Saddam Suddenly Looks Innocent

[TeeYiYi]

Saddam Suddenly Looks Innocent

Memo To: Attorney General John Ashcroft
From: Jude Wanniski
Re: Why is He Being Held at All?

I see in the papers, John, that our government has decided that we will maintain physical custody of Saddam Hussein even after the June 30 transfer of sovereignty to an Iraqi interim government. An anonymous official told Associated Press the reason is the Iraqis do not have a prison safe enough to hold Saddam, and I suppose there may be some concern that if the Iraqi interim government got their hands on him there may be no need for a “trial.” They might sooner have him “die of natural causes” in his cell rather than have him answer the charges of war crimes, which have yet to be brought against him. But I now wonder why he is being held at all?

<snip>

Saddam Hussein was eventually located in his spider hole and whisked away, put under lock and key in a secure prison, with the idea that he would eventually be turned over to a duly constituted court of law and tried as a war criminal. President Bush on many occasions has pointed out that Iraq is better off without Saddam because his regime was known to have used “torture and rape rooms” at Al Ghraib prison. Now you know President Bush did not order our military people to use those same rooms to rape and torture Iraqi “detainees.” He says so and I believe him. But I wonder if you have evidence that Saddam ordered the Iraqi state or local police to “torture and rape,” or might he also insist as Mr. Bush has that he was at the tippy top of the national government and if he had known what excesses were committed by local cops, he would have put a stop to it.

To tell you the truth, John, as far as I can recall, there have been no assertions of the “brutality” of Saddam’s regime from anyone but the Iraqi exiles associated with Ahmet Chalabi or those Kurds who fought on the Iranian side in the Iran/Iraq war. There are all kinds of anecdotes about Saddam doing dreadful things, entire books written about them, but the source of all of them is the same pool of people who have been feeding faked “evidence” of WMD and Al Qaeda connections to our government. Can it be that there is nothing that Saddam has done all these years that cannot be justified as the permissible acts of a head of state acting in defense of his people. Yes, he invaded Kuwait in 1990, but in retrospect that was a really easy war to justify, given the economic warfare being conducted against Iraq by the Emir of Kuwait. I mean easy in relation to now having to justify this American invasion and destruction of good chunks of Iraq, on false premises.

President Bush still has it in his head that Saddam tried to assassinate his father in 1993, but if you did the smallest bit of digging you would find this was a hoax perpetrated by the neo-cons. The President also has it in his head that Saddam committed genocide against the Kurds in 1988, killing tens of thousands of them with poison gas and/or machine guns. If you lifted a little pinky to get to the bottom of this story, you will find it is also made of neo-con whole cloth. I’m not making wild assertions, John, because I have spent countless hours on this subject and find no loopholes left. Just call Human Rights Watch and ask if they have yet found the mass graves of those tens of thousands of Kurds and they will sheepishly admit they are still looking.

More: http://wanniski.com/showarticle.asp?articleid=3643

As an associate editor of The Wall Street Journal from 1972 to 1978, Jude Wanniski repopularized the classical theories of supply-side economics. His book, The Way The World Works, became a foundation of the global economic transformation launched by the Reagan Administration. He founded Polyconomics in 1978 to interpret the impact of political events on financial markets, keeping institutional investors informed on U.S. and world events that bear on their decisions. His network of long-standing relationships with members of the Executive and Congressional branches, the Federal Reserve Board and leading opinion makers augments Polyconomics` analysis. Mr. Wanniski, and Polyconomics, Inc., have achieved recognition worldwide for the efficacy of the supply-side political-economic model. Mr. Wanniski holds a B.A. in Political Science and an M.S. in Journalism from the University of California, Los Angeles.

TYY

[TeeYiYi]

1. The screws appear to be turning from all directions . . .

. . . as conservatives come out of the woodwork to hum a different tune. :shrug:

TYY

[Wapsie B]

2. It's always nice

when they devour one of their own. Saves the Dems from any heavy lifting.

[keithyboy]

65. If Saddam is guilty then so must Bush be guilty of Abu Gharib

International law can't have it both ways. If Saddam is going to be held to account for atrocities that happened when he was in power, so must GW Bush be held accountable and responosible for what his military did in Iraq. That's why we would rather have Saddam die a natural death rather than stand trial.

[BurtWorm]

3. That is some wild shit!

I did a double take when I saw Wanniski's name attached to it. If there wasn't a bio at the bottom, I'd have thought this was from A.N.S.W.E.R.!

[KoKo]

4. OMG! I'm going to fall over in a stroke! Jude Wanniski???? This is

unbelievable! And, frankly I never wanted to say it here, but I agree with him, even if he is using this article as a ploy to turn things back on Bush..I've wondered if Saddam's huge atrocities weren't manufactured by Chalabi/Cheney and Poppy/Reagan's group from WAY back.

Who would have dared say that...sheesh...

[KoKo]

5. And, he says the Mass Graves of the Kurds cannot be found!

Holy Shit, this article is a MUST read all the way through! Quote:

John, because I have spent countless hours on this subject and find no loopholes left. Just call Human Rights Watch and ask if they have yet found the mass graves of those tens of thousands of Kurds and they will sheepishly admit they are still looking.

[KoKo]

6. TeeYiYi, where did you come across this article. I didn't know Wanniski

had his own website. Looks like there's some other good stuff to read over there. He must be worried his new Polyconomics, Inc. is going to go down the tubes because of Bush's destabilization of the whole world, to write this. I hate to be cynical, but his guy is a big timer and not one that this administration would want to lose. So, I'm still in a state of shock, although scanning his site it looks like he fell away from that flock of vicious vultures before this article came into his head.

Have you been reading his site for awhile, or did another site link you.
I hope this is all over the web tomorrow.

[filterfish]

9. Slate picked it up...

http://slate.msn.com/id/2102850/

[KoKo]

10. Slate! That's great news, thanks. Means it will be all over the place.

Should create some bad weather out there. :-)'s

[geek tragedy]

26. And Slate is

taking a great big dump on this piece.

As it should.

[struggle4progress]

7. Here's 12 web pages of HRW reports on Iraq ...

... in reverse chronological order. Approximately the first seven pages are reports from the recent war and its aftermath. The remaining pages address issues during the SH period.

It looks like there might be a serious case against SH. Of course, it could have been seriously compromised by looting and failure to protect mass grave sites. Also a fair international trial would be preferable to the show trial the US seem to be planning.

Sample: Avoiding War Crimes in Iraq
July 8, 2003
<snip>
Unfortunately, the US seems more interested in questions of justice and accountability for past crimes mainly to the extent that these can be used to vilify the old Iraqi regime and justify its military intervention. It is far less interested in seeking justice for the victims and survivors of Saddam Hussein's tyranny.
<snip>
http://hrw.org/editorials/2003/iraq070803.htm

[Matilda]

8. An interesting point of view - perhaps it makes a good case

for having Saddam tried in the International Court. With the
IGC being run by Bushco stooges, there won't be any fair trial in
Iraq, and he shouldn't be tried in the U.S. because he didn't
commit any crimes there.

Perhaps the truth about Saddam is somewhere in the middle between
the apologists and those who had their own personal reasons for
hating him. Truth is, in the M.E., nice guys don't last very long.
Arab societies are very macho, and only the tough come out on top.
Even the most westernized countries, such as Jordan, have their
dark side.

It is worth remembering though, that Saddam, unlike most ME rulers,
was something of a socialist - under his rule, prior to 1991, he
gave Iraq an excellent education system, with free education for
males and females up to and including post-graduate courses. Iraq
also had the best health care system in the ME outside of Israel,
and it too was free to all. It was the US/UK sanctions over the
ten years following the first Gulf War that wrecked it all. And
he represented the best hope to date of preserving secular rule
in Iraq - something I suspect won't last too much longer.

I've often puzzled over that strange dichotomy in Saddam's nature,
but I doubt very much that he was any kind of innocent. And his
two sons, Uday and Qusay were positively psychotic. It does seem
though that those most at risk were those closest to Saddam - the
army leaders, politicians and bureaucrats, and not least his own
family. I think ordinary Iraqis, provided they didn't publicly
criticise Saddam, were reasonably safe - they were well-educated,
healthy, and able to move about in safety. The sufferings of the
Iraqi people after 1991 were due to bombing and sanctions by the
west via the U.N. and not to Saddam's cruelty.

I honestly don't doubt, that even taking into account that although
though he was dangerous to cross, Saddam contained by the West (as
he was after 1991) was better all round than any alternative Bushco
have come up with to date.

That is why I don't believe that he will ever have an open and
transparent trial in either the U.S. or in Iraq - the West can't
afford to have the full truth known.

[wtmusic]

15. Good points

:thumbsup:

[FlemingsGhost]

11. Saddam is hardly "innocent."

The very fact that he has a long history of CIA/U.S government sponsored involvement tells me so.

[Disturbed]

13. Saddam was a US Tool Against Iran

After he invaded Kuwaite he suddendly became the Hitler of the ME.
Did we ever hear how evil he was from Raygoon or Bush 1 before the Kuwait invasion? Saddam asked a US Ambassador if the US would interevene if he invaded Kuwate. He was told that the US didn't interfere with anothor country's dispute with a neighbor. He invaded Kuwaite and suddenly became an evil tyrant.

[Matilda]

21. Was it a setup I wonder?

n/t

[Minstrel Boy]

14. It takes a Bush

to make Saddam look innocent.

Remember the popular saying among Iraqis since his fall: "the pupil is gone; the master has arrived."

[KoKo]

24. Kick

:kick:

[Nevernose]

12. I used to be close to an Iraqi family

The only reason they live here is because Saddam KILLED the rest of their family. They're not radicals, or part of the Iraqi National Congress, or on Chalabi's payroll. They're just folks, like you and me.

An brutal, oppresive dictator in a middle eastern nation? Nah, couldn't happen (though the point of trying a nation's leader based upon what his troops do still stands)

[wtmusic]

17. A Saddam apologist is a bit hard to swallow

No doubt the neos are exaggerating every little piece of evidence -- but every Iraqi I've talked to (and I've talked to quite a few) knows he is a dangerous, sadistic motherf*cker.

The "trial" will be a joke, because no one who knows him will testify against him, and no one who suffered under his minions will be able to connect the dots. Either a kangaroo court will hang him, or they will have to let him walk. Neither outcome is a good one.

[MontecitoDem]

19. I agree - can't there be other bad people in the world BESIDES Bush?

Just because Bush is evil doesn't mean he is the only one - right?

Also, don't you think Bush is more concerned with the idea that Saddam will be "rescued" by loyalists and escape to cause more havoc in the future?

[wtmusic]

20. He's gotten himself into another big mess

Rescuing Saddam is looking more likely every day. In many Iraqis' minds he would emerge as a hero. The ONLY good thing about it is Junior would be toast in Nov.

[Bandit]

28. They told you Saddam personally killed their family members?

Or that the members were killed by the Iraqi Government? Did Bush* personally torture those Iraqis and kill the Iraqi children. You are making a strong case against Bush* as a war criminal.

[geek tragedy]

29. Did you pay attention to world affairs before Bush was president?

http://www.smh.com.au/articles/2003/01/13/1041990224220.html?oneclick=true

<snip>
It is true that Saddam Hussein has used these weapons before, against those who couldn't respond in kind - Iranian soldiers and perhaps most infamously on 17 March 1988 against "his own people" in the Kurdish city of Halabja. Within half an hour of this attack over 5000 men, women and children were dead from chemical weapons containing a range of pathogens which were dropped on them.

If Washington and London are genuinely concerned about Iraq's WMD, why did they continue to supply him with the means to acquire them for 18 months after the attack on Halabja?

Initially, the US blamed Iran for the Halabja attack, a particularly cynical ploy given Saddam had also used chemical weapons against Teheran's forces during their nine-year conflict in the 1980s. In fact Washington continued to treat Saddam as a favoured ally and trading partner long after the attack on Halabja was exposed as his handiwork. At the time, the Reagan Administration tried to prevent criticism of Saddam's chemical attack on the Kurds in the Congress and in December 1989, George Bush's father authorised new loans to Saddam in order to achieve the "goal of increasing US exports and put us in a better position to deal with Iraq regarding its human rights record ." Surprisingly, the goal was never reached. In February 1989, eleven months after Halabja, John Kelly, US Assistant Secretary of State, flew to Baghdad to tell Saddam Hussein that "you are a source for moderation in the region, and the United States wants to broaden her relationship with Iraq."
<snip>

Saddam's record as a brutal pig was well-documented long before aWol went sober.

[filterfish]

32. about those 'world affairs' before bush was president

http://www.mtholyoke.edu/acad/intrel/bush/gas.htm

"...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..."

[geek tragedy]

33. That Reagan apologist?

Never thought I'd see DU'ers drudging up Reaganite's to apologize for repressive monsters like Saddam.

He's been circulating this crap for over a decade now:

http://www.hrw.org/reports/1993/iraqanfal/ANFAL1.htm#P41_8395

[filterfish]

41. Did you read your link?

HRW says Pelletiere's (et al) work was "unsubstantiated" and inconclusive. But they do acknowledge the logical consistency of Pelletiere's claim. Now that we're in Iraq we should be able to corrobate all the atrocities, yet as with so much else, the lead up to war was just a bunch of bunk. Wanniski says HRW is still waiting for the 400,000 bodies to turn up, although they won't because that story was bunk, too. HRW got used like a condom on this one...

[geek tragedy]

43. Bush says the Holocaust happened. Do you believe that?

The link has solid evidence of the atrocities committed by Saddam. Documents, interviews, scientific evidence.

The only people who doubt that Saddam committed atrocities are those who choose to ignore the evidence that's out there.

It looks like David Irving should start a new journal for "Iraqi Revisionist History."

[theboss]

52. Then Clinton is a liar and war criminal too

After all, he spent billions of dollars, hundreds of bombs, and sacrificed thousands of Iraqi children to keep this innocent man Saddam in line too.

Again, let's not become stupid in making a case against Bush.

[treepig]

60. sure, clinton was a war criminal - that's pretty much self-evident

but what's your point - he's gone.

perhaps a focus on the current, more-dangerous war criminals currently in office is appropriate?

[Nevernose]

38. I did say

"...the point of trying a nation's leader based upon what his troops do still stands." I wasn't disagreeing with the basic premise that * is war criminal just like Saddam, if one follows the basic logic that makes Saddam a war criminal. I was disagreeing with the premise that Saddam wasn't a war criminal, a rather tongue-in-cheek point within the article anyway.

And Saddam is, according to my Iraqi friends, directly responsible for many/most of the atrocities in Iraq. As in "Uday? I want you to kill that man's family." Many of the atrocities under Saddam were committed without his knowledge, even, but many of them were committed with either his approval or direct order.

Bush ain't Saddam. Yet. He would if he could be -- they have the same values on subjects as far ranging as WMDs, democracy, women's rights, and even plain old honesty.

How does one judge the severity of crimes against humanity, anyway? Say Saddam is worse than Dubya, but is Saddam worse than Pol Pot? And who was worse, Hitler or Stalin?

[geek tragedy]

40. Those silly Iraqis

Don't they know that there are two kinds of bad guys?:

1) Bush; and

2) Bush's friends.


If Bush doesn't like someone, they must be a great hero.

[maggrwaggr]

16. thank god somebody's pointing this out

it's about fucking time. I've always cringed whenever anybody in the media refers to Saddam's atrocities, like throwing people in wood-chippers or whatever ....

when we're in a time of WAR and propaganda.

It's the same fucking people who told us Iraqi troops were yanking babies out of incubators after the Kuwait invasion. Turns out that was pure bullshit.

Anything they say about Saddam is suspect, and because of the records of these people for lying about everything, CHANCES ARE it's a complete fabrication.

[Minstrel Boy]

18. Don't forget the invisible plastic people shredder of Abu Ghraib

Made great propaganda copy before the war, a la incubator babies. But it was never found, and witnesses say it never was.

THE MISSING PEOPLE-SHREDDER

Brendan O'Neill
Wednesday February 25, 2004

The horror of one of Saddam's execution methods made a powerful pro-war rallying cry - but the evidence suggests it never existed

...

The shredding machine was first mentioned in public by James Mahon, then head of research at Indict, at a meeting in the House of Commons on March 12. Mahon had just returned from northern Iraq, where Indict researchers, along with Clwyd, interviewed Iraqis who had suffered under Saddam. One of them said Iraqis had been fed into a shredder. "Sometimes they were put in feet first and died screaming. It was horrible. I saw 30 die like this ..." In subsequent interviews and articles, Clwyd said this shredding machine was in Abu Ghraib prison, Saddam's most notorious jail. Indict refuses to tell me the names of the researchers who were in Iraq with Mahon and Clwyd; and, I am told, Mahon, who no longer works at Indict, "does not want to speak to journalists about his work with us". But Clwyd tells me: "We heard it from a victim; we heard it and we believed it."

This is all that Indict had to go on - uncorroborated and quite amazing claims made by a single person from northern Iraq. When I suggest that this does not constitute proof of the existence of a human shredder, Clwyd responds: "Who are you to say that chap is a liar?" Yet to call for witness statements to be corroborated before being turned into the subject of national newspaper articles is to follow good practice in the collection of evidence, particularly evidence with which Indict hopes to "seek indictments by national prosecutors" against former Ba'athists.

An Iraqi who worked as a doctor in the hospital attached to Abu Ghraib prison tells me there was no shredding machine in the prison. The Iraqi, who wishes to remain anonymous, describes the prison as "horrific". Part of his job was to attend to those who had been executed. Did he ever attend to, or hear of, prisoners who had been shredded? "No." Did any of the other doctors at Abu Ghraib speak of a shredding machine used to execute prisoners? "No, never. As far as I know hanging was the only form of execution used there."

...

Other groups have no recorded accounts of a human shredder. An Amnesty International spokesman tells me that his inquiries into the shredder "drew a blank". Widney Brown, the deputy programme director of Human Rights Watch, says: "We have not heard of that particular form of execution or torture."
http://www.guardian.co.uk/analysis/story/0,3604,1155399,00.html

Tom Watson, Labour MP:

Now that Saddam has been overthrown, can we re-visit these allegations and find out whether there is really a scrap of truth behind them?

Where is this plastic shredder, who were the witnesses, when was all of this supposed to be going on?

We've been monstrously lied to over this war - and defectors were discovered to have cynically made up a whole pile of stuff to justify the invasion.
http://www.tom-watson.co.uk/cgi-bin/mt-comments.cgi?entry_id=272

[Matilda]

22. John Howard knows all about the people shredder.

Stood up there with a straight face and told us all about it.
Straight out of the Murdoch propaganda machine.

[BurtWorm]

23. KICK!

:kick:

[geek tragedy]

25. Anyone who thinks Saddam was anything but a brutal, evil dictator

needs to check into rehab.

This kind of thread is a disgrace. And Wanniski is an ignorant, vapid twit.

History did not begin in 2000.

[Ripley]

30. I believe the point being made is...

People were tortured in abu Graib by men under Saddam, not Saddam himself, yet we hold him completely accountable.

People were tortured in Abu Graib by men under Smirky, not Smirky himself, yet we don't hold him accountable at all.

[geek tragedy]

31. That may be your point

but the majority of posts, including Wanniski's article, are apologia for Saddam.

But for those people, just remember that Reagan supported Saddam, so therefore it's ok to hate him too.

I fully expect some people to sing the praises of the Dear Leader of North Korea next.

[Mike Daniels]

27. Next we'll be told that Amnesty International and HRW are RW fronts

who made up every piece of documentation indicating that Saddam, his family members and his ruling government were sadistic f*cks and in reality, living in Iraq all those years was a workers paradise where everyone could speak their mind and criticize the government at will.

[donhakman]

34. Bush trophies

[rinsd]

35. This is a frightening turn....

The enemy of your enemy is rarely your friend......

This crap gives the anti-war critics justification for their smear that the anti-war movement is on the other side.

[Q]

36. This is why they won't allow him to talk to the press...

...or anyone that could get word to the press. Although it may be true that Saddam is a brutal despot...THIS government has a record of making shit up in order to further their agenda and putting certain people in prison so they can't expose the whole truth.


- Let's not forget that the US military 'accidentally' killed a journalist that was about to expose a story of mass graves...coalition troops buried in the desert to keep the body count down.

- As someone stated above...this is an excellent case for the 'world court'. Perhaps this is one of the reasons why the Bushies have rejected said court?

[ElementaryPenguin]

37. I've been thinking this for some time. But brainwashed 'Muricans

Can't even entertain the thought... Read some things Ramsey Clark wrote re: Saddam and Bush I - got me looking this way.

:puke:

[geek tragedy]

39. Ramsey Clark?

Sorry, but anyone who relies on that P.O.S. is the one who's brainwashed. He is an advocate for and friend of:

Saddam
Milosevic
Kim Jong Il
Castro
Rwandan Genocidalists

And he's a front man for Stalinists.

No rational or sane person doubts that Saddam is guilty of atrocities and crimes against humanity. None.

[KoKo]

42. As Wanniski asks: "Where are the mass graves of the kurds?"

Geek, you need to do a "Google" on Wanniski and his connections. He's no Ramsey Clark.

[geek tragedy]

44. "Where is the evidence of gas chambers?"

Same appalling logic.


There is an extraordinary amount of evidence of atrocities committed by the Saddam regime.

Wanniski clearly hasn't done his research:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/3253783.stm

[filterfish]

46. Try again, geek

http://wanniski.com/showarticle.asp?articleid=3135

...As recently as December 7, the Associated Press listed the major suspected mass grave sites” as being six in number, with an actual vote count by authoritative sources as being less than 4,000. Of this number, 3115 were unearthed at Mahaweel in Southern Iraq, identified as being killed in the Shiite uprising of 1991 against the Baghdad regime, an uprising promoted by the CIA. A war crime? In the north, at Hatra, a mass grave of women and children was discovered, 25 by actual count, but with no report of forensics on just when they died. The site is listed as “major” because “local people” say a complete investigation will turn up 5,000 dead. Stephen Pelletiere, the CIA’s chief analyst during the Iran/Iraq war, points out that there are such graves all over Iraq dating back to the late 1960s. Forensic experts would have to certify the corpses' time of death and such work is not now being done. Kurdish mass graves would be easily identifiable, he says, because of distinctive Kurdish clothing.

I hope you see what I mean, editors. Human Rights Watch has been complaining for months and months that no effort has been made to prove charges that the despotic Saddam regime did any more than put down armed rebellions against the duly-constituted government of Iraq and sanction capital punishment for common criminals. The Bush administration sent David Kay and his survey group of 1200 inspectors into Iraq to find WMD and when they found none, they were given new unspecified “intelligence” assignments. There still has been no effort to search for the mass graves and certify they were in fact filled with victims of Saddam’s genocidal cruelty. That’s why Joost Hiltermann (who e-mailed me today) and I are pleased with the capture of Saddam Hussein and the anticipation of his trial on these charges. Only then will we get to the bottom of this story. While I believe the charges may not stick, or the mass graves would have already been found, I think the exercise may produce an interesting and unwelcome result, especially if Saddam gets a fair trial, with judges not hand-picked by the occupying coalition...

[geek tragedy]

47. Read sources other than that moonbat

and you'll see what the reality is.

Again, from a news report BEFORE the invasion of Iraq (link in post #45):

<snip>
Kurds in northern Iraq say that would serve justice for the man who has harmed them for decades. The New York-based group Human Rights Watch, after a three-year investigation of 18 tons of captured Iraqi documents, forensic examination of several mass graves, and hundreds of eyewitness accounts, concludes of the 1988 campaign: "The Iraqi regime committed the crime of genocide."
<snip>

I stand by my claim that no rational or sane person doubts Saddam's record of brutality.

[KoKo]

50. BBC article was US Propaganda. Sandra Hodgkinson is Pentagon/

Chalabi Controlled Operative. Check out the snip from the BBC article and then check out Hodgkinson.

from your BBC link:
Mass graves 'hold 300,000 Iraqis'
US officials say there may be as many as 260 mass graves in Iraq, containing the bodies of at least 300,000 people.

Forty sites had already been confirmed, said Sandra Hodgkinson, who heads the coalition's mass grave action plan.

Ms Hodgkinson was addressing a conference in Baghdad to prepare Iraqi officials for disinterring mass graves.

The mass graves mostly included the remains of ethnic Kurds and Shia Muslims killed for opposing the regime between 1983 and 1991, she said.

Although a number of graves have been discovered, there are fears relatives may be destroying evidence as they try to recover their loved ones.


------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
http://www.disinfopedia.org/wiki.phtml?title=Sandra_Hodgkinson
Sandra Hodgkinson

Sandra Hodgkinson served as the Coalition Provisional Authority's director of human rights in 2003 after the United States' attack against Iraq. An on-line military publication places Hodgkinson in Baghdad with Department of Defense reconstruction and humanitarian assistance planners March 16, 2003, nearly three weeks before US tanks rolled into the city's downtown.

The magazine, dcmilitary.com, reports that Hodgkinson worked several years before the war developing plans for human rights investigations in Iraq:

"The human rights specialist is from the State Department's Bureau of Democracy, Human Rights and Labor. She is also a Navy Reserve judge advocate general officer with the International and Operational Law Unit at the Pentagon. She's worked as a military prosecutor and an instructor in crimes against humanity issues through the International Military Education and Training program.

"Under the Iraqi Liberation Act of 1998, defense officials provided some war crimes and crimes against humanity training at the Defense Institute of International Legal Studies in Newport, R.I., for the Iraqi opposition. 'I was the course coordinator and an instructor for that program,' Hodgkinson said, 'which early on, got me working with Iraqi opposition in areas related to crimes against humanity, human rights protection and how to investigate and preserve evidence of these crimes.'

"In her civilian capacity, Hodgkinson has participated in the State Department's Future of Iraq Project, and about two years ago, she spoke at a Human Rights and Transitional Justice seminar arranged by the Iraqi National Congress in London. In February she began working with the Defense Department's Office of Reconstruction and Humanitarian Assistance, deploying first to Kuwait and then to Baghdad on March 16." <1>

[geek tragedy]

53. Did you read the CSM piece?

Or any Human Rights Watch reports?

This is not some fabrication of Ahmed Chalabi.

The position people are taking here is the moral equivalent of Holocaust denial.

[geek tragedy]

45. About those mass graves that the revisionists are wondering about

http://www.csmonitor.com/2002/0513/p08s01-wome.html

<snip>
Kurds in northern Iraq say that would serve justice for the man who has harmed them for decades. The New York-based group Human Rights Watch, after a three-year investigation of 18 tons of captured Iraqi documents, forensic examination of several mass graves, and hundreds of eyewitness accounts, concludes of the 1988 campaign: "The Iraqi regime committed the crime of genocide."
<snip>

But hey, a loony crank behind a keyboard says it isn't true, so we should just ignore all of this.

The revisionists and apologists here have no business calling themselves progressives.

[KoKo]

54. Geek when are you going to do that "Google" on Wanniski so that you

will sound like you know what you are talking about here.

"loony crank behind a keyboard." :D You don't know how funny that statement is to those of us who know who he is.

[geek tragedy]

56. Res ipsa loquitur

Anyone who denies, in the face of OVERWHELMING EVIDENCE OF EVERY KIND, that Saddam Hussein engaged in horrific atrocities, is a crank detached from reality.

If you still need to be persuaded that he's insane, here's his 1998 top 10 MOST DANGEROUS PEOPLE ON EARTH:

http://polyconomics.com/searchbase/08-31-98.html

5. Paul Krugman: Another MIT academic economist, Krugman remains high on our list by virtue of his influence among Democratic policymakers and opinion leaders who assume he must be a genius because he makes fun of all his competitors. A favorite at the editorial page of The New York Times and its Sunday Magazine, Krugman is a prolific, rapidly moving target, who gets away with writing an unusual mixture of neo-Keynesian and monetarist gibberish because he does so with supreme confidence. His current shtick is arguing that any economic recession can be cured anywhere by flooding the economy with money. A determined foe of supply-side arguments on taxes and gold.

Yes, Paul Krugman was the fifth most dangerous human being on the planet, according to Mr. Wanniski.

Nice.

[KoKo]

69. But this is exactly why it's shocking that Wanniski is saying this. He's

one of the Bushies going way back. To break with the pack and say what he's saying says that something's up. Maybe something getting ready to break in the news.

[Ksec]

48. Excellent article

It shows how media can wrap our minds around half truths and innuendo.

The point about saddam allowing the inspectors is key. You never hear this.

[geek tragedy]

51. The article itself is a pack of lies

<snip>
To tell you the truth, John, as far as I can recall, there have been no assertions of the “brutality” of Saddam’s regime from anyone but the Iraqi exiles associated with Ahmet Chalabi or those Kurds who fought on the Iranian side in the Iran/Iraq war. There are all kinds of anecdotes about Saddam doing dreadful things, entire books written about them, but the source of all of them is the same pool of people who have been feeding faked “evidence” of WMD and Al Qaeda connections to our government. Can it be that there is nothing that Saddam has done all these years that cannot be justified as the permissible acts of a head of state acting in defense of his people.
<snip>

This is an outright lie. Repeat after me. L-I-E.

Saddam has been a known monster for decades. Independent inquiries have verified this.

Revisionists make me sick.

[Ksec]

55. got proof?

If so Ill retract

[geek tragedy]

57. He's saying that all claims of Saddam's crimes came from the INC.

http://hrw.org/reports/1993/iraqanfal/METHOD.htm

<snip>
To a large measure this report is based on testimonies obtained in Iraqi Kurdistan from eyewitnesses to (and often victims of) Anfal-related abuses. Two Middle East Watch researchers and an assistant spent a total of six months in the Kurdish areas on three separate missions between April 1992 and April 1993, conducting approximately 350 in-depth interviews. The methodology they used in obtaining this testimonial evidence is described below.

<snip>

There's also tons of documentary evidence and forensic evidence as well.

[Ksec]

58. from the article

*Just call Human Rights Watch and ask if they have yet found the mass graves of those tens of thousands of Kurds and they will sheepishly admit they are still looking. *

[geek tragedy]

59. I proved that he lied

when he said that all of the evidence came from the INC.

And, mass murder does not mean mass graves. The Baathists did not necessarily bury these people.

He's crazy. He thinks Paul Krugman is one of the most dangerous and evil men on the planet.

But, anyone who is seriously curious about Saddam's record should go to HRW's site and read their reports.

If you still believe Mr. "Paul Krugman is more dangerous and evil than Saddam" Wanniski, have fun at the asylum.

[filterfish]

62. proved nothing

unless the following are true:

1) mountains of evidence are indisputable, because, well, they're mountains and one can't argue with mountains

2) mountains of evidence can't be broken down, examined, and discounted, because mountains always remain mountains

3) dispatches that uncritically support the view that saddam killed 300K-400K (so let's invade iraq) should be taken as gospel because there are so many of them

4) anyone who challenges that assertion (a former WSJ editor and a former CIA officer) is a saddam apologist, revisionist, kook or all three

5) suggesting saddam may not have murdered 300-400k is the same as making him a saint

[geek tragedy]

68. He claimed that the only sources claiming that Saddam committed atrocities

were from the INC.

That is a flat-out LIE.

You don't want to believe Saddam committed atrocities, and nothing could convince you.

You accept the word of this nutbag over organizations whose sole function is to investigate and prevent human rights abuses.

I'll stick by my holocaust denial analogy.

[stickdog]

63. Any independently verified claims that Hussein directly ordered war

crimes to be committed against anyone?

[geek tragedy]

67. No, I'm sure that the chemical gas attacks

and genocide were just a few bad apples.

[stickdog]

80. Dude, "gassing the Kurds" is so played.

1) It may have been Iran.

2) If it was Iraq, it probably happened with US intel assistance.

Concerning "genocide":

Was it genocide, or was it putting down an internal uprising that Bush I helped foment?

Just asking for the independently verified evidence.

So please put up or shut up.

[geek tragedy]

82. It wasn't Iran

"probably happened with US intel" = "I'm just making shit up"

The poison gas and Afnal campaign occurred in 1988, and Ronald Reagan, like you a supporter of Saddam, vetoed sanctions passed by Congress.

This picture is of a mass grave being exhumed in 1989:

[rinsd]

85. Okay....

"Was it genocide, or was it putting down an internal uprising that Bush I helped foment?"

I can't believe a DUer actually treated the killing of hundreds of thousands of poeple as glibbly as "putting down an internal unprising"

Big fan of Putin too?

[geek tragedy]

87. "Can it be that there is nothing that Saddam has done all these years that

cannot be justified as the permissible acts of a head of state acting in defense of his people?"

You see, if you're anti-Bush, for some people that means being pro-Saddam.

I also love the bit about Human Rights Watch et al being neo-con agents. Hilarious.

[stickdog]

94. What's glib? I just want to know the REAL TRUTH.

Glib is tossing out the word "GENOCIDE" like it was candy.

[geek tragedy]

95. The only thing glib

is your adamant defense of Saddam and refusal to consider any evidence that he committed mass atrocities.



Have you read any of the Human Rights Watch reports? Simple question. Put up or shut up.

[stickdog]

97. There are more of these AFTER the occupation than BEFORE.

Are we putting Bush on trial yet?

Why don't you just point directly me to the best evidence you know of?

Do you have something against that? Because that's the way we educate people around here -- with information, not bluster.

[theboss]

49. This is some bullshit

I don't understand why people have to apparently become insanely stupid in order to make a point about Bush. Bush is wrong about any number of things. That doesn't make Saddam a good guy.

[LabMonkey]

61. Amen, Saddam was a monster no question.

"That doesn't make Saddam a good guy."
And good riddence to him and I hope the Iraqis
execute the monster.

[stickdog]

64. I don't know what to believe anymore about Hussein.

Therefore, I now require evidence from sources other than Iraqi exiles.

Do you have any for me?

[geek tragedy]

66. Human Rights Watch? Amnesty International?

Or haven't you been paying attention?

[KoKo]

70. Geek, why are you so convinced that Saddam is everything Bush/

Cheney/PNAC/Chalabi said he was? Why are you so convinced that invading Iraq was to remove an evil, brutal dictator who gassed his own people and was ready to attack us with Chem/bio/nuke's?

Why do you not understand that this is a group of people who've been spreading disinformation since the Cold War years trying to make threats out of everyone in their own interests for oil, minerals or timber?

[geek tragedy]

71. Because I don't wear tinfoil

Those guys insist the Holocaust happened. Why do you believe them?

Same shit, different pile.

Go sell crazy somewhere else. I'm not interested in your "everything revolves around Bush" ideology.

Saddam was a known monster long ago, while Bush was still boozing it up.

My view of him has nothing to do with Bush. Unlike you.

[KoKo]

72. "Those guys" insist the Holocaust happened? Who are "those guys?"

What are you talking about?

[geek tragedy]

74. You're basing your opinion of Saddam on the fact that Bush

and the PNAC are out to get him. Your belief system is apparently to defend anyone they accuse of horrific war crimes.

Saddam is innocent, according to you, because Bush used Saddam's records of atrocities to justify the invasion.

Same logic as the "anti-zionists" who deny the Holocaust.

You are serving as an apologist for a genocidalist because he's an enemy of Bush.

[KoKo]

86. ROFL! I will lend you my cap...you might learn something if you hear

the (((vibes))) of TRUTH...

[geek tragedy]

89. Sorry, but you can buy Reagan's lies about Saddam if you want

and buy the utterly bullshit notion that Human Rights Watch and Amnesty International are agents of a neocon conspiracy.

I have to go talk with my sane friends now. Bye!:hi:

[stickdog]

78. I've been paying attention. Where are Hussein's mass graves, as

promised?

[geek tragedy]

81. Who promised them?

Typical revisionist/genocidalist issue avoiding. Deny the existence of an atrocity, ignore all evidence of an atrocity, raise a counterfactual, and then dismiss all evidence that confirms what everyone on the planet knows.

But, I'll play with you a little longer, hoping to convert you from being pro-Saddam:

http://web.amnesty.org/web/wire.nsf/July2003print/Iraq?OpenDocument

<snip>Because they are so desperate for news, relatives have exhumed bodies from mass grave sites, unaware of or ignoring the fact that they may be disturbing vital evidence, preventing others from identifying bodies and potentially hindering the process of justice.
<snip>


http://www.phrusa.org/research/chemical_weapons/photos.html

[treepig]

73. a somewhat related article

reproduced in it's entirety because it's "Not copyrotten. (or spell-checked!!) Reproduction and redistribution encouraged."

But What About Saddam?
======================
FAV Note:
The following text comes from Peace Porridge #30.
For more information about Peace Porridge, look at the end of the page.

**********************

I've been to Iraq three times in the past four years. Each time I go
someone asks me whether I met Saddam. The first question the editor of
my local newspaper asked me was, "Did you ever meet a dictator you
didn't like?" That was the high point. The interview went downhill from
there.

I can't figure it out. I go to Nicaragua every year; but no one has
ever asked me if I met Enrique Bolanos; or if I met Jean Chritien when
I went to Canada, or Vicente Fox when I visited Mexico. Perhaps, when
the US government and its propaganda machine demonize a head of state,
people confuse the head of state with the country and its population.

I try to avoid talking about Saddam. My work in Iraq with Veterans for
Peace is rebuilding water treatment plants which were deliberately
destroyed through war and sanctions.

Saddam is irrelevant. He isn't drinking polluted water because of
sanctions, but millions of Iraqis are. Saddam's children aren't dying
from water-borne diseases, but hundreds of thousands of Iraqi children
have died of water-borne diseases because of sanctions. Iraqi children
will continue to die needlessly until the sanctions are lifted and the
12 year old state of war is ended. Saddam is the excuse for continuing
the slaughter.

I've been told that if I don't talk about Saddam, no one will listen to
me. I've also been told that if I don't repeat the litany, "Saddam is a
brutal dictator who gassed his own people," I will have no credibility.

Whether I'm talking to a pro-war hawk, or an anti-sanctions activist,
it's the same litany, "Saddam is a brutal dictator who gassed his own
people." Something is wrong. If everybody agrees, why repeat it?
Strange. This litany would seem to obscure some important truth.

Below, I will debunk some common myths relating to Saddam Hussein; and
then suggest an hypothesis concerning the hidden truth behind the
demonization of Saddam.

----------------

MYTH: By gassing civilians at Halabja, Saddam placed himself on the
level of Hitler and a few other genocidal maniacs.

FACT: It's almost never stated that this happened during the war with
Iran, and that both sides used poison gas (although Iraq did so first).
It's also rarely stated that much of the raw materials and technical
knowledge to produce these weapons came from the US, which at the time,
raised no protest to the gassing of civilians at Halabja.

Most major participants in World War I used poison gas. After WWI,
Britain gassed the Afghans, France the Moroccans, Italy the Ethiopians,
and so it went among the "civilized" Western powers. During WWII Japan
attempted to spread anthrax and plague among the Chinese, a feat the US
also attempted in North Korea some years later.

The US has a long history of using biochemical weapons. As early as the
18th century, European immigrants deliberately spread smallpox among
the indigenous peoples of North America. The US sprayed Vietnam
copiously with dioxin containing agent orange, poisoning the land, the
people, the food and water supply, and its own soldiers. The US is now
using a toxic fumigant in its war against Columbia, again poisoning the
land, the people, and the food and water supply. In each case, the
victims are mostly civilians.


MYTH: No other country would use biochemical weapons on its own people,
like Saddam did.

FACT: The US has also used biochemical agents against its own people.
During the early decades of the cold war, the US Army routinely used
unsuspecting US citizens as human guinea pigs to test nuclear and
biochemical weapons. On many occasions, the US Army released the toxic
heavy metal compound, zinc cadmium sulfate, which causes birth defects
and developmental retardation, in US and Canadian cities, sometimes in
close proximity to schools. This heinous and unpunished crime took
place at a time of (relative) peace.


MYTH: If Saddam stopped building palaces, he could provide for his
people. Sanctions have nothing to do with the excessive childhood
mortality in Iraq.

FACT: During the 1980's Saddam built an educational and health care
system in Iraq that was the envy of the Arab world. Childhood mortality
in Iraq fell by an astounding 38% in a decade. By 1990, Iraq was well
on its way to achieving a level of education and health care comparable
to the industrialized world.

This changed dramatically with the 1991 Persian Gulf War and the
ensuing sanctions. UNICEF has blamed sanctions for an excess of 500,000
child deaths over an 8 year period.

Iraq gets no cash through the oil for foods program, so virtually all
cash, including the palace-building fund, comes through the black
market trade, which is estimated at less than $1 billion per year. Even
if the black market trade is as much as $8 billion, it would provide
each Iraqi with only $1 per day. Try providing for your child on $1 a
day.


MYTH: Saddam is a threat to global peace.

FACT: What global peace? The world has been at war for most, if not
all, of my 60 years.

Interestingly, in a recent UK Mirror poll, 75% identified Saddam
Hussein as a threat to world peace, second only to the ubiquitous Osama
bin Laden, whereas George W. Bush finished third at 51%. After Israel,
Britain is the staunchest ally of the US, yet over half of the British
people think that Bush is a threat to world peace, and 22% identify him
as the greatest threat to world peace. What would the results be in a
worldwide poll?


MYTH: We must invade Iraq now. If Saddam gets weapons of mass
destruction (WMDs), he'll use them or give them to terrorists.

FACT: There is only one nation that has irrevocably demonstrated to the
world its willingness to use nuclear weapons, and it's not Iraq.
Further, the US routinely threatens to use nuclear weapons, even
against non-nuclear states. Saddam's use of biochemical weapons pales
in comparison.

The US demonstrated in the 1980's its desire to not only arm terrorist
groups, but to create them, specifically the Afghan Mujaheddin and the
Nicaraguan Contras. The US continues to train Latin American terrorists
at the School of the Americas and continues to arm terrorist death
squads in Columbia and Guatemala. No connection between Saddam and
Al-Qaeda or any other armed group has ever been substantiated.

Israel is a thermo-nuclear power and one of the world's most
aggressive, expansionist countries. Few in the US propose disarming
Israel or even cutting off the over $3 billion of aid the US has given
Israel every year since 1967. India and Pakistan were within a hair's
breadth of nuking each other. Few propose disarming India and Pakistan.
With the breakdown to Russian society, Russia is by far the world's
most likely source of nuclear proliferation. Few propose taking
measures to secure Russia's nuclear arsenal.

With all these aggressive irresponsible nuclear powers about, why
invade Iraq because it might have stashed away a few biochemical
weapons or might acquire some nuclear weapons in the future?


MYTH: Iraq must be invaded because Saddam is in violation of UN
resolution 687, calling on him to destroy all WMDs and submit to UN
inspections.

FACT: UN inspections have in the pass been used for espionage. Iraq
would probably allow UN inspectors to return, if given assurances that
they would not be used again for espionage.

Other countries flout the UN with impunity. Israel is in violation of
dozens of UN resolutions. Israel, India and Pakistan are in violation
of the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty. The US doesn't even pay its
dues to the UN.


MYTH: Saddam has twice attacked his neighbors. Unless disarmed now, he
will do so again.

FACT: Both attacks were with the apparent blessings of the US. The
Iran-Iraq war was a proxy war which Saddam fought with material and
intelligence from the US. With Iraqi troops amassed on the border of
Kuwait, US ambassador April Glaspie virtually invited invasion by
saying to Saddam, "But, we have no opinion on the Arab-Arab conflicts,
like your border disagreement with Kuwait." If the US had unequivocally
opposed these acts of aggression, it is unlikely that either of them
would have occurred.

Meanwhile, it is conveniently ignored that Israel has attacked all its
neighbors: Palestine, Lebanon, Jordan, Syria, Iraq, and Egypt. It is
unlikely that these acts of aggression could continue if the US cut off
the over $3 billion it gives to Israel every year.


MYTH: Saddam must be taken out because he is a brutal dictator who
oppresses his own people.

FACT: The world is full of brutal dictators. The world is full of
oppressors and abusers of human rights. Many dictators such as
Pakistan's Pervez Musharraf are good friends of the US. Many of the
world's most heinous human rights abusers like Ariel Sharon are good
friends of the US.

The US could oppose dictators by supporting democracy. Yet the US
opposes Iran's Mohammad Khatami and Palestine's Yassir Arafat, both
democratically elected heads of state in a region with very little
democracy. The US could strike a fierce blow against human rights
abusers by supporting the International Criminal Court (ICC). The US
opposed the ICC.

-----------------

So, instead of repeating the litany, "Saddam is a brutal dictator who
gassed his own people," perhaps, we should ask why the United States is
so bent upon destroying Iraq? Clearly it has nothing to do with weapons
of mass destruction, threats to neighbors, dictatorships, human rights
violations, or any other reason put forward by the US.

Some answers I have heard are oil, revenge, and stupidity. All three
make some sense, but don't fit the facts completely.

Here is an hypothesis which does fits the facts. The US is bent on
destroying Iraq for the same reason it destroyed Nicaragua and has been
trying to destroy Cuba for 43 years. It cannot tolerate that a third
world country should follow an independent course and place the health
and education of its citizens before the profits of US based
multi-national corporations.

No other explanation I've heard fits the facts so well. Every third
world country that has placed the health and education of its citizens
before the profits of the multi-nationals has earned the enmity of the
US. It doesn't matter whether the country has oil. It doesn't matter
whether they have done anything aggressive toward the US. It doesn't
matter whether the US president is a clever Clinton or a bungling Bush.

Whenever possible the US has crushed these upstarts and dismantled
their health and education infrastructures. The Mossadegh government in
Iran, Sukarno in Indonesia, Allende in Chili, and the Sandinistas in
Nicaragua are some of the better known examples.

While Iraq was fighting a proxy war against Iran for the US, it was far
too valuable an ally to crush. But, that changed in 1990. Iraq was
enticed into Kuwait, and then crushed in the Persian Gulf War. Iraq's
health and education infrastructure were destroyed, but Saddam remained
in power. And this has continued through 12 years of murderous
sanctions.

Now sanctions are unraveling. Little by little the world is calling for
their end or quietly ignoring them. So the US now contemplates open war
and invasion.

But, again, Saddam is just an excuse. The real war is, and always has
been, against education and health care. The goal is to keep the
children poor, sick, and illiterate, the resources in the hands of the
multi-nationals, and to let Iraq serve as an example to any other
country that might contemplate pulling itself up from third world
status.

This, indeed, is the important truth hidden by the demonization of
Saddam Hussein.

-Tom Sager

http://www.freearabvoice.org/readerscorner/whatAboutSaddam.htm

[geek tragedy]

75. Thank you for making my point about Saddam apologists

being the same as Holocaust deniers. You are BUSTED!

From this same publication:
http://www.freearabvoice.org/whyTheHolocaustIsImportantToArabs.htm

<snip>
This issue of the Free Arab Voice (FAV) is dedicated to the necessary
connection between the historical review of the "Holocaust" and the
worldwide struggle against Zionism. Entries in this issue include:
<snip>

<snip>
the claim that the Jews were systematically exterminated in WWII,
provides the argument for the need for a safe haven for the Jews, i.e.,
the need for “Israel”. This myth basically provides a justification
for the rape of Palestine.
<snip>

[treepig]

76. too bad you're incapable of arguing an issue based on its merits

the article i posted was published in a e-journal known as "peace porridge" - at some point their link went dead and the article was re-posted at the "free arab voice" site (which also apparently posts stuff you find offensive due to a loose editorial policy - something like moveon.org posting ads that compare bush to hitler that sean hannity rants and raves about non-stop).

personally i've never looked beyond the page i linked to to thoroughly evaluate the political persuasions of all its contents. but thanks for performing this valuable service for all of us. of course you do realize that your own reputation is utterly in tatters from posting here, in the very same thread that contained holocaust-denier-propaganda. sucks for you i suppose, hehehe.

[geek tragedy]

77. I repudiated holocaust denial as immoral

and you didn't.

Loose editorial policy? That's funny. How about a hatred of America and Jews? That's the editorial policy of said publication.

And, if you're going to cite a source that makes factual claims, expect questions about it. I was opposed to the war, but that didn't cause me to become an apologist for Saddam. Your article made all sorts of claims (Iran using chemical weapons) that are contradicted by those who have seriously and honestly researched the issue.

So, I'm not going to take accept it for face value.

Especially when you're linking to a goddamn Nazi website.

More from the co-editor of this hate rag:

http://www.freearabvoice.org/issues/historicalRevisionismAndTheStruggle.htm

[treepig]

83. yeah, but your repudiation rings awfully hollow

what with your history of posting on a thread infested with holocaust deniers, and all that.

btw, there's very little doubt that iran used chemical weapons - but since they probably didn't come from your buddies in the reagan administration i can see why you're in denial (no $$'s for you!):


The Iranian chemical weapons production program dates to early in the Iran-Iraq war. Iran used chemical agents to respond to Iraqi chemical attacks on several occasions during that war. Since the early 1990s, it has put a high priority on its chemical weapons program because of its inability to respond in kind to Iraq’s chemical attacks and the discovery of substantial Iraqi efforts with advanced agents, such as the highly persistent nerve agent VX.

Iran manufactures weapons for blister, blood, and choking agents; it is also believed to be conducting research on nerve agents. Iran's stockpile of chemical weapons is believed to include nerve and blister agents. Iran is estimated to have an inventory of several thousand tons of various agents, including sulfur mustard, phosgene, and cyanide agents. Iran is working on developing a self-sufficient CW production capacity that includes more effective nerve agents. Along with shell and bomb delivery systems, Iran may also be producing CW warheads for its Scud missile systems.

Its production capacity is estimated at as much as 1000 tons a year, with major production facilities located at Damghan, 300 kms east of Tehran. Other facilities are located at Esfahan, Parchin and Qazvin. The Iranian chemical weapons infrastructure is very poorly characterized in the open literature, and given the reported scope of this program it must be assumed that as many as a dozen other facilities have significant chemical weapons development, production, storage or training activities.

http://www.globalsecurity.org/wmd/world/iran/cw.htm

[geek tragedy]

84. Do you have ANY evidence that it was the Iranians who gassed Halabja?

Besides the idiotic "blue lips" canard?

I guess all of the victims and eyewitnesses must be lying. Because a nice, progressive leader like Saddam who was martyred by the US because of his goal of social justice would never do such a thing.

And it is YOUR friends from the Reagan administration who insisted that Iran was to blame. But, go ahead and believe right-wing agitprop all you want.

Still waiting for you to repudiate the views of the site you linked to. You know the one which had ideas which you said I found offensive. Not sure if you found them offensive. Did you?

I myself will take the word of Human Rights Watch, Amnesty International, and Physicians for Human Rights, all of whom did on-site investigations, over that of Saddam Hussein and Ronald Reagan.

[treepig]

88. ok, looks they've fixed the original peace porridge site

that "what about saddam" article is available here in it's original version state:

http://peacehq.tripod.com/peaceporridge2/index.html

and about the free arab site, like i said i've not evaluated any information except what i've posted so i have no intention on repudiating or validating anything based on the testimony of someone like you who's character is completely besmirched by participating in a holocaust-denying-online-forum.

finally, where have i, or the article i posted, insinuate that the iranians gassed halabja?

hello reading comprehension . . . here is what was actually said:

MYTH: By gassing civilians at Halabja, Saddam placed himself on the level of Hitler and a few other genocidal maniacs.

FACT: It's almost never stated that this happened during the war with Iran, and that both sides used poison gas (although Iraq did so first). It's also rarely stated that much of the raw materials and technical knowledge to produce these weapons came from the US, which at the time, raised no protest to the gassing of civilians at Halabja.

[geek tragedy]

90. So you're neutral on whether the Holocaust happened?

That's all I need to know about you.

Makes your apologism for Saddam make sense, though.

[treepig]

91. thought you were leaving after post #89?

shows how much credibility your statements hold . . .

[geek tragedy]

93. I didn't say you were crazy,

just that you refuse to acknowledge that the Holocaust happened and that Saddam committed atrocities.

I can't speculate as to your motives.

Now I say goodbye to you. :hi:

[rinsd]

92. Talk about drinking the Kool-Aid

The war not being justified doesn't make Saddam some kind of misunderstood figure.

The distraction that he had unversal healthcare is pretty frightening. See, he's not bad. Sure 1 million people disappeared under his reign but he had universal health care!

Everytime I hear this argument I cringe.

[TexasSissy]

79. Not to me.

[geek tragedy]

96. Chemical Ali in his own words

http://www.hrw.org/campaigns/iraq/chemicalali.htm

<snip>
Jalal Talabani asked me to open a special channel of communication with him. That evening I went to Suleimaniyeh and hit them with the special ammunition. That was my answer. We continued the deportations. I told the mustashars that they might say that they like their villages and that they won't leave. I said I cannot let your village stay because I will attack it with chemical weapons. Then you and your family will die. You must leave right now. Because I cannot tell you the same day that I am going to attack with chemical weapons. I will kill them all with chemical weapons! Who is going to say anything? The international community? Fuck them! The international community and those who listen to them.

… This is my intention, and I want you to take serious note of it. As soon as we complete the deportations, we will start attacking them everywhere according to a systematic military plan. Even their strongholds. In our attacks we will take back one third or one half of what is under their control. If we can try to take two-thirds, then we will surround them in a small pocket and attack them with chemical weapons. I will not attack them with chemicals just one day, but I will continue to attack them with chemicals for fifteen days. Then I will announce that anyone who wishes to surrender with his gun will be allowed to do so. Anyone willing to come back is welcome, and those who do not return will be attacked again with new, destructive chemicals. I will not mention the name of the chemical because that is classified information. But I will say with new destructive weapons that will destroy you. So I will threaten them and motivate them to surrender.
<snip>

[stickdog]

98. Chemical Ali Nixon?

Dude, I don't know the answer here, but I'll be infinitely surprised if Hussein ever gets his day in court.

Since the Brits drew up Iraq's first boundaries, no Iraqi leader has ever united the nation without being a ruthless dictator. So I fully believe that Hussein was a ruthless, war mongering despot. But it will take more than a transcription of a tape smuggled by thwe Kurds that purports to be Chemical Ali to prove that Hussein was a genocidal maniac on the scale of Stalin, Hitler or Pol Pot.

The man stands accused of slaughtering MILLIONS.

I'm simply asking for the best forensic evidence you have that he actually did murder millions or even hundreds or tens of thousands.

That's all.

[Matilda]

99. Human rights abuses are taking place right now all over the Middle East.

Saudi Arabia, Yemen, the Emirates, Kuwait - these countries are
as repressive as Iraq under Saddam, but unlike the Iraqis, their
people get next to nothing. A little further out, Karimov of
Uzbekistan could write a book on his personal reminiscences of
torture and repression. Iran, Syria, Jordan - their rulers do
seem to be making an effort to improve their record - if only to
ensure their own survival, but they've all got a long way to go.
Even in Israel, that bastion of the West, forget about free speech.
Ask Mordecai Vanunu about that one.

It all depends on the usefulness or otherwise of their regimes to
the power plays of the western powers - most especially the U.S.
and the U.K.

I wouldn't weep for Saddam, but he deserves a fair and open trial,
and I doubt that he'll get it. I still expect to read of his
unexpected death through misadventure long before he ever enters a
courtroom.