general note about the Security Council's reaction to Iraq's CW use. Between 1984 and the implementation of the ceasefire on 20 August 1988 the UN Security Council passed six resolutions directly or indirectly related to the "situation between Iran and Iraq." In 1984, Security Council Resolution (SCR) 552 "condemns recent attack on commercial ship en route to and from ports of Kuwait and Saudi Arabia"<39> but it did not pass a resolution on the Iran-Iraq War generally or the UN expert mission's chemical weapons March findings specifically. During all of 1985 the Security Council did not pass a resolution on the "situation between Iran and Iraq" or Iraq's chemical weapons use therein. Although the UN's expert mission concluded in March 1986 that Iraq used chemical weapons on Iranian troops,<40> SCR 582 (1986) symmetrically noted "that both the Islamic Republic of Iran and Iraq are parties to the Protocol for the Prohibition of the Use in War of Asphyxiating, Poisonous and Other Gases, and of Bacteriological Methods of Warfare signed at Geneva on 7 June 1925"<41> and "deplores...in particular the use of chemical weapons contrary to obligations under the 1925 Protocol".<42> Resolution 588 (1986) did not mention chemical weapons.<43> In 20 July 1987, SCR 598 again deplored "in particular the use chemical weapons contrary to obligations of the 1925 Protocol",<44> but does not elaborate. After considering the expert mission's 25 April 1988 report, the Security Council in Resolution 612 is "dismayed" by chemical weapons' continued use and "more intensive scale".<45> Furthermore, the Council "affirms the necessity that" both parties observe the 1925 Geneva Protocol, "condemns vigorously the continued use of chemical weapons" and "expects both sides to refrain from the future use of chemical weapons".<46> SCR 619 (1988) focused on implementing the United Nations Iran-Iraq Military Observer Group and did not mention chemical weapons.<47> After the ceasefire, the Security Council considered the reports of the expert missions from 20-25 July and 2-19 August 1988 and stated in SCR 620 that it is "deeply dismayed" by the "continued use of chemical weapons" and that "such use against Iranians has become more intense and frequent".<48> Despite identifying Iranians as more frequent chemical weapons targets, the Security Council did not condemn Iraq. Rather, the Security Council "condemns resolutely the use of chemical weapons in the conflict between the Islamic Republic of Iran and Iraq"<49>. All of the subsequent four resolutions, passed between 1989-1990 and relevant to "the situation between Iran and Iraq," pertained to the United Nations Iran-Iraq Military Observer Group and as such omitted any reference to chemical weapons use.<50>

The Security Council could only condemn Iraq by name for using chemical weapons through non-binding Presidential statements, over which permanent members of the Security Council do not have an individual veto. On 21 March 1986, the Security Council President, making a "declaration" and "speaking on behalf of the Security Council," stated that the Council members are "profoundly concerned by the unanimous conclusion of the specialists that chemical weapons on many occasions have been used by Iraqi forces against Iranian troops... the members of the Council strongly condemn this continued use of chemical weapons in clear violation of the Geneva Protocol of 1925 which prohibits the use in war of chemical weapons".<51> The US voted against the issuance of this statement, and the UK, Australia, France and Denmark abstained. However, the concurring votes of the other ten members of the Security Council ensured that this statement constituted the first criticism of Iraq by the Security Council. A similar Presidential statement was made on 14 May 1987, which noted that the Council was "deeply dismayed" about the CW use against Iranian forces and civilians.

1989
In March, CIA director William Webster testified before Congress that Iraq was the largest CW producer in the world.<52>
James Baker received an SD memo stating that Iraq was diligently developing chemical, biological, and new missiles, and that Baker was to "express our interest in broadening U.S.-Iraqi ties" to Iraqi Under-Secretary Hamdoon.<53>
Although the CIA and the Bush Administration knew that Iraq’s Ministry of Industry and Military Industrialization (MIMI) "controlled entities were involved in Iraq's clandestine nuclear, chemical, and biological weapons programs and missile programs ... the Bush administration dozens of export licenses that United States and foreign firms to ship sophisticated U.S. dual-use equipment to MIMI-controlled weapons factories".<54>
By October 1989, when all international banks had cut off loans to Iraq, President Bush signed National Security Directive (NSD) 26 mandating closer links with Iraq and $1 billion in agricultural loan guarantees. These guarantees freed for Iraq hard cash to continue to buy and develop WMDs, and are suspended only on 2 August 1990, the same day that Iraq invaded Kuwait. Richard Haass, then a National Security Council official, and Robert Kimmitt, Under Secretary of State for Political Affairs, also told the Commerce Department (CD) not to single Iraq out for dual-use technology restrictions.<55>
When one American firm twice contacted the CD with concerns that their product could be used for nuclear weapons (NW) and ballistic missiles, the CD simply requested Iraqi written guarantees about civilian use, said that a license and review was unnecessary, and convinced the company that shipment was acceptable.<56>
1990
From July 18 to 1 August (Iraq invaded Kuwait on 2 August) the Bush Administration approved $4.8 million in advanced technology product sales to Iraq. End-buyers included MIMI and Saad 16. Mimi was identified in 1988 as a facility for chemical, biological, and nuclear weapons programs. In 1989 Saad was linked to CW and NW development.<57>
The Bush Administration approved $695,000 worth of advanced data transmission devices the day before Iraq invades Kuwait.<58>
Overview
Items sent from the U.S. during the Reagan and Bush Administrations that helped Iraq’s non-conventional weapons programs and that were shipped to known military industrial facilities include:
Computers to develop ballistic missiles and nuclear weapons;<59> machine tools and lasers to extend ballistic missile range;<60> graphics terminals to design and analyze rockets;<61> West Nile Fever virus, a known potential BW agent, sent by the U.S. government’s Centers for Disease Control (CDC);<62> the agents for botulism, tetnus, and anthrax.<63>
One study lists 207 firms from 21 countries that contributed to Iraq’s non-conventional weapons program during and after the Iran-Iraq war. E.g., West German (86); British (18); Austrian (17); French (16); Italian (12); Swiss (11); and American (18).<64>
Throughout the U.S. exports to Iraq, several agencies were supposed to review items relevant to national security or that could be diverted for a nuclear program. The reviewers included the SD, DOD, Energy Department, Subgroup on Nuclear Export Coordination (included representatives from Commerce Dept., Arms Control and Disarmament Agency (ACDA), the intelligence community, and DOD).<65> Sometimes CD did not send items to reviewers. On other occasions, reviewers objected, and CD still approved the items. Stephen Bryen, Deputy Under Secretary of DOD for Trade Security Policy during the second Reagan Administration, claimed that the DOD objected to 40% of applications that CD actually sent to DOD for review. Compare with a 5% DOD objection rate to dual-use technology applications for export to the U.S.S.R. during that same time period.<66>

[LynnTheDem]

32. Thanks!

I've seen it, and have read most the declassified info in the National Archives; very interesting reading.

Hussein has always admitted Iraq used mustard gas. And he's always denied they used any other CW. As the US didn't care about any CW use by Iraq or Iran (and were happy to send Iraq satellite photos of Iranian positions to Iraq) & not only continued to support Iraq but whole-heartedly embraced Iraq, I don't see why Hussein would have admitted to mustard gas and denied anything else if he had used anything else, because ALL CWs are listed as one; it's not a case of mustard gas being "not as bad" to admit to as a nerve or blood agent.

And now the USA has admitted to using chemical weapons in Iraq. In 2003 - present. NOT 20 years ago, but NOW. But that's ok, American chemical weapons are GOOD chemical weapons; they only kill terraists. :eyes:

[TryingToWarnYou]

44. The US has used CW?

Lynn, thanks for the information you are providing. Do you have a direct link to the US using CW in Iraq? If this is true, it should be headline news.

Thanks

[LynnTheDem]

48. Yep;

Napalm, and the "new & improved" version "Mark 77", are FFE (flame fuel expedient) which are classified as "chemical weapons".

US admits it used napalm bombs in Iraq

http://www.globalsecurity.org/org/news/2003/030810-napalm-iraq01.htm

Many articles outside the US exist that mention the US using napalm, including the current Iraqi government's Ministry of Health.

US used banned weapons in Fallujah – Iraq's health ministry

http://en-1.ce.cn/World/Middleeast/200503/05/t20050305_3240353.shtml

Funny thing though...the M$M seems to be unaware of it all. :eyes:

[donheld]

33. If our government says it's true then i have to take a second look

I'm sorry but after they've told us nothing but lies the last 4 years who sane could believe ANYTHING they say.

[LynnTheDem]

34. Why didn't this same bunch use the "mass graves" and "he gassed his own

people" back in Gulf War I?

Why did they make up the lies about Iraqi troops massed on the Saudi border and the "incubator babies" crap?

Why wait over a decade later to use the "mass graves" and "gassed his own people" rhetoric?

Why did they claim there were "hundreds of thousands" in mass graves, when they had no idea if there were any at all?

Why did they claim they'd FOUND hundreds of thousands of bodies in mass graves when in fact, as recently admitted, they have only found 5000 remains?

...Why did they say THEY KNOW where the "WMD" are, there IS NO DOUBT?

...Why did bush say "We found them...we found the WMD" when he was referring to the UK-supplied hydrogen weather balloon trucks, and has since admitted Iraq hasn't had WMD since the early 1990s?

Seems to be a pattern with bush.

[Old and In the Way]

43. Maybe the answer is in plain sight.

Because they knew there'd be lots of mass graves exposed from DS1 and the embargo. What better way to condition the public for this, then by repeating this false association over and over. Like the "Saddam Hussein and 9/11" association.

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

37. Great post. Thanks, Lynn.

While Saddam was undoubtedly a thug in a region of thugs he was hardly the terrible "threat" that demanded preemptive/preventive invasion.

[LynnTheDem]

49. He was certainly bloody brutal, no doubt there.

But he wasn't the worst, and the vast majority of Americans agree;

Bush's more recent efforts to justify the war by citing Hussein's human rights record may also not be as compelling as the administration might wish. Only 27 percent of respondents said they think that countries have the right, without UN approval, to overthrow another government that is committing "substantial violations of its citizens' human rights," although another 41 percent said that intervention could be justified if the violations were "large-scale, extreme and equivalent to genocide."

In the case of Iraq, however, only 32 percent of respondents believed both that human rights abuses equivalent to genocide justified intervention and that such extreme violations were occurring under Hussein's rule.

Asked, "Do you think that there are other governments existing today that have human rights records as bad as that of Iraq under Saddam Hussein?" an overwhelming 88 percent said there are.

http://www.commondreams.org/headlines03/1114-06.htm

How come bush didn't demand Hussein be nicer to his people or else we'd invade?

ICRC, AI, and HRW say bush's invasion cannot be called a humanitarian intervention because there were no current, on-going or imminent mass killings and the worst atrocities from Hussein's regime were done in the 1980s.

We supported and aided Hussein in his 1980s atrocities, and murder is murder, be it 1 or 100 or 100,000 and should be held accountable.

But if we launched this illegal invasion & occupation and killed and wound hundreds of thousands of people (and our own uniformed men, women & teens) to charge Hussein with what he did 20 years ago with our support, then we must charge those in the US govt who aided him in those crimes...and that includes most the current bush regime.

If we are going to do retro-active invasions for 20-year old crimes, let's talk about the World Court indictment of America for genocide in Nicarauga...

[Dufaeth]

38. How many people go missing in the US every year?

Do our football players trample the graves every weekend?

[lumpy]

42. New mass graves found in Iraq

after the destruction of Fallujah in 2004. Bodies unidentifable because of severe burning caused by an illegal chemical weapons.

[slackmaster]

45. Gotta love revisionism

Keep it up, Lynn.

[CornField]

46. I interviewed a local guy who was in Iraq from day one

He told me about one mass grave that he helped to escavate. He said easily over 10,000 bodies and told me it was roughly the same size as the local landfill. He said a second was discovered just as he was pulling out to come home.

Now, this guy is a firefighter and a friend. He has absolutely no reason to lie to me about what he saw, heard and did while he was on active duty.

While there may have been exaggerations as the number of mass graves and the victims within, I have no doubt that there are mass graves in Iraq. My personal belief is that they are filled with the Shiites who came rushing back in after Gulf One, expecting the US to be backing them up as they over-threw the Saddam regime.

[LynnTheDem]

50. Of course there are mass graves in Iraq.

1. The country was at war for a decade; the Iran-Iraq war. During war, bodies are ALWAYS as quickly bulldozed into mass graves as possible. It's a health issue.

Just as US troops bulldozed dead Iraqis into mass graves during bush's invasion of Iraq in 2003.

2. US troops created mass graves by bulldozing over thousands of Iraqis during the 1991 Gulf War.

3. The Shia & Kurdish rebels in the 1991 uprisings slaughtered tens of thousands of Iraqis and dumped the bodies into mass graves.

4. The Iraqi government put down the uprisings (what government wouldn't have?) and those bodies ended up in mass graves.

5. The Turks have been slaughtering Kurds in Iraq for years. More mass graves.

6. The US did more bombing of Iraq during Gulf War than the entire amount of ordinance dropped in WW II. At least a few Iraqis got killed (US estimated 300,000-400,000). More mass graves.

7. Have you ever visited any of the many mass graves in America?

No one is saying there are NO mass graves in Iraq. My apologies if my post gave you that impression.

By the way; Prime Minister Tony Blair recently admitted only 5000 remains had been uncovered in Iraq's graves. Perhaps your firefighter saw the "mass graves" that in fact turned out to be cemetaries?

[kittykitty]

78. And bones last along time in the arid desert , hundreds of years

maybe thousands. I'm sure it's not hard to dig up skeletal remains anywhere.

And yes, there is a huge mass grave within 2 miles of me here in rural PA.

[LynnTheDem]

79. Very true! NYT and CNN on the first "mass grave discovery" in Iraq was

in fact a cemetary, not a "mass grave".

Funny thing though...neither the NYT nor CNN ever bothered to correct their mistake and inform Americans they'd been in error.

Then there was Murdoch's "torture warehouse full of victims' remains in coffins" story, remember that one? With lotsa lurid photos included! Here's the exciting cover photo many will recognize...just LOOK at that HUGE TYPEFACE!



Only it wasn't a "torture warehouse" at all. The remains were soldiers killed in the Iran-Iraq war. The "KILLING ROOM" was a "staging point for the exchange of such remains between Iraq and Iran". Like we're still doing from our Korean and Vietnam wars.

Reminds me of all those Faux Moos "we found WMD!!!!!!!" reports; they didn't bother much with correcting those, either.

DAMN that librul media! Another funny thing though; all that librul media, and only the rightwingnuts are duped. :shrug:

[Make7]

81. Bombs away!

LynnTheDem wrote:
The US did more bombing of Iraq during Gulf War than the entire amount of ordinance dropped in WW II.

Bombs Dropped Overseas, Dec 1941 to Aug 1945: 2,057,244 tons

(Source: Army Air Forces Statistical Digest, World War II)

"throughout the entire 43 days, the coalition air forces put up about 110,000 sorties. As shown here, the US Air Force flew nearly 60 percent of that total. We dropped about 88,500 tons of ordnance. Again, the US Air Force contribution was major." - Gen. Merrill A. McPeak, USAF

(Source: DOD News Conference, Washington, D.C. March 15, 1991)

---

LynnTheDem Post#59:
As well as posts in many other threads by the poster; a DU "search by author" will provide you those other threads in which the poster made incorrect claims in regards to Hussein, Iraq, and bush's invasion of.

-Make7

[Misunderestimator]

51. Great research!

:thumbsup:

[LynnTheDem]

52. Thanks.

I just don't like the bodies of the dead being used for political gain. Just as bush used/uses the bodies of the dead killed in 911 for his own political use, so did/does he use the bodies in Iraq.

It's wrong, it's sick, it's despicable.

Remember when bush said:

Remember we discovered mass graves with hundreds of thousands of men and women and children clutching their little toys, as a result of this person's brutality.

http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2003/11/20031117-1.html

What a SICK LIE. It takes a person totally lacking a soul to have said such a lie. Just bush playing and preying on the hearts and minds and souls of Americans.

And for the freeping morans who insist bush NEVER lies;

PM Tony Blair Admits Graves Claim 'Untrue'

http://observer.guardian.co.uk/politics/story/0,6903,1263830,00.html

As Intervention Magazine said;

"To exaggerate the scale of human liquidation for geopolitical ends is the moral equivalent of a capital crime."

[Massacure]

70. Saddam killed a ton of people. That is hard to argue against.

The question is whether it was worth the price we payed to overthrow him.

I'm glad Saddam is gone. Bush is an idiot with his military strategy though.

[LynnTheDem]

76. I don't find it hard to argue against, because we in fact have no figures.

The only figure we have is an estimate of an estimate given to HRW about the number of Iraqis unaccounted for since the 1970s; 250,000-290,000. This includes people who've run away for whatever reasons, been killed by strangers or family or enemies, are MIA, or indeed were killed by the Iraqi government. But we don't know if the 250K-290K is even true and we don't know how many of any amount were actually murdered by the Hussein govt.

Round up to 300K over 30 years; that's 10,000 per year; how many Americans disappear for whatever reasons every year in America? I've no idea, but if we knew, and we adjust for per capita, I wonder what the figures would show.

As the links in my OP discuss, we have no proof of how many people he did or didn't kill. I'm not talking about people dead in wars, or from UN sanctions, or from putting down violent uprisings, or from non-govt-sanctioned criminal behaviour (some of our cops kill Americans; that doesn't make bush is to blame) or from executions by Iraqi law (even laws we ourselves disagree with). I mean extra-judicial illegal murder. And we don't have any idea what that figure is. I'm sure it's at least in the thousands. But I'm equally sure it is not "hundreds of thousands" or "millions".

I don't know yet if I'm glad Hussein is gone. So far the Iraqis are a lot worse off with him gone. It looks fair to say the women of Iraq will remain worse off with him gone.

Time will tell.

But I very much doubt any of the surviving families of the estimated 100,000 we've killed will ever think their deaths were worth it. Especially when the Iraqi people never wanted us to invade, occupy and "liberate" them in the first place.