Did you know? Iran-Iraq war.

[LynnTheDem]

Saddam Hussein on several occasions offered cease-fires to Iran and tried to use diplomatic means to avoid war, and then to end war; Iran's Ayatollah Khomeini refused all such offers. There were TWO belligerant armies in the Iran-Iraq war...and America encouraged both to keep on killing each other.

Just another reason for why the vast majority of the world rejected bush's war on Iraq; most the rest of the world knows the reality of the Iran-Iraq war, not the American fantasy re-version by bush & his pundits. While the world is used to American ignorance on world events & history, it doesn't enhance our credibility in the world when we attempt revisions.

How can a nation make considered life & death decisions, when the facts aren't known or discussed, or are spun, twisted and revised? It can't; see current Iraqmire.

**US State Department official, 1983;

"We don't give a damn as long as the Iran-Iraq carnage does not affect our allies in the region or alter the balance of power."

Except when it's useful for creating more carnage 20 years later, eh America?

Failed Diplomacy

In 1979, after the Islamic Revolution swept Iran, resulting in the overthrow of the Shah, Iran began publicly urging the Iraqi population to rise up and overthrow the Iraqi government because of fundamental differences in the respective regimes.

The new Iranian regime declared Iran to be the "Islamic Republic" and in its constitution described the government as "a system based on the belief in…religious leadership and continuous guidance." The Iraqi Bathist regime was a secular government, and Saddam urged Arab nationalism over religious fundamentalism—he wanted to foster a homogenous society of Shia, Sunni and Kurds.

A senior Iranian Mullah announced, "We have taken the path of true Islam and our aim in defeating Saddam Hussein lies in the fact that we consider him the main obstacle to the advance of Islam in the region."

Hussein's initiation of war was full of early diplomatic and domestic attempts to subdue the Iraqi unrest and ensure peace with Iran. In 1979, Saddam allocated 80 million dollars for Shia and Sunni shrines, mosques and the welfare of pilgrims. He publicly backed clerics who supported his regime and he also conveyed support for all religions and sects. In late 1979, Saddam resorted to projecting himself as a pious Muslim by praying at numerous holy shrines, both Sunni and Shia. As a further measure of conciliation towards the Shia, he declared Shia holy leader Imam Ali’s birthday as a national holiday.

In July 1979, Saddam reiterated interest in establishing close relations with Iran "based on mutual respect and non-interference in internal affairs." The Ayatollah rejected Hussein's offer. Again taking the initiative, Saddam asked to visit Tehran in August of 1979, but the request was denied by the Iranian leadership.

Referances:

-"Deciding on War" in Saddam Hussein: A Political Biography
King’s College, University of London

-"Roots of Conflict: After the Iranian Revolution" in The Longest
War: The Iran-Iraq Military Conflict
Routledge Holdings, Inc, New York, NY,

-The Iran-Iraq War: The Feud, the Tragedy, the Spoils
World Policy Journal vol. 2, Fall 1985

-**Time, 25 July 1983, p. 28, quoted in Mansour Farhang, "The Iran-Israel Connection," in _Consistency of U.S. Foreign Policy: The Gulf War and the Iran-ContraAffair, ed. Abbas Alnasrawi and Cheryl Rubenberg, Belmont, MA: AAUG, 1989, p. 96.

-National Defense University; National War College
Iran-Iraq War; Exceeding Means
http://www.ndu.edu/library/n2/n015602O.pdf

Iran-Iraq War

1979
-July 16: President Al-Bakr resigns and is succeeded by vice president Saddam Hussein.

1980
-April 1: The pro-Iranian Da'wah Party claims responsibility for an attack on Deputy Prime Minister Tariq Aziz at Mustansiriyah University, Baghdad.

-September 4: Iran shells Iraqi border towns; Iraq considers this the start of the Iran/Iraq war.

-September 22: Iraq attacks Iranian air bases, Iran retaliates by bombing Iraqi military and economic targets.

http://www.edp24.co.uk/Content/Frontline/Timeline_Iraq.asp

-Hussein, despite having made significant strides in forging an Iraqi nation-state, feared that Iran's new revolutionary leadership would threaten Iraq's delicate SunniShia balance and would exploit Iraq's geostrategic vulnerabilities--Iraq's minimal access to the Persian Gulf, for example.

-The Iraqis also perceived revolutionary Iran's Islamic agenda as threatening to their pan-Arabism.

-The principal events that touched off the rapid deterioration in relations occurred during the spring of 1980.

-In late 1980, Tehran rejected a settlement offer.

Iraqi Retreats, 1982-84

-1982; Hussein announced that the Iraqi units would withdraw from Iranian territory. Saddam ordered a withdrawal to the international borders, believing Iran would agree to end the war. Iran did not accept this withdrawal as the end of the conflict, and continued the war into Iraq.

-In late June 1982, Baghdad stated its willingness to negotiate a settlement of the war and to withdraw its forces from Iran. Iran refused.

-1984; Iraq tried to force Iran to the negotiating table by various means.

-Iraq turned to diplomatic and political means. In April 1984, Saddam Hussein proposed to meet Khomeini personally in a neutral location to discuss peace negotiations. But Tehran rejected this offer and restated its refusal to negotiate.

-Iraq sought to involve the superpowers as a means of ending the war.

-Iranian military gains inside Iraq after 1984 were a major reason for increased superpower involvement in the war. In February 1986, Iranian units captured the port of Al Faw, which had oil facilities and was one of Iraq's major oil-exporting ports before the war.

-In early 1987, both superpowers indicated their interest in the security of the region.

-By late spring of 1987, the superpowers became more directly involved because they feared that the fall of Basra might lead to a pro-Iranian Islamic republic in largely Shia-populated southern Iraq. They were also concerned about the intensified Tanker War.

-Iran accepted United Nations (UN) Security Council Resolution 598, leading to a 20 August 1988 cease-fire.

-Iran acknowledged that nearly 300,000 people died in the war; estimates of the Iraqi dead range from 160,000 to 240,000.

Referances;

-National Defense University; National War College
Iran-Iraq War; Exceeding Means
http://www.ndu.edu/library/n2/n015602O.pdf

-Library of Congress;
http://lcweb2.loc.gov/frd/cs/iqtoc.html

-Library of Congress;
http://lcweb2.loc.gov/frd/cs/irtoc.html

-Iran-Iraq War (1980-1988)
http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/world/war/iran-iraq.htm

-The Iran-Iraq War and Western Security, 1984-87
London: Jane's Publishing Co

-The Tanker War, 1984-87
http://reference.allrefer.com/country-guide-study/iraq/iraq101.html

America; helping both Iraq and Iran to continue their war

-The Tower Commission; North and CIA officials discussed with their Iranian contacts "Iran's urgent need" for "both intelligence and weapons to be used in offensive operations against Iraq."

-CIA deputy director John McMahon claimed that he warned Poindexter that such intelligence would give the Iranians "a definite edge," with potentially "cataclysmic results," and that he was able to persuade North to provide Iran with only a segment of the intelligence.

-North, however, apparently gave critical data to Iran just before its crucial victory in the Fao Peninsula in February 1986. Despite McMahon's warnings, neither Poindexter nor CIA Director Casey reversed the plans to provide the Iranians with the full intelligence information.

-At the same time that the U.S. was giving Teheran weapons that one CIA analyst believed could affect the military balance, and passing on intelligence that the Tower Commission deemed of "potentially major significance," it was also providing Iraq with intelligence information, some misleading or incomplete.

-In 1986, the CIA established a direct Washington-to-Baghdad link to provide the Iraqis with faster intelligence from U.S. satellites.

-Simultaneously, Casey was urging Iraqi officials to carry out more attacks on Iran, especially on economic targets.

Asked what the logic was of aiding both sides in a bloody war, a former official replied, "You had to have been there."

Referances:

Tower Commission
http://www.presidency.ucsb.edu/PS157/assignment%20files%20public/TOWER%20EXCERPTS.htm

http://www.namebase.org/sources/IE.html

"Iran and Iraq Got 'Doctored Data, U.S. Officials Say,"
New York Times, 12 Jan. 1987, pp. A1, A6.

Veil. The Secret Wars of the CIA 1981-1987
Bob Woodward

[spindoctor]

1. Well, if Arabs, Sunis and Shiites wouldn't be so greedy and power hungry..

...they might actually make some progress towards the greater Arab League. Unfortunately, they're a belingant bunch and we profit from their domestic quarrels since they need to sell lots and lots of oil to finance their little ventures.

Is it coincidence that we attacked Iraq after a long period of peace in the region? Even Khadaffi was keeping quiet long before the Afministration claimed this to be an effect of their aggressive strategy.

You can refer to Lawrence of Arabia to note that the progress in the past 100 years has been effectively zero. Then again, the Middle-East has not made a lot of progress since the 15th century and they can't (or shouldn't) blame us for all of that.

[Selatius]

6. I find it funny you characterize Sunnis and Shias as greedy

Just because Khomeini and Saddam held the power doesn't mean that Sunnis and Shi'ites on the street wanted that kind of bloodbath as well. It wouldn't make sense to assume that because of the nature of those two dictators, it would be okay to also consider ordinary Sunnis and Shias as equally greedy and power-hungry. Wars are not started by the people on the street. They are started by the leaders both elected and unelected.

Your average person gets nothing out of fighting a war except to come home in one piece. At worst, he comes home crippled for life or dead. They simply want to be left in peace to live out their lives without having a dictator shoot their families and without having to live under falling missiles and bombs.

The Iranian Revolution wouldn't have gotten the support it did if the US did not support the Shah when he overthrew and destroyed Iran's fledgling democracy, which happened to elect a center-left government that had the audacity to nationalize their oil infrastructure for the benefit of their people. (Gee, sounds a bit like what Hugo Chavez is trying to do down there in Venezuela today, doesn't it?) The militant clerics were the only steady voice left after the US-backed Shah liquidated everyone else.

And Saddam wouldn't have become the monster he became if the US didn't sell him those weapons and didn't help him create his chemical weapons programs, which he used on Iraqis as well as Iranians, and a case could be argued the Ba'ath Party wouldn't have come to power had the CIA not supported their attempts to gain power in the 1963 coup.

The ordinary folks just want to live, not die in a fucking war or die under tyranny.

[LynnTheDem]

8. Halliburton. Freepers. Fox News.

USA! USA! USA!

WAR WAR WAR!!!

GIVE WAR A CHANCE!

While I agree the poster's remarks were overboard and uncalled for re Sunni & Shia, I also can't help but see the irony in saying people of the street don't want bloodbaths and just wanting peace...

What's the possibility that many Sunni and Shia and Kurds were just as eager to "kick some ass"?

People are people. All over the world.

:(

[spindoctor]

9. I stand corrected

I should know better than to characterize a people by its leaders.

[LuPeRcALiO]

2. pretty disgusting.

no I didn't know any of this.

edit: but I do know who's committing genocide in Iraq.

[Psephos]

3. Do you know who's committing genocide in Sudan?

Not to discount the nightmare in Iraq, but in terms of total numbers of murders, and total sum of misery, Darfur is worse.

We need to elevate the discussion on Sudan a little more.

Peace.

Edit: removed a line - it seemed speculative after I read it.

[LuPeRcALiO]

5. okay

thanks :)

[LynnTheDem]

7. Sudan is far worse. Whose army shall we send? bush has destroyed ours.

Just another tragedy in a long line of tragedies, care of George W. Bush;

-3000 people die September 11, 2001.

-The man allegedly responsible for their deaths is still free, 4 years later.

-Afghanistan, "The Forgotten War", has been bombed and strafed and in spiraling evermore downwards by the day. The people of Afghanistan are, in fact, worse off now than ever. Especially the women.

US troops continue to die in Afghanista; Americans continue to not notice.

-The UK is pulling troops out of Iraq to rush to Afghanistan "in a bid to stop the country sliding towards civil war" after the government was warned we face a "complete strategic failure" in Afghanistan, which is "on the verge of disintegration."

-The opium industry in Afghanistan is enjoying booming record productions...and now Iraq is emerging as a drug trafficking transit point.

-Terrorist attacks were a record number in 2003, and that number was smashed all to hell by the new record set in 2004.

-Every intell agency around the planet and most nations' leaders, includuing bush's pals, have warned that the threat of terrorism is INCREASING, due to bush's war on Iraq.

-And only zombies are unaware of the total FUBAR in Iraq.

Money? We're broke, after the $300 billion for Iraq & Afghanistan. So far. And it'll be another $300 billion at the very least, betcha.

Troops? :rofl:

Allied troops? Forget the UK; they're already so short, they have to pull troops out of Iraq to rush to Afghanistan.

Most other allies are in the same boat; they're in Afghanistan.

So thanks to bush, we're seeing another Rwanda. And there's not a damn thing we can do about it, far as I can see.

[Psephos]

12. You got it, Lynn n/t

[LynnTheDem]

4. Oh there's lots more.

If you're ever in a google-mood, try out;

Tanker War

IraqGate

Iran-Contra

You hear people speak of America's "support" for Iraq. Here's some details;

-The US rewarded Saddam after the Iran-Iraq war with billions in loan guarantees and agricultural credits right up until Aug 2, 1990, the day Iraq invaded Kuwait.

-In the fall of 1989, at a time when Iraq's invasion of Kuwait was only nine months away and Saddam Hussein was desperate for money to buy arms, President GHW Bush signed a top-secret National Security Decision directive ordering closer ties with Baghdad and opening the way for $1 billion in new aid.

-In 1987, Vice President Bush successfully pressed the federal Export-Import Bank to provide hundreds of millions of dollars in aid for Iraq, the documents show, despite staff objections that the loans were not likely to be repaid as required by law.

-After Bush became President in 1989, documents show that senior officials in his Administration lobbied the bank and the Agriculture Department to finance billions in new Iraqi projects.

-As vice president in 1987, Bush met personally with Nizar Hamdoon, Iraq's ambassador to the United States, to assure him that Iraq could buy more dual-use technology. It was three years later that National Security Council officials blocked the attempt by the Commerce Department and other agencies to restrict such exports.

-After Bush signed NSD 26 in October, 1989, Secretary of State James A. Baker III personally intervened with Agriculture Secretary Clayton K. Yeutter to drop Agriculture's opposition to the $1 billion in food credits. Yeutter, now a senior White House official, agreed and the first half of the $1 billion was made available to Iraq at the beginning of 1990.

-As late as July, 1990, one month before Iraqi troops stormed into Kuwait city, officials at the National Security Council and the State Department were pushing to deliver the second installment of the $1 billion in loan guarantees, despite the looming crisis in the region and evidence that Iraq had used the aid illegally to help finance a secret arms procurement network to obtain technology for its nuclear weapons and ballistic-missile program.

-An Agriculture Department official cautioned in a February, 1990, internal memo that, when all the facts were known about loan guarantees to Iraq, the program could be viewed as another "HUD or savings-and-loan scandal."

-Of the $5 billion in economic aid provided to Iraq over an eight-year period, American taxpayers have now been stuck for $2 billion in defaulted loans.

http://www.casi.org.uk/discuss/2000/msg00776.html

"Talking points for the meeting include the Iran-Iraq war -the U.S. "would regard any major reversal of Iraq's fortunes as a strategic defeat for the West"

US declassified document, page 2-1A

http://www.gwu.edu/~nsarchiv/NSAEBB/NSAEBB82/iraq29.pdf

Declassified US documents; National Security Archives

Initially, Iraq advanced far into Iranian territory, but was driven back within months. By mid-1982, Iraq was on the defensive against Iranian human-wave attacks. The U.S., having decided that an Iranian victory would not serve its interests, began supporting Iraq.

http://www.gwu.edu/~nsarchiv/NSAEBB/NSAEBB82/index.htm

Why does the world loathe us for our incredible hypocrisy? Could it possibly be the fact that AFTER Hussein had committed atrocities, the US government IGNORED the atrocities, and took steps to ensure CLOSER TIES with Hussein...and then 20 years later used those very same atrocities to attack Iraq...WITH THE SAME BUNCH OF US GOV OFFICIALS THEN AS NOW?

I bet that's a pretty big part of it, uh huh.

[bobbieinok]

10. supported both sides in hope they'd kill each other off....so it seemed

at the time

[applegrove]

11. Did you know that in the 1950s the USA and Briton got the elected

leader of Iraq out of power and imposed the shaw on Iranians? Do you know that Carter was begging the Shaw to stop with torture other heavy handed techniques?

Cannot wait until the people from these countries themselves write their own histories. I look forward to that.