Another lie by President Bush over Iraq "gassing his own people"?

[Phokus]

A War Crime or an Act of War?
By STEPHEN C. PELLETIERE


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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

I am not trying to rehabilitate the character of Saddam Hussein. He has much to answer for in the area of human rights abuses. But accusing him of gassing his own people at Halabja as an act of genocide is not correct, because as far as the information we have goes, all of the cases where gas was used involved battles. These were tragedies of war. There may be justifications for invading Iraq, but Halabja is not one of them.


In fact, those who really feel that the disaster at Halabja has bearing on today might want to consider a different question: Why was Iran so keen on taking the town? A closer look may shed light on America's impetus to invade Iraq.

We are constantly reminded that Iraq has perhaps the world's largest reserves of oil. But in a regional and perhaps even geopolitical sense, it may be more important that Iraq has the most extensive river system in the Middle East. In addition to the Tigris and Euphrates, there are the Greater Zab and Lesser Zab rivers in the north of the country. Iraq was covered with irrigation works by the sixth century A.D., and was a granary for the region.

Before the Persian Gulf war, Iraq had built an impressive system of dams and river control projects, the largest being the Darbandikhan dam in the Kurdish area. And it was this dam the Iranians were aiming to take control of when they seized Halabja. In the 1990's there was much discussion over the construction of a so-called Peace Pipeline that would bring the waters of the Tigris and Euphrates south to the parched Gulf states and, by extension, Israel. No progress has been made on this, largely because of Iraqi intransigence. With Iraq in American hands, of course, all that could change.

Thus America could alter the destiny of the Middle East in a way that probably could not be challenged for decades ? not solely by controlling Iraq's oil, but by controlling its water. Even if America didn't occupy the country, once Mr. Hussein's Baath Party is driven from power, many lucrative opportunities would open up for American companies.

All that is needed to get us into war is one clear reason for acting, one that would be generally persuasive. But efforts to link the Iraqis directly to Osama bin Laden have proved inconclusive. Assertions that Iraq threatens its neighbors have also failed to create much resolve; in its present debilitated condition ? thanks to United Nations sanctions ? Iraq's conventional forces threaten no one.

Perhaps the strongest argument left for taking us to war quickly is that Saddam Hussein has committed human rights atrocities against his people. And the most dramatic case are the accusations about Halabja.

Before we go to war over Halabja, the administration owes the American people the full facts. And if it has other examples of Saddam Hussein gassing Kurds, it must show that they were not pro-Iranian Kurdish guerrillas who died fighting alongside Iranian Revolutionary Guards. Until Washington gives us proof of Saddam Hussein's supposed atrocities, why are we picking on Iraq on human rights grounds, particularly when there are so many other repressive regimes Washington supports?

http://www.nytimes.com/2003/01/31/opinion/31PELL.html?ex=1045030380&ei=1&en=97b6c3c76ea6ffe5

 

[Alistar7]

photos from the massacre, you tell me...75% were woman and children.

 

[Stark]

So firing WMD at soldiers makes it OK? According to who, the UN?

Chemical weapons have been banned since WW1. It doesn't matter who he used them against, he's proved that he WILL use them if given the chance.

 

[Phokus]

Originally posted by: Alistar7
photos from the massacre, you tell me...75% were woman and children.

That's not the point, the point of the article is that they're asserting it was Iranian chemical weapons that were used not Iraqi chemical weapons.

 

[Morph]

Originally posted by: Alistar7
photos from the massacre, you tell me...75% were woman and children.

Did you even read the article, Alistar? Have you ever stopped to consider that the story you were fed by the media and US government concerning Halabja might not be the WHOLE story?

 

[Red Dawn]

Originally posted by: Phokus

Originally posted by: Alistar7
photos from the massacre, you tell me...75% were woman and children.

That's not the point, the point of the article is that they're asserting it was Iranian chemical weapons that were used not Iraqi chemical weapons.

Well then the lie was also told by the Clinton Adminsitration and by those who suffered after the Original Bush Coward out and went back on his pledge to support the Shia and the Kurds.

 

[Morph]

Originally posted by: Stark
So firing WMD at soldiers makes it OK? According to who, the UN?

Chemical weapons have been banned since WW1. It doesn't matter who he used them against, he's proved that he WILL use them if given the chance.

HIROSHIMA... NAGASAKI... nuff said.

 

[TheShiz]

Originally posted by: Stark
So firing WMD at soldiers makes it OK? According to who, the UN?

Chemical weapons have been banned since WW1. It doesn't matter who he used them against, he's proved that he WILL use them if given the chance.

is that correct? we used chemical weapons in vietnam to destroy crops.

 

[BigJ]

Originally posted by: Morph

Originally posted by: Stark
So firing WMD at soldiers makes it OK? According to who, the UN?

Chemical weapons have been banned since WW1. It doesn't matter who he used them against, he's proved that he WILL use them if given the chance.

HIROSHIMA... NAGASAKI... nuff said.

Don't even go there bro...I'm sure you would have like to added on millions to the casualties list if those bombs had not dropped right? How about adding your grandfather onto that list? Or your great-uncle? My grandfather was in WW2, and I'm damn glad that he didn't have to fight in a mainland invasion versus the Japanese.

Also, considering that this was a nuclear weapon instead of chemical doesn't help your argument any does it?

 

[TheShiz]

Originally posted by: BigJ2078

Originally posted by: Morph

Originally posted by: Stark
So firing WMD at soldiers makes it OK? According to who, the UN?

Chemical weapons have been banned since WW1. It doesn't matter who he used them against, he's proved that he WILL use them if given the chance.

HIROSHIMA... NAGASAKI... nuff said.

Don't even go there bro...I'm sure you would have like to added on millions to the casualties list if those bombs had not dropped right? How about adding your grandfather onto that list? Or your great-uncle? My grandfather was in WW2, and I'm damn glad that he didn't have to fight in a mainland invasion versus the Japanese.

Also, considering that this was a nuclear weapon instead of chemical doesn't help your argument any does it?

but you do forget about all the civilians killed by those bombs, and their descendents that will never exist because of them, don't always think about yourself.

 

[BigJ]

Originally posted by: TheShiz

Originally posted by: BigJ2078

Originally posted by: Morph

Originally posted by: Stark
So firing WMD at soldiers makes it OK? According to who, the UN?

Chemical weapons have been banned since WW1. It doesn't matter who he used them against, he's proved that he WILL use them if given the chance.

HIROSHIMA... NAGASAKI... nuff said.

Don't even go there bro...I'm sure you would have like to added on millions to the casualties list if those bombs had not dropped right? How about adding your grandfather onto that list? Or your great-uncle? My grandfather was in WW2, and I'm damn glad that he didn't have to fight in a mainland invasion versus the Japanese.

Also, considering that this was a nuclear weapon instead of chemical doesn't help your argument any does it?

but you do forget about all the civilians killed by those bombs, and their descendents that will never exist because of them, don't always think about yourself.

Think of all the civilians that were willing to pick up arms against Americans and the Allied forces if there was a homeland invasion. Think of the number of former-civlians that would've been killed in a homeland invasion, because once a civlian picks up a weapon and intends to use it against a soldier, they ain't a civilian anymore, and our soldiers would've shot.

 

[Hayabusa Rider]

It is entirely possible that the gassing of the Kurds was committed by the Iranians. While I do not doubt that Saddam might have done it, the CIA did come to the conclusion that the Iranians were more likely the culprit. That of course is now impossible, because if it were true, it would be one less justification for this war. I would like to know once and for all, but the truth if known will be hidden. Bush just approved amendments to regulations that will make it much harder to gain access to documents even far down the road.

 

[Paveslave]

Originally posted by: Morph

Originally posted by: Stark
So firing WMD at soldiers makes it OK? According to who, the UN?

Chemical weapons have been banned since WW1. It doesn't matter who he used them against, he's proved that he WILL use them if given the chance.

HIROSHIMA... NAGASAKI... nuff said.

We were a young nation and a world to be using weapons of that magnitude, yes. We didn't start the fight though ass, we just finished it!! duh? We didn't do it to own Japan, take over territory, we didn't do it to make them convert to our religion.... They threw the stone, and we threw a bigger one. In your defence though, we have learned from that, and we are still paying for it too. Seriously though, you're an idiot. nuff said!

 

[TheShiz]

Originally posted by: BigJ2078

Originally posted by: TheShiz

Originally posted by: BigJ2078

Originally posted by: Morph

Originally posted by: Stark
So firing WMD at soldiers makes it OK? According to who, the UN?

Chemical weapons have been banned since WW1. It doesn't matter who he used them against, he's proved that he WILL use them if given the chance.

HIROSHIMA... NAGASAKI... nuff said.

Don't even go there bro...I'm sure you would have like to added on millions to the casualties list if those bombs had not dropped right? How about adding your grandfather onto that list? Or your great-uncle? My grandfather was in WW2, and I'm damn glad that he didn't have to fight in a mainland invasion versus the Japanese.

Also, considering that this was a nuclear weapon instead of chemical doesn't help your argument any does it?

but you do forget about all the civilians killed by those bombs, and their descendents that will never exist because of them, don't always think about yourself.

Think of all the civilians that were willing to pick up arms against Americans and the Allied forces if there was a homeland invasion. Think of the number of former-civlians that would've been killed in a homeland invasion, because once a civlian picks up a weapon and intends to use it against a soldier, they ain't a civilian anymore, and our soldiers would've shot.

it is hard to tell how many would have died, is it certain what the japanese would have done? yes, in afterthought the nuke worked, but it still should be argued whether it was the best way to handle the situation, nuclear weapons are a very scary thing.

 

[ABErickson]

"60 Minutes" had an episode about Iraq gassing their own people and they clearly blamed Saddam. Oh well, I guess there are people who don't believe The Holocaust happened either.

 

[juiio]

Even if you don't believe that this particular incident was done by Iraqis, it is painfully obvious that Saddam's regime has killed hundreds of thousands of Iraqis.

 

[Phokus]

Originally posted by: juiio
Even if you don't believe that this particular incident was done by Iraqis, it is painfully obvious that Saddam's regime has killed hundreds of thousands of Iraqis.

When the president uses it as a reason to go to war, it had better damn well be true.

"Truth is the first casualty of war"

 

[Pliablemoose]

Originally posted by: Phokus

Originally posted by: Alistar7
photos from the massacre, you tell me...75% were woman and children.

That's not the point, the point of the article is that they're asserting it was Iranian chemical weapons that were used not Iraqi chemical weapons.

All the more reason to invade Iran in 05'

We're still pissed off about the Shah & that whole hostage thing that Carter botched...

I'm serious as a heart attack, if this goes well, the plan is to take out Iran in 05'

 

[shiner]

Originally posted by: Morph

Originally posted by: Stark
So firing WMD at soldiers makes it OK? According to who, the UN?

Chemical weapons have been banned since WW1. It doesn't matter who he used them against, he's proved that he WILL use them if given the chance.

HIROSHIMA... NAGASAKI... nuff said.

Worst argument ever.

 

Originally posted by: shinerburke

Originally posted by: Morph

Originally posted by: Stark
So firing WMD at soldiers makes it OK? According to who, the UN?

Chemical weapons have been banned since WW1. It doesn't matter who he used them against, he's proved that he WILL use them if given the chance.

HIROSHIMA... NAGASAKI... nuff said.

Worst argument ever.

yup. Typically the argument made by those who don't understand how many lives were saved, nor do they understand much of anything at all

 

[Conky]

I guess they gassed themselves!

 

[UDT89]

you are all arguing about Japan, and NOT EVEN Japan has a grudge about it. They are one of our strongest supporters in this war. Their economy has been going so fast since WWII i dont think they care as much as anyone in this thread does.

 

[Morph]

Originally posted by: FallenHero


yup. Typically the argument made by those who don't understand how many lives were saved, nor do they understand much of anything at all

Ah yes, the justification of the crime. All the lives that were saved. And the cost? Only the atrocious annihilation of 350,000 Japanese civilians. Why don't you tell me how many lives would have been saved, since you seem to be all-knowing and probably have intimate knowledge about alternate courses of history that never happened.

Just remember, we are the inventor of WEAPONS OF MASS DESTRUCTION.

 

[Tates]

HIROSHIMA... NAGASAKI... nuff said.

Ah yes, the justification of the crime. All the lives that were saved. And the cost? Only the atrocious annihilation of 350,000 Japanese civilians. Why don't you tell me how many lives would have been saved, since you seem to be all-knowing and probably have intimate knowledge about alternate courses of history that never happened.

Just remember, we are the inventor of WEAPONS OF MASS DESTRUCTION.

A true understanding of the historical dynamics of the WWII era would remedy such comments.

Japan's WWII Nuclear Program

Japan's Infamous Unit 731 & countless civilian deaths through chemical & biological experimentation

The Rape of Nanking....estimated 300,000 civilian deaths, etc.

There is no doubt that Truman acted in the world's best interest.

 

[Moonbeam]

For those tired of the BS notion that the A-bombing of Japan was to save lives.