Master of puppets

by Seán Ryan Tue Sep 18, 2007 13:33

Here's a copy of Bush's televised farce from last Thursday:- http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=cfd_1189736245

by atomised Tue Sep 18, 2007 14:25

See gerladine kennedy today in her irish times editorial beginning the process of normalising the idea of an unspecified coalition attacking iran.

It is what she doesn't say which is most significant imo. No sense or indication that such a confrontation would be reckless in the extreme - just that the momentum is 'irrational'.

No criticism of what she describes as 'provocations' aimed at iran, just that the Iranians should 'co-operate politically'.

No analysis for the commoners of what the 'transatlantic interests' she mentions are.

Is the response to what is clearly a serious downturn in the US economy going to be a transatlantic embrace of a big round of military keynesianism? Sure feels like it.

by MichaelY - iawm Tue Sep 18, 2007 15:42

Good article 'Atomised '.

Bernard Kouchner 's remarks have, according to media souirces, created 'grave disquiet' in Moscow but also in Beijing. "I do not want it to be said that I am a warmonger!" Kouchner told Le Monde newspaper. "My message was a message of peace, of seriousness and of determination," he said as he was boarding his plane heading to Moscow for talks with his Russian counterpart.

Russian Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov, on the other hand, made it clear at a joint news briefing with Kouchner that his remarks had disturbed a Kremlin, like China, less inclined to sanctions than the West. "We are worried by reports that there is serious consideration being given to military action in Iran," Lavrov said. "That is a threat to a region where there are already grave problems in Iraq and Afghanistan."

From his angle, Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad said Kouchner's comments were meant only for the media. "We do not consider these threats to be serious." Iran says it seeks nuclear energy only for electricity and condemns U.N. sanctions promoted by the five permanent members -- China, Russia, the United States, France and Britain -- and Germany over its uranium enrichment program.

Lavrov, signaling its policy at a powers' meeting scheduled for Friday to consider new steps, said Iran should be left to work with the International Atomic Energy Agency before the world considers further sanctions or military action.

China also condemned Kouchner's weekend remarks.

"We believe the best option is to peacefully resolve the Iranian nuclear issue through diplomatic negotiations, which is in the common interests of the international community," Chinese Foreign Ministry spokeswoman Jiang Yu said at a briefing. "We do not approve of easily resorting to threatening use of force in international affairs".

by iosaf Tue Sep 18, 2007 16:45

I'm not surprised the Irish Times found a sack to perch on at the back of the latest bandwagon on Iran. But I wonder have people (as usually) missed the context of the comments by the French foreign ministry on a possible military intervention. It's quite simple if you put his comment which causes people to flap flap in the fuller context of what he said to the French media last weekend. He had just finished thanking Chavez for his proposal to intervene personally in negotiations with FARC on a general basis and the release of French journalist Ingrid Betancourt in particular. His thanks to Chavez came just after Uribe the president of Colombia had in reaction to news of exposure of even more higher links between the cocaine billionaires and the state of Colombia. (the basis of the usual opinion , which I propagate that Colombia is in fact a narcostate). Oh and to make it all very clear - the household name politician of world class "Mahmoud Ahmadinejad" was in Venezeula right at that moment.
Basically when it was reported early during last weekend, I hovered at the keyboard and thought of writing an otherpress article, or even of attaching the news as a comment to a +Chav or narcostate Colombia thread. Then I thought better of it, deeming it all a bit of French posturing and media bullshit. In one moment, Hugo was thanked profusely as a friend in the next his friend was warned of war. Whilst beyond the concerns of the foreign ministry of France, Sarko was already unveiling his assault on central European banking. Yep. the Iranians are right - the latest talk of war (which started at that press conference) are media fluff.

by Seán Ryan Tue Sep 18, 2007 16:57

Thanks Iosaf. I agree with you about the French thing. I should've said something in the article itself - storm in a tea cup. The problem is, as I'm sure you'll agree, that the right wingers in the US are lapping this up. Blogs and media outlets just cannot get enough. Tis like last week when Faux news used what the Germans had said to promote the next war. I posted this link in the last article, I'm posting it again cause I think it's relevant. The old clock is ticking and the US are becoming desperate and are running out of options. http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,296450,00.html

by Sceptic Tue Sep 18, 2007 19:56

Why must any foreign government or leader who is allied to the US be a puppet? Is it not possible or plausible that the large parts of the
Anbar Sunni did in fact willingly turn to the Americans, in their own
interests, so replied were they by the antics of the Al Qaeda in Iraq.
It’s not a matter for them of indulging in Anti American polemics for its
own sake. Where would you yourself prefer to live? Indeed where do you choose to live? In a west or somewhere like Taliban controlled Afghanistan pre their removal, complete with the beheadings, hacking off of limbs, theft of political opponents young girls to be married off to the much older "Islamist" enforcers. The Sunnis of Anbar know both and they seem to have chosen the Americans. Maybe not with enormous enthusiasms but they realise who they hate more. You don’t realise what you are doing is cheering and celebrating assassination by a terrorist group that is racist, misogynist, homophobic, totalitarian, inquisitional, imperialist, and genocidal.

by Seán Ryan Tue Sep 18, 2007 21:59

It seems to me that it is you who do not know what they are talking about.

Check out the link to the video.

The puppet I spoke of was touted as a Sheik by Bush. Indeed this puppet referred to himself as the leader of all tribes in Iraq. A real Sheik is interviewed in the video, he calls the puppet for what he was, not I. Secondly this real Sheik is a Sunni muslim and is signed up to Bush's reconcilliation deal. A minister from the Iraqi government refers to this Sheik and the other Sunni Sheiks as war criminals. They are the ones doing the beheading that you are on about. And as I said Al Qaeda dissappeared when these Sheiks signed up to Bush's plans. Don't you even find that a little suspicious? Also, the puppet was blown up shortly after these Sheiks said that he wasn't welcome (and after Al Qaeda had dissappeared). Even if you cannot follow simple logic and refuse to consider concrete evidence put right before your nose, you cannot deny that Bush was lying through his teeth in his televised farce from last Thursday.

I realise who I'm cheering and it isn't the team you're head cheerleader for, nor is it for any party involved in this war. I'm cheering the fact that the truth is at last becoming obvious and it's getting around. Why not try to disprove a single point made in my article rather than burdening the readers and myself with useless kneejerk rhetoric that says nothing whatsoever with regard to what I've posted. You might note that contrary to what you allege, I did not suggest that these Sunni Sheiks were forced in some fashion to deal with Bush. I'm sure in fact that it was Bush who was forced to do the arselicking.

by Sceptic Tue Sep 18, 2007 22:18

Really your version of events is just crazy stuff taken from very dubious news and comment sources. None of it bears objective scrutiny I'm afraid. Its twisted.

by Seán Ryan Tue Sep 18, 2007 22:24

Greg Palast an investigative reporter for the BBC is a dubious source?

It is you my anonymous friend, who comes without any sources, who is dubious.

If as you say, this article is not worth scrutiny, why are you here? Why not go away and deal with something that's worth your time?

by Sceptic Tue Sep 18, 2007 22:47

Palast’s opinions area a farrago of often eccentric leftist polemics.
Below is the BBC account of the incident. That is the mainstream account of it, which concurs with that of other respected news outlets.

by Seán Ryan Wed Sep 19, 2007 00:02

I see you are still slagging off Palast.

Here's his bio. He's one of the most respected journalists on the planet. http://www.gregpalast.com/about-greg/

Your BBC story is old news and was probably picked up from a source (probably a newsfeed) other than one of its own reporters, the Palast article is much more recent and you have yet to refute anything said in it. Slagging off Palast doesn't count.

Can you point to any half decent source that proves Palast a liar?

What about Rick Rowley, any dirt to throw on him? Maybe the US personnell he was embedded with were fake? Maybe his interview wth the ex-puppet Sheik Abu Reisha Risha was mis-translated?

Have you got a single thing that proves this story to be a fake, other than your imagination?

by Fearbolg - S2S Wed Sep 19, 2007 00:14

Good man, Seán.

He couldn't stomach that one.

He's a dyspeptic sceptic.

by Jim O'Sullivan Wed Sep 19, 2007 08:08

" a terrorist group that is racist, misogynist, homophobic, totalitarian, inquisitional, imperialist, and genocidal"

A very succunct discription of the Bush administration.

by Sceptic Wed Sep 19, 2007 21:22

My information is based on the BBC news website. Moreover it is old
enough to have been corrected if it were shown to be incorrect. Your
source is at best based on a rather quixotic blog. The BBC recitation of events also accords with all other mainstream professional news organisation that can be consulted. Enough said.

Jim O'Sullivan - apart from any animus you might have against the Bush administration would you not agree that Al Qaeda is well described as a terrorist group with the characteristics listed? You seem to be an Al Queda apologist.

by Jim O'Sullivan Thu Sep 20, 2007 08:03

"Jim O'Sullivan - apart from any animus you might have against the Bush administration would you not agree that Al Qaeda is well described as a terrorist group with the characteristics listed? You seem to be an Al Queda apologist."

Conversely are you an apologist for the Bush administration?

Al-Qaeda such as they are, did not fall from the heavans. They are a creation of the wests invasion, occupation and terrorising of the mid east. Bin Ladan did not invade the US, is not plundering the wealth of the US, is not supporting the persecution by surrogates of the people of the US. In short, Al-Qaeda and Bin Laden are merely reactions and as such are nowhere near as dangerous or evil as the neo-con inspired slaughter that is being perpetuated, controlled and financed by the US and allies against the indigenous people of the mid east and beyond.

by Sceptic Fri Sep 21, 2007 00:25

All the same is it not true to say that AQ is a terrorist group that is indeed racist, misogynist, homophobic, totalitarian, inquisitional, imperialist, and genocidal. Don't keep muddying the waters by going on about the US.

by Jim O'Sullivan Fri Sep 21, 2007 08:26

"All the same is it not true to say that AQ is a terrorist group that is indeed racist, misogynist, homophobic, totalitarian, inquisitional, imperialist, and genocidal. Don't keep muddying the waters by going on about the US."

In all probabilty if the US confined itself to matters within it's own borders al-qaeda might not even exist at all today. It may well have disbanded when the Russians were forced out of Afghanistan. In any event, the point which you are refusing or failing to grasp is that al-qaeda is a reaction to aggression from the US and others. The words you use to discribe them are in fact a more appropriate discription of the Bush administration

by Fairplayer Fri Sep 21, 2007 14:08

In all fairness Jim, while I do largely agree with your reasoning, I am still of the opinion that a direct question merits a direct answer. If one condemns the US administration ( is Bush the only sociopath that has been presiednt of the US? ) YOU MUST SURELY CONDEMN VIOLENCE IN ALL IT'S FORMS!
I look forward to a direct answer.

by Jim O'Sullivan Sat Sep 22, 2007 07:59

"If one condemns the US administration ( is Bush the only sociopath that has been presiednt of the US? ) YOU MUST SURELY CONDEMN VIOLENCE IN ALL IT'S FORMS!
I look forward to a direct answer."

What is the question?

by Sceptic Sat Sep 22, 2007 09:20

Do you condemn terrorist killings carries out by Al Qaeda?

by Jim O'Sullivan Sat Sep 22, 2007 09:34

Do you condemn terrorists killing carried out by the US and allies?

by Sceptic Sat Sep 22, 2007 10:09

You are still trying to widen the debate into a discussion of US foreign policy- muddying the waters AQ then becomes excusable or less inexcusable when you have conflated it with something the US has done. You keep driving at a moral equivalence between what is in fact a private terror agency with no legitimacy and a nation state governed under law, with accountable intuitions and legitimate armed forces. We can debate US foreign policy - the Americans themselves do incessantly and that is no difficulty. But the attempts to continually conflate the US and the AQ entity which has virtually no purpose or no function except to promote and carry out terror is risible. Even if there is some legitimate grievance or valid criticism to be made by Muslim extremists something things are wrong in themselves period. The attempt to firebomb the London disco and Glasgow airport were wrong as were the Madrid bombings and the 9/11 attacks for instance. Likewise the AQ terror attacks in Jordan, Egypt, Iraq, Bali, East Africa (hundreds of innocent Africans killed in those 1998 attacks) and all the rest. You cannot or will not condemn these without either changing the question or qualifying the answer by reference to US foreign policy. But I say that these things are wrong in themselves and that AQ has no legitimacy whatever much less a mandate to execute them. You are unable to say that in simple terms.

by Jim O'Sullivan Sat Sep 22, 2007 19:21

"You are still trying to widen the debate into a discussion of US foreign policy- muddying the waters"

Far from muddying the waters, if you want to have a reasoned debate on what is happening in the Mid east, the actions of the US are completely interwoven with events there and it is absurd that any such discussion could take place without anaylising US actions.

" AQ then becomes excusable or less inexcusable when you have conflated it with something the US has done. You keep driving at a moral equivalence between what is in fact a private terror agency with no legitimacy and a nation state governed under law, with accountable intuitions and legitimate armed forces."

I contend quit simply that al-qaeda are a product of interference from outside entities. If the US and others went home, they would most probably go back to living as peaceful a life as they could muster. You are not suggeting that these people's way of life is fighting wars for no particular reason and living in foxholes and caves, are you?

"We can debate US foreign policy - the Americans themselves do incessantly and that is no difficulty. But the attempts to continually conflate the US and the AQ entity which has virtually no purpose or no function except to promote and carry out terror is risible."

The whole mess is a result of US foreign policy and there you go again suggesting that al-qaeda fell out of the sky and that the people of the region are just warmongers with nothing else to do and therefore the good old US had to travel half way around the world and put manners on them. Wow, so that's all that's going on.

"Even if there is some legitimate grievance or valid criticism to be made by Muslim extremists something things are wrong in themselves period. "

Your not suggesting that they don't have a grieviance now are you? The invasion of Iraq was wrong and is wrong. The whole region has been bombed back a century or more and it is now considered that it will take more tham a lifetime to put things back to where they were before GW cut loose on the region.

" You cannot or will not condemn these without either changing the question or qualifying the answer by reference to US foreign policy. But I say that these things are wrong in themselves and that AQ has no legitimacy whatever much less a mandate to execute them. You are unable to say that in simple terms."

I have already referred to the Algerian bombing as an atrocity, regardless of whoever did it. And I also say that US actions in the Mid east are every bit as wrong, in fact I would contend that they are worse for the simple reason that they are the aggressors.

by Sceptic Tue Sep 25, 2007 18:48

"THE ACTIONS OF THE US ARE COMPLETELY INTERWOVEN WITH EVENTS THERE AND T IS ABSURD THAT ANY SUCH DISCUSSION COULD TAKE PLACE WITHOUT ANALYSING
US ACTIONS."

That is a cop out. It's a dynamic environment but an instance on tracing all the pathologies, violence and hatreds of the Muslim world back to US foreign policy is crazy. Besides the anti-western focus of AQ is to do with hatred of the nature of western society and western freedom rather than foreign policy. Inform yourself the works of Sayyid Qutb and you will see his bitterest criticism of the US was the immodest dress of the women there which he observed at first hand at a Church dance. The Islamist critique of the west is against freedom of speech (eg the Danish cartoons, Rushdie, Democracy (because all non-Islamic Government
is an anathema) and dhimmitude in general for non-Muslims if not their actual extermination. What had earlier attacks from that quarter had to do Bush like the killing of Sadat in 1981 or the Luxor massacre of 1997 - these are internal issues within the Muslim world. It is false to assert that everything is "interwoven" with the US. And its not that there should not be analysis of US actions but you are merely setting US actions against AQ ones and conflating them to give support to your anti-Americanism. Even if America itself is the victim of evil it must have done so much to bring such evil upon itself is your assertion - you will not see or acknowledge the evil of the other.

I CONTEND QUIT SIMPLY THAT AL-QAEDA ARE A PRODUCT OF INTERFERENCE FROM
OUTSIDE ENTITIES.
Hardly true. Wahhabism and its associated violence and coercion is which is at the root of the Salafism of Qutb and Ayman al-Zawahiri is a purely indigenous product of the interior of the Arabian Peninsula. The many conflicts of this strain of Islamic extremism over the centuries long predate anything to do with GW Bush. The main friction is between this type of fanaticism and the modernity in both its liberal Muslim form and its non-Muslim forms. This is what is at the heart of the AQ terror.

YOU ARE NOT SUGGESTING THAT THESE PEOPLE'S WAY OF LIFE IS FIGHTING WARS FOR NO PARTICULAR REASON AND LIVING IN FOXHOLES AND CAVES, ARE YOU?
The reason for their extremism is their violent religious fanaticism, not some sort of reasoned critique of the west. You are making the mistake of attributing their extremism to extremism of provocation in a European "age of reason" calculation. But these people are outside that ken altogether. Attempting to rationalise their extremism by reference to GW Bush is evading the actual reasons for this phenomena.

THE WHOLE REGION HAS BEEN BOMBED BACK A CENTURY OR MORE
Come of it Jim and stop that hyperbole. There was hardly any aerial bombing by the allies in 2003 except of a handful of regime and military targets in the opening days of the Iraqi war and no area bombing whatever. The whole region? Doha, Dubai, Cairo, Amman, Kurdistan?
I HAVE ALREADY REFERRED TO THE ALGERIAN BOMBING AS AN ATROCITY, REGARDLESS OF WHOEVER DID IT. AND I ALSO SAY THAT US ACTIONS IN THE MID EAST ARE EVERY BIT AS WRONG, IN FACT I WOULD CONTEND THAT THEY ARE WORSE
FOR THE SIMPLE REASON THAT THEY ARE THE AGGRESSORS.

If you regard the Algerian atrocity as wrong in itself then we are
making progress but I would also say that the 9/11, London, Madrid, Bail, East African and other attacks are also atrocities to be condemned without equivocation or reservations. No buts. And what are these attacks but aggressive?

US as aggressors where? The Iraqi intervention in 2003 was a liberal intervention (as per Tony Blair's Chicago speech) to change a very brutal totalitarian and dangerous regime and replace it with a humane and representative Government. I don't or should not have to spell out for you the differences between a legitimate western State using its armed forces in an accountable way and the actions of a terror group. There is a world of difference. Its just moral blindness and false moral equivalence to keep incessantly comparing the two.

by Jim O'Sullivan Tue Sep 25, 2007 20:06

"The reason for their extremism is their violent religious fanaticism"

This is racist and this is what lies at the core of what informs your opinion. You are incapable of seeing those that inhabit the area as our peers but rather unworthy and only deserving of the jackboot.

by Sceptic Tue Sep 25, 2007 20:36

Your arguments must be rather threadbare if that’s your final response and in any case it is not in accordance with the patterns or history of Islamist attacks in the Muslim world. Islam is not a race and people of all races belong to that faith. Tens of thousands of the victims of Islamists have been fellow Muslims, indeed they have been the main victims in Algeria and Iraq for instance. It is not the Americans who are sending suicide bombers into Mosques or goading the Shia with sectarian killings in order to ferment a civil war there. Failure to see this, because in they eyes of many the villains have to be the Americans or the Israelis, is just blindness. Sunni Muslim leaders have come to realize this and have acted accordingly against them. For good or ill faith is a principal motivator of men and it is the more extreme Jihadist mindset that persuades well educated and prosperous young men to try to attack a passenger airport terminal or a nightclub like we saw in the UK this June for instance.

by Jim O'Sullivan Tue Sep 25, 2007 20:59

It's almost pointless because you are convinced that the people of the mid east are predisposed to use violence while the US are not. US violence is restrained and only necessary because they are confronted by this irrational violence. This of course it utter nonsense and offensive nonsense as well. This is the type of logic that justified slavery and many other kinds of oppression down the years.

"It is not the Americans who are sending suicide bombers into Mosques"

Tell us what you think is the difference between a suicide bomber entering a Mosque and a bomb entering a bunker filled with 400 men women and children.

" Jihadist mindset that persuades well educated and prosperous young men to try to attack a passenger airport terminal or a nightclub like we saw in the UK this June for instance. "

What persuades members of the US forces to kill and maim as they are doing?

by Sceptic Wed Sep 26, 2007 17:21

I don't at all seek to dehumanise the people of the Middle East. I am sure they are as peaceful and peace loving as Europeans are.

Difference between a suicide bomber entering a Mosque and a bomb entering a bunker filled with 400 men women and children?

Not a whole lot albeit for the victims but unless one is a pacifist, which you don't seem to be, what matters is the intent, care taken to avoid misdirecting, the authorship and the authority. The Baghdad bunker incident in 1991 was inadvertence not deliberation. It was the worst and one of very few incidents where significant numbers of civilians were killed. It was thought the bunker was housing Saddam and his top circle. That happened in a conflict not commenced by the US but by Saddam's invasion and annexation of Kuwait. It was a war to liberate a small Muslim country from the maw of Saddam. It had full international legitimacy though the UNSC and also the GCC and the Arab League. War should never be undertaken lightly because there will inevitably be civilian casualties. What must not happen under the Geneva codes is that the State prosecuting a war must not deliberately target civilians or kill POWs etc. The moral parallel you keep drawing between the likes of Abu Musab al-Zarqawi and the Federal Government of the United States is entirely misplaced because al-Zarqawi's mosque bombings had no purpose other than to kill civilians which is the very antithesis of all the legal and moral principles of the international community for the prevention of civilian deaths. This should be obvious. al- Zarqawi was a privateer terrorist moreover a very fanatical and sadistic protagonist in Iraq. He observed no code of ethics whatever in his treatment of other people, Muslims or not. He had not a shred of lawful authority or mandate to go on his mass killing and beheading sprees. Tell me what in what sense do you think the does a suicide bomber entering a Mosque is defending Muslims from the US or Israel?

by wageslave Thu Sep 27, 2007 02:17

"It was the worst and one of very few incidents where significant numbers of civilians were killed"

and the other 649,600 , of which around 250000 were women and children (according to the lancet report) were just whittled away one at a time , eh septic??

you are beneath contempt. There is a job waiting for you on fox news

by Jim O'Sullivan Thu Sep 27, 2007 13:48

"I don't at all seek to dehumanise the people of the Middle East. I am sure they are as peaceful and peace loving as Europeans are. "

Then why don't the US and Europeans leave them to their peace?

"Difference between a suicide bomber entering a Mosque and a bomb entering a bunker filled with 400 men women and children? Not a whole lot albeit for the victims but unless one is a pacifist, which you don't seem to be, what matters is the intent, care taken to avoid misdirecting, the authorship and the authority"

There can be no qualification on this matter, both are wrong, full-stop. You repeatedly put forward the notion that the US killing can be mitigated because they are about some noble cause. Bullshit. The US are in the region for self-interest, namely acces to and control of oil.

"The Baghdad bunker incident in 1991 was inadvertence not deliberation."

There you go again, making excuses for an act that was and will remain an atrocity. For the record, the US administration said at the time that they made a mistake because Saddam had deliberately placed an aerial on the bunker which misled the US intelligence people into concluding that it was a bunker containing Saddam and all his senior henchmen. Is it not remarkable what conclusions an Intelligence Agency can draw from an aerial placed on a building?

" That happened in a conflict not commenced by the US but by Saddam's invasion and annexation of Kuwait. It was a war to liberate a small Muslim country from the maw of Saddam."

Once again excuses. The US did not have to react militarily to Saddams adventures. They did so to sideline the international community so that they and they alone would gain control over the oil. Regarding Kuwait, are you suggesting that those who live there today are "liberated"?

"The moral parallel you keep drawing between the likes of Abu Musab al-Zarqawi and the Federal Government of the United States is entirely misplaced"

There is no difference, all this killing is wrong-full stop.

"Tell me what in what sense do you think the does a suicide bomber entering a Mosque is defending Muslims from the US or Israel?"

If I understand the question correctly, the answer is none. Perhaps you might explain what cause you think was advanced by the slaughter of the innocents in the bunker?

by Sceptic Thu Sep 27, 2007 20:15

Wageslave you have the wrong war. I was referring to a 1991 incident not a 2003 + one and detailed that in my post. Sigh....

by Sceptic Thu Sep 27, 2007 20:33

There is a crucial difference. One was deliberate by an illegitimate entity and one was inadvertent by a legitimate one. An atrocity has to be deliberate – this is something fully recognized in international law in the Geneva codes which objective notions of morality cannot ignore. Another example: At D Day the USAF killed thousands of french while bombing towns as part of a campaign to liberate France and Europe from fascism. However you would see no difference between this and the actions of the Einsatzgruppen in central and Eastern Europe. There is full mitigation in the US action compared to the Einsatzgruppen.

The US led coalition liberation of Kuwait was a UN operation. GH Bush did all he could to avoid war but he was prepared to go to war if Saddam did not budge which he did not. The Kuwaitis were mightily pleased to be liberated from Saddam.

Saddam’s people did not want another war but they had the misfortune to be under a dictator who was prepared to risk it. The problem with the area is bad governance which creates the other problems like repression, poverty and religious extremism. Saddam might have been the worst but he was not the only example of this.

by Jim O'Sullivan Thu Sep 27, 2007 21:02

"There is a crucial difference. One was deliberate by an illegitimate entity and one was inadvertent by a legitimate one."

This is appalling nonsense. To send aircraft to bomb civilian targets is the deliberate killing of innocent civilians. The Iraqi's who died did not want to be bombed by the US or anyone else,

"An atrocity has to be deliberate"

It was deliberate. The US were bombing civilian areas.

" At D Day the USAF killed thousands of french while bombing towns as part of a campaign to liberate France and Europe from fascism. However you would see no difference between this and the actions of the Einsatzgruppen in central and Eastern Europe. There is full mitigation in the US action compared to the Einsatzgruppen."

More nonsense. While the French may have been willing to die rather than continue to live under German rule ( I'm pretty certain those that died were not asked and even you might be surprised at the numbers that would opt for life under any conditions rather than boothill) and therefore accepted that death might be a consquence of neceessary bombing, the Iraqis who died would have not given any such consent.

"The US led coalition liberation of Kuwait was a UN operation. GH Bush did all he could to avoid war but he was prepared to go to war if Saddam did not budge which he did not. The Kuwaitis were mightily pleased to be liberated from Saddam."

Oh dear, the wonderful Mr Bush. Once again there was no need for Bush to go to war with Iraq, there were other options which he refused to take.The Emirs were mightly relieved to be liberated, as for the rest of the people who live there, you can hardly say that they were "liberated."

"Saddam’s people did not want another war but they had the misfortune to be under a dictator who was prepared to risk it. The problem with the area is bad governance which creates the other problems like repression, poverty and religious extremism. Saddam might have been the worst but he was not the only example of this."

This is waffle, no more. As with all areas of the world that the west wants to exploit, they are maintained in a state of dependence. And of course only the pesky Arabs have bad governance, why did I not see that? Give us a break sceptic, you are pushing this to the limits. If you are suggesting that Bush is anything other than bad governance then I must now conclude that you are not a flake at all but are merely taking the p***. Pick a less serious subject. This is life and death stuff here.

by Seán Ryan Thu Sep 27, 2007 21:22

You seem to have a penchant for re-writing history Sceptic.

In the current Iraq war of agression (remember wars of agression are illegal under international law), the us bombed infrastructure, deliberately, including electrical grids and water supply, this is against the Geneva Conventions.

You suggest that Bush senior did not want to go to war with Iraq the first time around. I remember an actress (daughter of Kuwaiti ambassador?) testifying to the congressional Human Rights Caucus held on Capitol Hill, three months before the war began, where she lied about 312 babies being ripped from incubators by Iraqi personnell. This footage made its way all round the planet and was foisted by Bush Senior as evidence at every opportunity he got.

On 9/11 1990 Bush senior announced to Congress that 120,000 Iraqi troops and 850 Iraqi tanks had invaded the sovereign nation of Kuwait and that they'd moved to threaten Saudi Arabia. This was despite the fact that satellite photographs could have and indeed did prove him to be a wilfull liar.

Bush senior didn't want a war? Pull the other one.

In what way are the people of Kuwait a free people. Do they elect their government?

Considering that the Iraqi invasion was initially encouraged by the US and that the subsequent 'invasion' was for the most part a fabrication with some very fine PR work done by Hill & Knowlton and funded largely by the tyrant who ruled the country with an iron fist, it is very dishonest to re-write history by the re-telling of long exposed lies and propaganda.

As to the point about blowing up Mosques. There were no such bombings whilst the bastard Saddam ruled. There's a bigger bastard there now, so it's no mystery as to why human rights and dignity have completely evaporated. The new bastard is called George.

by wageslave Fri Sep 28, 2007 00:14

Oops,,,,you're right. So sorry!

Hard to keep track of all of americas wars and atrocities these days!!

And another one in the pipeline if the rhetoric is anything to go by

Still, since i mentioned it, any comments on the RECENT 650000+ dead in iraq and the 250000+ women and children??

Do you feel as condeleeza (and halliburton and lockheed martin...and....and..) does, that it was worth it?

by wageslave Fri Sep 28, 2007 00:23

"At D Day the USAF killed thousands of french while bombing towns as part of a campaign to liberate France and Europe from fascism. However you would see no difference between this and the actions of the Einsatzgruppen in central and Eastern Europe. There is full mitigation in the US action compared to the Einsatzgruppen"

You are not Comparing like with like septic.

Todays weapons are capable of far far greater precision (as all the gung ho weapons documentaries aimed at young boys that we are assailed with on the discovery channels are always telling us) Hence, they have far far less excuses for hitting civilians.

bombing during WWII was totally hit or miss

by Sceptic Fri Sep 28, 2007 20:21

It is like with like because the issues of legitimacy and intent still hold.
For something to be a war crime it must be either intended or caused by culpable negligence for a prosecution under the commander responsibility principle to hold. The fact that bombs can be better targeted now means both there are likely to be much fewer casualties now as is the case with western forces (as opposed to Russia's in Gronzy for example) and that where failures occur it is an intelligence failure as in the 1991 incident caused by the fog of war.

by wageslave Sat Sep 29, 2007 00:55

So tell me septic, how can you ever convincingly prove intent?
Its a great way to wriggle out of wrongdoing
nobody can ever know what you are thinking
you can always lie
There is always some excuse
and always many gullible people who will swallow anything

where innocent deaths are concerned, the net effect is still the same and you should be held responsible. With great power comes great responsibility and there should also be dire consequences if you fuck up. There aren't.

except of course for the occasional underling who gets thrown to the wolves, that is!

by Seán Ryan Sat Sep 29, 2007 03:48

Ahh Sceptic Sceptic Sceptic...

You used that word...

Intent.
*******
Allow me to prove to you that the US has attempted to wilfully cause genocide in Iraq.

A document held by the department of defence from 1991 has been declassified. In this document the US examines the state of water treatment in Iraq. I'll post some of this doccument in a moment, but first let me outline it. It is found that water treatment in Iraq is beginning to break down and that the Iraqi's cannot get spare parts or the chemicals necessary to fix this. The Us sees that there will be widescale disease epidemics if the Iraqi's do not get these supplies. This study even figures out a timescale for this. This study was conducted around the time of the Kuwait 'invasion' when sanctions were imposed on Iraq. These sanctions were not lifted when the Kuwait 'invasion' was reversed. These sanctions remained in place for 12 years and the result was known, it was know when the sanctions were first imposed. This study can be found on a Department of Defence website, so I'm not making this up and it cannot be spun as leftist propaganda. The title of this study is: 'IRAQ WATER TREATMMENT VULNERABILITIES.'

Sends a shiver down the spine doesn't it.

Here's the link for the paper in its totality, it makes chilling reading: http://www.gulflink.osd.mil/declassdocs/dia/19950901/95....html

Here's some quotes from the study to give an abbreviated feel for what this study is about:

"3. FAILING TO SECURE SUPPLIES WILL RESULT IN A SHORTAGE OF
PURE DRINKING WATER FOR MUCH OF THE POPULATION. THIS COULD LEAD
TO INCREASED INCIDENCES, IF NOT EPIDEMICS, OF DISEASE AND TO
CERTAIN PURE-WATER-DEPENDENT INDUSTRIES BECOMING INCAPACITATED,
INCLUDING PETRO CHEMICALS, FERTILIZERS, PETROLEUM REFINING,
ELECTRONICS,PHARMACEUTICALS, FOOD PROCESSING, TEXTILES, CONCRETE
CONSTRUCTION,AND THERMAL POWERPLANTS.

4. IRAQ'S OVERALL WATER TREATMENT CAPABILITY WILL SUFFER A
SLOW DECLINE, RATHER THAN A PRECIPITOUS HALT, AS DWINDLING
SUPPLIES AND CANNIBALIZED PARTS ARE CONCENTRATED AT HIGHER
PRIORITY LOCATIONS. ALTHOUGH IRAQ IS ALREADY EXPERIENCING A LOSS
OF WATERTREATMENT CAPABILITY, IT PROBABLY WILL TAKE AT LEAST SIX
MONTHS (TO JUNE 1991) BEFORE THE SYSTEM IS FULLY DEGRADED.

20. IRAQI ALTERNATIVES. IRAQ COULD TRY CONVINCING THE
UNITED NATIONS OR INDIVIDUAL COUNTRIES TO EXEMPT WATER
TREATMENT SUPPLIES FROM SANCTIONS FOR HUMANITARIAN REASONS. IT
PROBABLY ALSO IS ATTEMPTING TO PURCHASE SUPPLIES BY USING SOME
SYMPATHETIC COUNTRIES AS FRONTS. IF SUCH ATTEMPTS FAIL, IRAQI
ALTERNATIVES ARE NOT ADEOUATE FOR THEIR NATIONAL REOUIREMENTS.

27. IRAQ WILL SUFFER INCREASING SHORTAGES OF PURIFIED
WATER BECAUSE OF THE LACK OF REOUIRED CHEMICALS AND
DESALINIZATION MEMBRANES. INCIDENCES OF DISEASE, INCLUDING
POSSIBLE EPIDEMICS,WILL BECOME PROBABLE UNLESS THE POPULATION
WERE CAREFUL TO BOIL WATER BEFORE CONSUMPTION, PARTICULARLY
SINCE THE SEWAGE TREATMENT SYSTEM, NEVER A HIGH PRIORITY, WILL
SUFFER THE SAME LOSS OF CAPABILITY WITH THE LACK OF CHLORINE.
LOCALLY PRODUCED FOOD AND MEDICINE COULD BE CONTAMINATED. LACK
OF COAGULATION CHEMICALS WILL CAUSE PERIODIC SHUTDOWNS OF
TREATMENT PLANTS FOR UNCLOGGING AND CLEANING FILTERS, CAUSING
INTERRUPTIONS OF WATER SUPPLIES. AS DESALINIZATION EQUIPMENT
BECOMES INOPERABLE, SALINE WATER SOURCES WILL BECOME
INCREASINGLY UNUSABLE. TEMPORARY OR PERMANENT SHUT DOWNS OF
INDUSTRIAL PLANTS THAT RELY ON TREATED WATER WILL
MULTIPLY.CANNIBALIZING LOWER PRIORITY OPERATIONS WILL
ACCELERATE THE TREND."

Keep in mind that during the 12 years of sanctions, the US knowingly urged the UN not to lift the sanctions, including a ban on replacement parts and chemicals for water treatment.

I'm going to expand on this argument here as it's relevant. During the Kuwaiti 'crisis' George Bush senior implored Iraqi civillians to rise up and overthrow Saddam. Propaganda leaflets were dropped and radio broadcasts were made, etc. The poor of Iraq rose up and followed Bush's call to arms. Bush then imposed a no-fly zone, which prevented Saddam's airforce flying their French made fighter planes and confusing the US airforce who might have inadvertantly blown some of their French comrades out of the skies. Saddam was not prevented from using helicopters (it was easy to spot who owned those). Saddam ordered his mostly Shia army and helicopters to go after the mostly Shiite rebels and they butchered more than a hundred thousand of them without so much as a whisper to stop from George Bush the humanitarian who cared so much about human life and rights in Kuwait. After some months, when the brutality and inhumanity inflicted on the Shiite rebels started to get worldwide media attention, George the humanitarian called on Saddam to stop and he did.

There was bad blood between the Shiites and the Shia before this, certainly, but this intensified it infinitely more. It helped set the scene for George the Liberator, George the humanitarian's offspring.

So then we have 12 years of genocidal sanctions whereby the US and the British make almost daily incursions into Iraqi airspace and bomb the living daylights out of both military and non military targets (herds of sheep and shepherds for example are non military targets). Disease, despair and destitution are not just widespread, they are universal. Half a million children under the age of five die directly because of sanctions.

Full forward to Gulf War II.

By the time George the libertor got around to invading Iraq, a sovereign nation, without provocation, Iraq has been considerably softened up. George first bombs the infrastructure, including the already all-but destroyed water supply making sure that civillians will suffer and die horribly. After some years of war, Georgre introduces a Constitution for the freed Iraqi population and a new Government. The new Constitution promotes a sectarian civil war between Shia and Shiite. To ensure this civil war occurs, the Governmet is mostly made up from the Shia. Then after a while, because the civil war is not a total as George would like and thus more American troops are dying than was expected, George introduces the 'Surge.' The 'Surge' without a doubt is a stroke of genius, it turns practically every head in the wrong direction, whilst George has his brethren go around buying off Sheiks of mostly Shiite origin. 'Al Qaeda' all but evaporates when this happens and now that the Shiite insurgants don't need to kill US personnell anymore or pretend to be 'Al Qaeda,' the US casualty rate will begin to drop and the Shiites and the Shia can have at each other and forget all about George who can now plunder the country of its natural resources at his leisure.

That's Genocide. It's a war crime and it's intentional.

And I didn't need to go into the use of chemical weapons like phosphorus or depleted uranium. I didn't even need to go into the deliberate bombings of civillian targets or indeed the re-classification of POW's to strip them of their rights under the Geneva Conventions and the subsequent and widespread use of torture. Damn it, I don't even need to go into the fact the the US handed a POW (Saddam) over to a tribunal of its own design for execution and that the tribunal was so skillfully arranged that most of what needed to be examined wasn't, including who armed and helped Saddam perpetrate his crimes against humanity. Damn it I don't even need to go into the fact that the lap dog of the US, the UN are currently sitting on a mound of paperwork from it's WMD inspectors, that names names and details of what was given to Saddam and that it can provide no decent excuse as to why it will not open this body of paperwork up for public consumption.

If you think you can prove otherwise Sceptic, I'd urge you to get in touch with George the liberator, he'll need your services when he's dragged into the Hague in chains.

by Seán Ryan Wed Oct 03, 2007 01:46

It was believed (by the US and the UN) that the sanctions in Iraq would work after the first Gulf war. Yet the US invaded (the first Gulf War) because they didn't believe the sanctions were working or that they would work. It should also be noted that the US felt that it did not require a UN mandate for either of the illegal invasions. Nor did the UN declare at any time that either set of sanctions had failed. It seems to me that those who post here trying to refute what's been said, spread the blame out a lot and in doing so portray the US as the bastion of law and order. When in actual fact the US only pays heed to law and order when it suits to do so. The rest of the time it blatently ignores international law and order. This is not to say that the UN is not a lap dog of the US, because it is. The UN itself will ignore international law and act as an enabler for the US and its interests if and when it is told to do so. This is in defiance to the purpose of the UN. The UN was initially founded to prevent rogue nations (the US and its accomplices) from waging wars of aggression. It has failed in its fundamental duty and the US must carry the overwhelming portion of the guilt for this too.

It has been suggested that I am anti-American. This is completely wrong. My grandmother on my mother's side was an American citizen and I'm proud of all my roots. I think some folks equate anti-Americanism with those who refuse to lie to facilitate the regime and those who actively call on this regime to account for its actions. Dissent is the highest form of democracy and those who pander and grovel before a genocidal and dictatorial regime like the current one are the anti-Americans.

Don't get me wrong, I can think of no administration within the history of the US that I consider legitimate or humanitarian in any way. I think the same of Ireland and the rest of the planet. Does this make me anti-humanity? I think not and I reckon that it cannot be argued (with any sense of cohesion or logic) that it does.

Anyway back to the sanctions...

There has been a comparison made between the sanctions in South Africa to the sanctions in Iraq. This is what the right are reduced to in order to supposedly justify the legitimacy and effectiveness of the genocidal siege that the peoples of Iraq have had to endure. There is no comparison to be made, other than one that is an argument of semantics and word plays.

Firstly the sanctions in South Africa were not supported by the US and Britain (maybe this is why they worked?).

Secondly the sanctions were supported by large factions opposed to Botha in South Africa like the ANC, there was no group like this in Iraq and the sanctions were welcomed by nobody.

Thirdly the sanctions in South Africa were not as rigorously applied as they were in Iraq.

South Africa grew most of its own food, Iraq imported more than 2/3's of theirs.

South Africa's infrastructure (such as it was) was intact when sanctions commenced. Iraq's infrastructure had been bombed into non-existence when the sanctions commenced after the first Gulf war. And the bombing continued for the duration of the sanctions.

The complaint has been made that I focus on the humanitarian cost. I complain that the right do not, nor do the US and its accomplices. I say this is one of the biggest contradictions of all, considering that 'Operation Iraqi Freedom' was spun in a humanitarian cocoon.

The sanctions were not a mere idea, they were practiced in full knowledge of the consequences. Indeed the consequences were the intent. The sanctions in no way lessened Saddam's grip on Iraq, they strengthened it. The populace of Iraq were and are the only legitimate party who could remove Saddam, the sanctions only served to deplete both their resolve and ability to do so. In this fashion the sanctions were a success. I put it to anyone, that this was the intention behind the sanctions and that I have shown this already. I further put it to anyone that they cannot prove otherwise.

If Galloway is the criminal that he has been called, why did the US fuck off in the middle of its smearing (investigation) when he told them to. I note too that Rumsfeld has not been asked to account for his dealings with Saddam in any judicial setting (yet). Furthermore it was not Galloway who came up with the figure that stated that half a million children under the age of five had been killed directly because of sanctions, these figures were directly from WHO. The US, to this day, will still not accept these figures, but can quote no alternative source or authority or indeed offer a reason as to why these figures are not acceptable. When Pilger questioned Madeline Albright about these figures, she answered that she felt that the sacrifice had been worth it (though she and her handlers later tried to spin and retract this).

In conclusion, so that it cannot be argued that I'm pulling facts from the ether to suit my argument allow me to post a link to a paper from the International Federation of Human Rights:- http://64.233.183.104/search?q=cache:qu2o031fn64J:www.f...gl=ie

Here's the same paper in PDF format:- http://www.fidh.org/magmoyen/rapport/2002/iq321a.pdf

I post this paper to ground my points with regard to the sanctions in Iraq being completely different to the sanctions in South Africa and to ground my point about the sanctions strengthening Saddam's grip on Iraq as opposed to weakening in. This paper is well worth a read for anyone interested in the subject of the genocidal sanctions in Iraq.

One last point to make before I go: it was said on this thread that the sanctions were lifted in 2003. This is another example of semantics. There is still no infrasctructure, there is widespread starvation, disease and poverty. The infrastructure (electricity and water supply for example) is still destroyed, despite lots of cash having been given to rebuild (although we do know what this money was really for don't we).

by wageslave Thu Oct 04, 2007 00:24

the sound of septic's slimy neocon apologist ass being kicked into touch

I declare this round to Sean!

by Jim O'Sulivan Thu Oct 04, 2007 08:21

"Saddam and his regime was the real and direct killer of Iraqi children and grown ups like. He took power and suppressed any rivals ruthlessly"

Can we not even get the basic's right. The CIA were directly involved in the over throw of Abdalkarim Qaasim that put the Ba'ath party into power. Saddam was part of a number of assassination attempts.
Qassim "crime" was he passed laws which allowed the State to take over assets owned by the British owned Iraq Petroleum Company and therefore was regarded as a danger to US interests in the region.
The success of Saddam is directly attributable to US policy and intervention.

by Sceptic Sat Oct 06, 2007 04:44

Qassim's overthrow was not as simple as that and the Baath nationalised the Iraqi oil company themselves in any case. Qassim was a reformer in some respects but he came to power in a very bloody manner himself which saw the massacre of royal family including the children. That invariably sets a bad precedent - if one lot can have a coup and slaughter the previous leaders why not another which is exactly what happened to Qassim in turn and continued to happen afterwards. Most Iraqis will tell you their long saga of troubles began with the Qassim coup in 1958. It made Iraq an almost uniquely violent place.There were CIA ties with the Baath party in 1963, which given this was at the height of the cold war was understandable as Qassim had pro Communist Party leanings and that party had Moscow's backing. However this was far from decisive - there were no more than one or two agents involved and no material support of any kind was given for a coup. Moreover there were many more Russian agents and advisers in Baghdad than US ones. The 1968 coup followed in the wake of the ignoble defeat in the 1967 war. Essentially the Saddam tyranny post 1979 was a radical break with the past, including with the Baath party which until then had the characteristics of a normal political party, at least by Middle Eastern standards. Many of the party ruling elite and veterans were liquidated by Saddam in a bloodbath following his seizure of power in 1979. Its a bit of a canard to say, as critics do, "oh but Saddam is your your creation - you are morally responsible for everything he did". Its like saying Germany is responsible for everything that Stalin did because they had supported Lenin in 1917 though in fact there was very much more German support for Lenin than there was US support for the Baath. It is neither a true or fair comment. What happened in both cases was that in a one party State a ruthless dictator emerged. It is a good reason to support the democratic project in Iraq. Its not good enough to impute everything bad that happened in Iraq under Saddam to the US on the basis of a coup in 1963 the resulting government of which was itself overthrown not long after.

by Jim O'Sullivan Sat Oct 06, 2007 08:58

These are the facts regarding Qassim:

Prime Minister from July 1958 - February 1963.
After the Military Uprising, Qasim assumed the post of Prime Minister and Defense Minister.

On July 26, 1958, the Interim Constitution was adopted, proclaiming the equality of all Iraqi citizens under the law and granting them freedom without regard to race, nationality, language or religion. The government freed political prisoners and granted amnesty to the Kurds who participated in the 1943 to 1945 Kurdish uprisings. The exiled Kurds returned home and were welcomed by the republican regime.Qasim lifted a ban on the Iraqi Communist Party.
Qasim worked to improve the position of ordinary people in Iraq, after the rule by a small elite under the monarchy which had resulted in widespread social unrest. Qasim passed law No. 80 which seized 98% of Iraqi land from the British-owned Iraq Petroleum Company, distributed farms to more of the population. Qasim also oversaw the building of 35,000 residential units to house the poor and low middle class. Qasim rewrote the constitution to encourage women’s participation in the society.
Qasim supported the Algerian and Palestinian struggles against France and Israel.

Clearly a lover of justice, equality and freedom. The US simply could not tolerate this guy.

by Sceptic Sat Oct 06, 2007 10:18

Except that it was not the US that overthrew Qassim - it was sections of the Iraqi armed forces loyal to the party of Michel Aflaq who in fact were more nationalist and socialist in ideology than Qassim. Furthermore it was domestic landholders and propriety farmers and tribes who were sore about the land reforms and it was these who supported a coup against Qassim. The fate of Qassim was unfortunate – it would have been much better if the Iraqi political order had stabilized around him providing that he did not pursue an Arab way to socialism that would bring economic ruination. But he came in himself on a sea of blood and that’s the way he left in due course. Despite his ruthlessness he was not smart enough to maintain power and what he did to others in offer to gain power was eventually done to him.

by Jim O'Sullivan Sun Oct 07, 2007 09:49

Some Facts about the overthrow of Qassim;

Support for the coup was very limited. The Ba’ath Party had only 850 members. It was CIA involvement that drove the event and the coup is regarded by the CIA as their most successful given the limited internal support. James Crithhfield, Head of CIA Middle East stated, “It was the CIA’s favourite coup, we regarded it as a great victory”. Ali Saleh Sa’adi, Ba’ath Party Secretary General admitted, “We came to power on a CIA train”
Qassim had become the US’s No 1 target for a number of reasons, his socialist policies, leaving the anti-Soviet Baghdad Pact and his ongoing nationalisation of the British owned Iraq Petroleum Company thus threatening US control of oil.

The CIA co-ordinated the coup plotters from the agency's station inside the U.S. embassy in Baghdad as well as a clandestine radio station in Kuwait and solicitation of advice from around the Middle East on who on the left should be
eliminated once the coup was successful. Qassim retained his popularity in Iraq and after his assassination the people refused to believe he was dead until the coup leaders showed photos of his body on national TV and press.
Refererence: "Out of the Ashes, The Resurrection of Saddam Hussein", by Andrew and Patrick Cockburn,

Richard Helms was Director for Plans at the CIA. That is the top CIA position responsible for covert actions, like organizing coups. Helms served in that capacity until 1966, when he was made Director. Helm ran into difficulties with the administration because he was being scapegoated. The following is a quote from him regarding the overthrow of Qassim,

“In 1959, there was a failed assassination attempt on Qassim. The failed assassin was a young Saddam Hussein. In 1963, a CIA-organized coup did successfully assassinate Qassim and Saddam's Ba'ath Party came to power for the first time. Saddam returned from exile in Egypt and took up the key post as head of Iraq's secret service. The CIA then provided the new pliant, Iraqi regime with the names of thousands of communists, and other leftist activists and organizers. Thousands of these supporters of Qassim and his policies were soon dead in a rampage of mass murder carried out by the CIA's close friends in Iraq”

Regarding land and the so-called support of landowners for the coup, this does not make any sense . By and large, land was not in the ownership of Iraqis when Qassim came to power but held under the control of ownership to serve the colonial rulers. Only 12% of the Iraqi land is cultivatable and therefore it’s control was central to maintaining control over the inhabitants. Qassim redistributed 70% of this land to Iraqi small farmers and retained the rest in State run farms. It is plain silly to suggest that the these farmers would assist in anyway with a coup against Qassim. In the work sourced above, the authors suggest that Qassim was so confident of his popularity that this led to his complacency when rumours of a coup plot first started to circulate. It was a great tragedy that he was ousted and a great crime committed against the Iraqi nation by the CIA and it’s masters.

by Sceptic Sun Oct 07, 2007 23:45

“It was CIA involvement that drove the event…”

This is not a “fact” as the heading rather weasely stated. That is a matter of controversial historical judgment that would need to be defended and one which no objective contemporary or historian that I know of has supported and there is no reference for the Helms statement given above. Even so allow for exaggeration of the agency’s role to some extent and that the object of the briefing was different and giving a potted history of a period of decades in a few lines. In 1963 Saddam was twenty two and bit player in the scheme of things so for one thing the direct line between the demise of Qassim and emergence of the dictator Saddam in 1979 is a highly tentative one, especially given that the Baath party government that took power in 1963 was out of power again soon enough. The book I referenced earlier, I mention it because of that, deals with the 1963 coup at some length and does mention the CIA at all in these events, let alone assign a leading role to it. You have a template in your head of the native Arab goodie who was done down by American intrigue and you seek out polemical accounts to fit your template. There is a shred of truth in it but no more than that and certainly not enough the construct that detailed and simplistic narrative of a morality tale. (The Cockburns have a slanted leftist stance, as might be expected given the strong communist indeed Stalinist leanings of their father, and it would be unreliable to depend on them for the Iraqi historical cannon.) What happened to Qassim? He depended on the communist party which became unruly and people were frightened – not just property owners – recall this was a pious Muslim country and the world had witnessed the reality of Budapest a few years before. Qassim was half Kurdish and oriented himself that way thus alienating those of the then dominant Nasserite tendency in his own party and without as well as the strong national Sunni tendency. This did not stop him getting embroiled in a revolt with the Kurds over independence however. Then there was the pubic revolt and trial of the nazi supporting Rashid Ali who arrived back from Cairo with great fanfare. But essentially it was dissatisfaction on the part of the Sunni military elite which gave the Baath their opening. It was a combination of Sunni Baathist and Sunni nationalist officers which overthrew Qassim taking as a model Qassim’s own coup five years earlier and Nasser’s Officers’ Coup ten years earlier. These events happened because Iraqis made decisions for themselves, not because of CIA machinations as is an alternative narrative favoured in leftist mythology. Qassim might be seen as a lost leader in retrospect but that is mainly because so much worse followed him later on. He lacked legitimacy himself; he lack political savvy and he lacked economic competence and he was too inconsistent. His five years give little indication that things might have improved had he survived another decade.

by Jim O'Sullivan Mon Oct 08, 2007 09:48

CIA involvement " is not a “fact” as the heading rather weasely stated. That is a matter of controversial historical judgment that would need to be defended and one which no objective contemporary or historian that I know of has supported "

Your in denial is the only explaination for that statement. I can't help you any further on this point. You are beyond reach.

"In 1963 Saddam was twenty two and bit player in the scheme of things so for one thing the direct line between the demise of Qassim and emergence of the dictator Saddam in 1979 is a highly tentative one,"

My sums tells me that Saddam was 26 but more importantly he had studied law and was a qualified teacher. By 1968 Saddam was Chairman of the Revolutionary Commnand Council and was regarded as the real power in Iraq. Some bit player.

The rest of the post is just-make-it-up-as-you-go-along nonsense of which this is typical,
"His ( Qassim) five years give little indication that things might have improved had he survived another decade." This tells me that Sceptic is in fact either a propagandist or a chancer and his/her posts on this subject are not worthy of comment.

by Sceptic Mon Oct 08, 2007 20:27 http://concise.britannica.com/ebc/article-9062109/'Abd-al-Karim-Qasim

Correction Saddam was 22 at the time of the assassination attempt on Qassim in 1959, not in 1963 coup. Saddam did not come to prominence until after the later 1968 coup.

The link below from the unimpeachably objective Britannica bears out the contention that the CIA was not the driving force behind the demise of Qassim. The CIA are not mentioned at all! You has listed it as a “fact” that it was the driving force.

Given the various serious problems Qassim faced in 1963 it is highly unlikely he could have survived for long. The prognosis that his was not a durable administration is a fair one.

by Seán Ryan Tue Oct 09, 2007 06:54

I've been looking for this for some time. I finally found it.

Back in 2004 the BBC with producer Alan Curtis, screened a three part documentary titled "The Power of Nightmares." It was a very well made documentary with well founded arguments and some very decent journalism. It documented the rise of Neoconservatism and the reasoning behind it. More importantly, it put forward the argument that Al Qaeda, with regard to being a large and well structured terrorist organism, was a fiction.

I've been looking for this documentary since I wrote this article, but for the life of me, I couldn't remember the name of it. I finally remembered the name and was immediately able to find the documentary itself.

Here it is now thanks to Google Video. I don't know how long these links will last once I post them on Indy, so see it while you can.

Part 1:- http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=881321004838285177
Part 2:- http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=4602171665328041876
Part 3:- http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=2081592330319789254

by Jim O'Sullivan Tue Oct 09, 2007 11:48

It's extraordinary that links are posted to lend credence to the claim of CIA non-involvenment, which do not mention the CIA either way. The net is full of links detailing CIA involvement in Iraq, do a Google search. It is simply incredible that somebody would attempt to peddle to the contrary. US citizens themselves don't even do that.

For example, the following is by Sean MacMathuna;

"The CIA's role in 1963 coup was "substantial.
The CIA were also closely involved when in 1963, the Baathists overthrew Qassim. This time Qassim was killed, but the Baathists held power only briefly, setting off a period of coups more instability in Iraq. Said K. Aburish, who worked with Hussein in the 1970s, an author of "Saddam Hussein: The Politics of Revenge," has said that the CIA's role in the coup against Qassim was "substantial." The coup resulted in the return of Hussein to Iraq - he was immediately assigned to head the Al-Jihaz al-Khas, the clandestine Ba'athist Intelligence organisation. As such, he was soon involved in the killing of some 5,000 communists.
CIA agents were in touch with army officers who helped in the coup, operated an electronic command center in Kuwait to guide the anti-Qassim forces, and like in Indonesia in 1965, supplied the conspirators with lists of people to be killed. A former senior CIA official said: "It was a bit like the mysterious killings of Iran's communists just after Ayatollah Khomeini came to power in 1979. All 4,000 of his communists suddenly got killed." Aburish confirms this saying that
"The relationship between the Americans and the Baath Party at that moment in time was very close indeed".
This is supported by Miles Copeland, a veteran CIA operative, reported in the United Press that the CIA had enjoyed "close ties" with Qasim's ruling Baath Party, just as it had close connections with the intelligence service of Egyptian leader Gamel Abd Nassar. In a recent public statement, Roger Morris, a former National Security Council staff member in the 1970s, confirmed this claim, saying that the CIA had chosen the authoritarian and anti-Communist Baath Party "as its instrument."
Qassim had ignored warnings about the impending coup. It was the involvement of the United States that secured his downfall - he had taken Iraq out of the anti-Soviet Baghdad Pact, threatened to occupy Kuwait and nationalized part of the foreign owned Iraq Petroleum Company (IPC). We really had the wires crossed on what was happening, James Critchfield, then head of the CIA in the Middle East was reported as saying on The Age website in Australia. We regarded it as a great victory. Iraqi participants later confirmed American involvement."

The above piece gives plenty of sources that can be checked for those that are intersted in getting a better understanding of what occurred.