Now that the US captured it's former ally Saddam Hussein...

by logansrun 24 Replies latest social current

  • logansrun
    logansrun

    It's long, but do read this fascinating article from ZNet which gives a greater perspective on the events in Iraq...

    A Saddam Chronology

    Stephen R. Shalom
    Saddam Hussein is one of the world's great monsters. Nothing would be
    more welcome than to have him put on trial, a trial which could offer
    Iraqis and the world an honest accounting of his many crimes. However,
    as so often happens, when a trial is organized by those who are
    themselves guilty of serious crimes, truth is not the goal. Instead the
    historical record is falsified to make the one monster seem uniquely
    blameworthy and the ones running the show above criticism.

    We saw this pattern in the Tokyo trials following World War II, where
    the crimes of Japanese officials were documented in gruesome detail
    (except for the biological warfare programs, which Washington wanted to
    use for itself and except for the involvement of the emperor, who was to
    serve U.S. purposes during the occupation), while the crimes of the
    victors, such as the horrific fire-bombing raids and the destruction of
    Hiroshima and Nagasaki, were disregarded. Likewise, Panamanian ruler
    Manual Noriega was a thug who certainly belonged in the dock. But when
    the U.S. military invaded Panama in violation of international law and
    seized him for trial in the United States, there was no intention by the
    kidnappers that the trial be a forum for revealing the long-time ties
    between Noriega and the U.S. government, and particularly between
    Noriega and former CIA director George H. W. Bush.

    It is a matter of principle in Washington that Americans not be held to
    the same international standards as others. Thus, the U.S. refuses to
    endorse the International Criminal Court and demands that its allies
    give up their right to invoke the jurisdiction of the court when U.S.
    citizens are involved. But those of us who truly care about justice
    ought to demand that Saddam Hussein be tried before a court that is in
    no way subject to U.S. control or manipulation. Only in that way can the
    real truth come out.

    Already, however, much of the media is falling into line in framing the
    crimes of Saddam Hussein. For example, the Washington Post website
    offered a summary of "Events in the Life of Saddam Hussein" from the
    Associated Press. But the chronology was seriously incomplete. Below is
    that chronology, corrected to include -- indented and in brackets --
    some of the most serious omissions.
    Sunday, December 14, 2003; 8:34 AM


    A glance at the life of former Iraqi President Saddam Hussein:

    April 28, 1937 -- Born in village near desert town of Tikrit, north of
    Baghdad.

    1957 -- Joins underground Baath Socialist Party.

    1958 -- Arrested for killing his brother-in-law, a Communist, spends six
    months in prison.

    Oct. 7, 1959 -- On Baath assassination team that ambushes Iraqi
    strongman Gen. Abdel-Karim Kassem in Baghdad, wounding him. Saddam,
    wounded in leg, flees to Syria then Egypt.

    [This was not the only attempt to assassinate Kassem. In April 1960, the
    CIA approved using a poisoned handkerchief to kill Kassem. The
    "handkerchief was duly dispatched to Kassem, but whether or not it ever
    reached him, it certainly did not kill him." (Thomas Powers, The Man Who
    Kept the Secrets: Richard Helms and the CIA, New York: Knopf, 1979, p.
    130.)]

    Feb. 8, 1963 -- Returns from Egypt after Baath takes part in coup that
    overthrows and kills Kassem. Baath ousted by military in November.

    [The coup was backed by the CIA.

    "As its instrument the C.I.A. had chosen the authoritarian and
    anti-Communist Baath Party, in 1963 still a relatively small political
    faction influential in the Iraqi Army. According to the former Baathist
    leader Hani Fkaiki, among party members colluding with the C.I.A. in
    1962 and 1963 was Saddam Hussein....

    "According to Western scholars, as well as Iraqi refugees and a British
    human rights organization, the 1963 coup was accompanied by a bloodbath.
    Using lists of suspected Communists and other leftists provided by the
    C.I.A., the Baathists systematically murdered untold numbers of Iraq's
    educated elite -- killings in which Saddam Hussein himself is said to
    have participated. No one knows the exact toll, but accounts agree that
    the victims included hundreds of doctors, teachers, technicians, lawyers
    and other professionals as well as military and political figures."
    (Roger Morris, "A Tyrant 40 Years in the Making," New York Times, March
    14, 2003, p. A29.)]

    July 17, 1968 -- Baathists and army officers overthrow regime.

    ["Again, this coup, amid more factional violence, came with C.I.A.
    backing. Serving on the staff of the National Security Council under
    Lyndon Johnson and Richard Nixon in the late 1960's, I often heard
    C.I.A. officers -- including Archibald Roosevelt, grandson of Theodore
    Roosevelt and a ranking C.I.A. official for the Near East and Africa at
    the time -- speak openly about their close relations with the Iraqi
    Baathists." (Morris, "A Tyrant 40 Years in the Making," p. A29.)]

    July 30, 1968 -- Takes charge of internal security after Baath ousts
    erstwhile allies and authority passes to Revolutionary Command Council
    under Ahmed Hassan al-Bakr, Saddam's cousin.

    [From 1973-75, the United States, Iran, and Israel supported a Kurdish
    insurgency in Iraq. Documents examined by the U.S. House Select
    Committee on Intelligence "clearly show that the President, Dr.
    Kissinger and the [Shah] hoped that our clients [the Kurds] would not
    prevail. They preferred instead that the insurgents simply continue a
    level of hostilities sufficient to sap [Iraqi] resources.... This policy
    was not imparted to our clients, who were encouraged to continue
    fighting. Even in the context of covert action, ours was a cynical
    enterprise." Then, in 1975, the Shah and Saddam Hussein of Iraq signed
    an agreement giving Iran territorial concessions in return for Iran's
    closing its border to Kurdish guerrillas. Teheran and Washington
    promptly cut off their aid to the Kurds and, while Iraq massacred the
    rebels, the United States refused them asylum. Kissinger justified this
    U.S. policy in closed testimony: "covert action should not be confused
    with missionary work." (U.S. House of Representatives, Select Committee
    on Intelligence, 19 Jan. 1976 [Pike Report] in Village Voice, 16 Feb.
    1976, pp. 85, 87n465, 88n471. The Pike Report attributes the last quote
    only to a "senior official"; William Safire, Safire's Washington, New
    York: Times Books, 1980, p. 333, identifies the official as Kissinger.)]

    July 16, 1979 -- Takes over as president from al-Bakr, launches massive
    purge of Baath.

    [In the late 1970s, Saddam also purged the Iraqi Communist Party and
    other oppositionists. (Marion Farouk-Sluglett and Peter Sluglett, Iraq
    Since 1958, London: I. B. Tauris, 1990, pp. 182-87) "We see no
    fundamental incompatibility of interests between the United States and
    Iraq," declared U.S. National Security adviser Zbigniew Brzezinski in
    April 1980. (Quoted in Barry Rubin, "The United States and Iraq: From
    Appeasement to War," in Iraq's Road to War, ed. Amatzia Baram and Barry
    Rubin, New York: St. Martin's 1993, p. 256.)]

    Sept. 22, 1980 -- Sends forces into Iran; war last eight years.

    [When Iraq invaded Iran, the United Nations Security Council waited four
    days before holding a meeting. On September 28, it passed Resolution 479
    calling for an end to the fighting, but which significantly did not
    condemn (nor even mention) the Iraqi aggression and did not demand a
    return to internationally recognized boundaries. As Ralph King, who has
    studied the UN response in detail, concluded, "The Council more or less
    deliberately ignored Iraq's actions in September 1980." The U.S.
    delegate noted that Iran, which had itself violated Security Council
    resolutions on the U.S. embassy hostages, could hardly complain about
    the Council's lackluster response. (R.P.H. King, "The United Nations and
    the IranIraq War, 19801986," in The United Nations and the IranIraq War,
    ed. Brian Urquhart and Gary Sick, New York: Ford Foundation, August
    1987.)

    Despite the fact that Iraq had been the aggressor in this war and that
    Iraq was the first to use chemical weapons, the first to launch air
    attacks on cities, and the initiator of the tanker war, the United
    States tilted toward Iraq. The U.S. removed Iraq from its list of
    terrorist states in 1982, sent Donald Rumsfeld to Baghdad as Reagan's
    envoy to meet with Saddam Hussein in 1983 and 1984 to discuss economic
    cooperation, re-established diplomatic relations in November 1984, made
    available extensive loans and subsidies, provided intelligence
    information, encouraged its allies to arm Iraq, and engaged in military
    actions in the Persian Gulf against Iran. The United States also
    provided dual-use equipment that it knew Iraq was using for military
    purposes. (See Joyce Battle, ed., "Shaking Hands with Saddam Hussein:
    The U.S. Tilts toward Iraq, 1980-1984," National Security Archive
    Electronic Briefing Book No. 82, Feb. 25, 2003,
    http://www.gwu.edu/~nsarchiv/NSAEBB/NSAEBB82/.)]

    March 28, 1988 -- Uses chemical weapons against Kurdish town of Halabja,
    killing estimated 5,000 civilians.

    [From Iraq's first use of chemical weapons in 1983, the U.S. took a very
    restrained view. When the evidence of Iraqi use of these weapons could
    no longer be denied, the U.S. issued a mild condemnation, but made clear
    that this would have no effect on commercial or diplomatic relations
    between the United States and Iraq. Iran asked the Security Council to
    condemn Iraq's chemical weapons use, but the U.S. delegate to the U.N.
    was instructed to try to prevent a resolution from coming to a vote, or
    else to abstain. An Iraqi official told the U.S. that Iraq strongly
    preferred a Security Council presidential statement to a resolution and
    did not want any specific country identified as responsible for chemical
    weapons use. On March 30, 1984, the Security Council issued a
    presidential statement condemning the use of chemical weapons, without
    naming Iraq as the offending party. (Battle,
    http://www.gwu.edu/~nsarchiv/NSAEBB/NSAEBB82/.)

    At the same time that the U.S. government had knowledge of that the
    Iraqi military was using chemical weapons, it was providing intelligence
    and planning assistance to the Iraqi armed forces. (Patrick Tyler,
    "Officers Say U.S. Aided Iraq In War Despite Use Of Gas," New York
    Times, Aug. 18, 2002, p. 1.)

    When Iraq used chemical weapons in March 1988 against Halabja, there was
    no condemnation from Washington. (Dilip Hiro, "When US turned a blind
    eye to poison gas," The Observer, September 1, 2002, p. 17.) "In
    September 1988, the House of Representatives voted 388 to 16 in favor of
    economic sanctions against Iraq, but the White House succeeded in having
    the Senate water down the proposal. In exchange for Export-Import Bank
    credits, Iraq merely had to promise not to use chemical weapons again,
    with agricultural credits exempted even from this limited requirement."
    (Rubin, "The United States and Iraq: From Appeasement to War," p. 261.)]

    Aug. 2, 1990 -- Invades Kuwait.

    [The chronology omits one of Saddam Hussein's most egregious atrocities,
    his Anfal campaign against the Kurds from 1987-89, in which at least
    50,000 and possibly 100,000 Kurds were systematically slaughtered.
    (Middle East Watch, Genocide in Iraq: The Anfal Campaign Against the
    Kurds, New York: Human Rights Watch, 1993.)

    The response of the new Bush administration was to increase Iraq's
    commodity credits from half a billion to a billion dollars, making it
    the second largest user of the credit program in the world. As late as
    April 1990, the administration was opposing sanctions against Iraq
    ("They would hurt U.S. exporters and worsen our trade deficit," said the
    State Department). (Guy Gugliotta, Charles R. Babcock, and Benjamin
    Weiser, "At War, Iraq Courted U.S. Into Economic Embrace," Washington
    Post, Sept. 16, 1990, p. A1.) The administration also blocked efforts to
    cut back high-tech exports to Iraq with obvious military applications.
    (Douglas Frantz and Murray Waas, "Bush insisted on aiding Iraq until
    war's onset," Chicago Sun-Times, Feb. 23, 1992, p. 17.) And the United
    States was providing intelligence data to Iraq until three months before
    the invasion. (Murray Waas, Douglas Frantz, "U.S. shared intelligence
    with Iraq until 3 months before invasion of Kuwait," Houston Chronicle,
    March 10, 1992, p. A6.)]

    Jan. 17, 1991 -- Attacked by U.S.-led coalition; Kuwait liberated in a
    month.

    [As part of the U.S.-led attack, the civilian infrastructure of Iraq was
    intentionally targeted (Barton Gellman, "Allied Air War Struck Broadly
    in Iraq; Officials Acknowledge Strategy Went Beyond Purely Military
    Targets," Washington Post, 23 June 1991, p. A1; Thomas J. Nagy, "The
    Secret Behind the Sanctions," Progressive, Sept. 2001), which together
    with more than a decade of economic sanctions would lead to hundreds of
    thousands of excess deaths. (See Richard Garfield, "Morbidity and
    Mortality Among Iraqi Children From 1990 through 1998: Assessing the
    Impact of the Gulf War and Economic Sanctions," March 1999,
    http://www.fourthfreedom.org/php/t-si-index.php?hinc=garf-index.hinc.)]

    March, 1991 -- Crushes Shiite revolt in south and Kurd revolt in north.

    [After urging Iraqis to rise up against Saddam Hussein, the U.S. denied
    the rebels access to captured Iraqi weapons and allowed Saddam Hussein
    to use his helicopters to slaughter the insurgents as U.S. aircraft
    circled overhead. (Andrew Cockburn and Patrick Cockburn, Out of the
    Ashes: The Resurrection of Saddam Hussein, New York: Harperperennial.
    1999, chap. 1.)]

    April 17, 1991 -- Complying with U.N. Resolution 687, starts providing
    information on weapons of mass destruction, but accused of cheating.

    Feb. 20, 1996 -- Orders killing of two sons-in-law who in 1995 defected
    to Jordan and had just returned to Baghdad after receiving guarantees of
    safety.

    Dec. 16, 1998 -- Weapons inspectors withdrawn from Iraq. Hours later,
    four days of U.S.-British air and missile strikes begin as punishment
    for lack of cooperation.

    [The bombing was conducted without Security Council approval and without
    consultations with allies. The withdrawal of the inspectors was ordered
    by Richard Butler, the head of UNSCOM. "France was also annoyed with
    Washington for getting Mr. Butler to pull out his inspectors from Iraq
    without discussion with the Security Council." U.S. Secretary of State
    "Albright did not speak with Secretary General Kofi Annan at the United
    Nations, officials said. Mr. Annan issued a personal statement, calling
    this 'a sad day' for the world and 'me personally,' because of his
    failure to avert the use of force." (Steven Erlanger, "U.S. Decision to
    Act Fast, and Then Search for Support, Angers Some Allies," New York
    Times, Dec. 17, 1998, p. A14.)]

    Nov. 8, 2002 -- Threatened with "serious consequences" if he does not
    disarm in U.N. Security Council resolution.

    Nov. 27, 2002 -- Allows U.N. experts to begin work in Iraq for first
    time since 1998.

    Dec. 7, 2002 -- Delivers to United Nations declaration denying Iraq has
    weapons of mass destruction; later, United States says declaration is
    untruthful and United Nations says it is incomplete.

    March 1, 2003 -- United Arab Emirates, at an Arab League summit, becomes
    first Arab nation to propose publicly that Saddam step down.

    March 7 -- United States, Britain and Spain propose ordering Saddam to
    give up banned weapons by March 17 or face war; other nations led by
    France on polarized U.N. Security Council oppose any new resolution that
    would authorize military action.

    March 17 -- United States, Britain and Spain declare time for diplomacy
    over, withdraw proposed resolution. President Bush gives Saddam 48 hours
    to leave Iraq.

    [Actually, U.S. officials made clear that U.S. troops would enter Iraq
    whether or not Saddam and his sons left the country. (Michael R. Gordon,
    "Allies Will Move In, Even if Saddam Hussein Moves Out," New York Times,
    March 18, 2003, p. A16.)]

    March 18 -- Iraq's leadership rejects Bush's ultimatum.

    ["On the eve of war, Iraq publicly offered unlimited access for American
    and British weapons hunters." (David Rennie, "Saddam 'offered Bush a
    huge oil deal to avert war'," Daily Telegraph [London], Nov. 7, 2003, p.
    17) And privately Iraq went well beyond this. In several back-channel
    contacts with U.S. officials, Iraq offered the U.S. "direct U.S.
    involvement on the ground in disarming Iraq," oil concessions, the
    turn-over of a wanted terrorist, cooperation on the Israeli-Palestinian
    peace-process, and even internationally-supervised elections within two
    years. (James Risen, "Iraq Said to Have Tried to Reach Last-Minute Deal
    to Avert War," New York Times, Nov. 6, 2003, p. A1) One doesn't know
    where these offers may have led, since they were rejected by the U.S.:
    "A US intelligence source insisted that the decision not to negotiate
    came from the White House, which was demanding complete surrender.
    According to an Arab source, [a U.S. intermediary] sent a Saudi official
    a set of requirements he believed Iraq would have to fulfill. Those
    demands included Saddam's abdication and departure, first to a US
    military base for interrogation and then into supervised exile, a
    surrender of Iraqi troops, and the admission that Iraq had weapons of
    mass destruction. (Julian Borger, Brian Whitaker, and Vikram Dodd
    "Saddam's desperate offers to stave off war," Guardian, Nov. 7, 2003, p.
    3.)]

    March 20 -- U.S. forces open war with military strike on Dora Farms, a
    target south of Baghdad where Saddam and his sons are said to be. Saddam
    appears on Iraqi television later in the day.

    April 4 -- Iraqi television shows video of Saddam walking a Baghdad
    street.

    April 7 -- U.S. warplanes bomb a section of the Mansour district in
    Baghdad where Saddam and his sons were said to be meeting.

    April 9 -- Jubilant crowds greet U.S. troops in Baghdad, go on looting
    rampages, topple 40-foot statue of Saddam.

    July 22 -- Saddam's sons, Qusai and Odai, killed in gunbattle with U.S.
    troops. American forces then raid the northern city of Mosul and later
    say they missed Saddam "by a matter of hours."

    July 27 -- U.S. troops raid three farms in Tikrit. Again, officials
    later say they missed Saddam by 24 hours.

    July 31 -- Two of Saddam's daughters, Raghad and Rana, and their nine
    children are given asylum by Jordan's King Abdullah II.

    [That they would need asylum follows from the U.S. policy of detaining
    family members of those they are seeking, in violation of elementary
    standards of justice. ("The arrest of close relatives of fugitive regime
    members has been used by US forces in the past both as a way to gather
    intelligence - through interrogation - and to put emotional pressure on
    the hunted men to surrender." Colin Nickerson, "US Troops Detain Wife,
    Daughter Of Key Hussein Aide Ex-Deputy Suspected Of Plotting Attacks In
    Iraqi Insurgency," Boston Globe, Nov. 27, 2003, p. A40.)]

    Sept. 5 -- Maj. Gen. Ray Odierno of the 4th Infantry Division says his
    troops have captured several of Saddam's former bodyguards in the Tikrit
    area in the past month and may be closing in on the deposed Iraqi
    dictator.

    Nov. 16 -- The last of nine tapes attributed to Saddam Hussein since he
    was removed from power is released. It tells Iraqis to step up their
    resistance to the U.S.-led occupation, saying the United States and its
    allies misjudged the difficulty of occupying Iraq.

    [It didn't take a genius to note that "the United States and its allies
    misjudged the difficulty of occupying Iraq."]

    Dec. 13 -- Saddam is captured at 8:30 p.m. in the town of Adwar, 10
    miles south of Tikrit. He is hiding in a specially prepared "spider
    hole."

  • Yerusalyim
    Yerusalyim

    Logans,

    So what crimes specifically are the US guilty of? How does any of this change who Saddam is and what he has done? Folks like you are just absolutely ridiculous...the US is always the bad guy in your eyes.

  • logansrun
    logansrun

    Yeru,

    Folks like you are just absolutely ridiculous...the US is always the bad guy in your eyes.

    First off: no, I don't believe the US is always wrong. (Could I counter by saying you believe they are always right?) I'm glad Hussein is no longer in power, but let's not forget that the US both FUNDED this man as well as turned a BLIND EYE to atrocities he committed -- something which is an ignored fact of history. Don't tell me that the US is above heinous acts and selfishness because our history is littered with them.

    PS -- Did you actually read the entire article Yeru?

    Bradley

  • IronGland
    IronGland

    On MSNBC last night, a commentator was talking about some of the charges Saddam may face. One was for waging the war against Iran. If this charge is pursued, won't that be a little sticky for the US? How can we get pissed that he went to war against Iran, while acknowledging that we supported it and gave him weapons to wage it?

    Now, I understand why the decision was made at the time to support saddam, lesser of two evils and all that, but I have a feeling that the US will not persue this particular charge.

  • dolphman
    dolphman

    I love how desperate the Left is getting in this country. I think a lot of them are very upset Saddam was caught, and would rather see him come to power again rather than see him captured. What a sick thought, but it's something they, whether they want to admit it or not, support.

    but let's not forget that the US both FUNDED this man as well as turned a BLIND EYE

    This is one of my all time favorite left-wing comebacks. Here's the facts:

    Iran had taken over a hundred american hostages and was the breeding ground (and still is) for international terrorism. The US had two options to deal with Iran.

    1. Blow them all to hell and invade their country.

    2. Counter-act the growing threat by supporting a regime in the region that could keep the Iranian revolution in check and from not spilling over into the entire middle east.

    Now leftist everywhere will freak out if we invade a country, right? So we can't do that of course. We would be considered imperialist. Remember Somalia? Geez, weren't we just the worst people in the world, allowing ourselves to get shot at just to give people some rice. There wasn't any oil involved as far as I know. What a bunch of imperialist we were.

    That leaves us with option 2, the lesser of two evils. We supported Saddam because in the Middle East you take what you can get. He was the only option we had for dealing with Iran. Boo-hoo. That's the way it works folks. You don't want us invading countries and we can't be a bunch of isolationist, so tell me, what we're we to do?

    Just because we armed him to fight Iranians didn't give him the right to kill innocent kurds and whoever else he killed. Those were things he did of his own malicious intent. My tax dollars that go towards funding my city's SWAT team units don't make me responsible for an idiot, gung ho cop who decides to shoot up an innocent person.

  • Simon
    Simon

    dolphman: you need to learn more than just the short-term "convenient" history that your government peddles on you. It will help you understand why so many people in the world feel the way that they do about America.

  • Double Edge
    Double Edge
    but let's not forget that the US both FUNDED this man

    yeah, Monday morning quarterbacking is so easy. Could you please send your crystal ball to the State Department so they can make correct future decisions ... thanks.

  • Double Edge
    Double Edge
    dolphman: you need to learn more than just the short-term "convenient" history that your government peddles on you. It will help you understand why so many people in the world feel the way that they do about America.

    Gads Simon.... cheap shot... as if he's not intelligent to understand history unfold. Where do you think we get our information over here? Certainly not from the government owned BBC like your country. We as a people have been thinking for ourselves for a long time now, thank you very much.... this is evident from the diverse opinions that we have on any one subject. And as far as how the world views America.... I used to care... I don't anymore... They don't like America ? Well, too bad.... life's a bitch, aint it.

  • dolphman
    dolphman

    Excuse me Simon, but whatever history i've been peddled is accurate, is it not?

    Was not this the reason the US armed Saddam in the first place? To fight the Iranians? Or was it something else?

    I guess i wasn't "peddled" all the facts.

    The usa is BAD BAD BAD. (i always forget).

  • Yerusalyim
    Yerusalyim
    but let's not forget that the US both FUNDED this man as well as turned a BLIND EYE to atrocities he committed -- something which is an ignored fact of history.

    No blind eye at all...let's see...I think Dolphin pretty much covered it...and yep the US has done some screwed up shit...the Shaw of Iran...bad idea...letting him be overthrown....WORSE IDEA (thanks Jimmy Carter).

Share this

Google+
Pinterest
Reddit