Who Really Gassed the Kurds?

[Kramerman]

Originally posted by Velociryx
Flatulent camels done it.

-=Vel=-

agreed!

[Kramerman]

It's amazing how much we've oscillated between mildly supporting the Kurdish cause when it's proved advantageous to us, only to sell them out the next moment. And I find it amazing that people believe we won't sell the Kurds (and for that matter, the Shia) out again after Gulf War II.

Thats politics, i.e. law of the jungle. Do what you have to in order to get the advantage... the enemy of my enemy is my friend, and if my enemy becomes my friend, then my former-enemy's enemy who was formerly my friend is now my enemy.

Kman

[Berzerker]

Ramo -

And I find it amazing that people believe we won't sell the Kurds (and for that matter, the Shia) out again after Gulf War II.

I doubt it would happen again, Bush won't go through all this only to stop short of an actual regime change. But given how many times we've screwed them, I certainly wouldn't blame them for their anger and skepticism towards us. We'll see how these recent converts to Kurdish rights and autonomy react when the regime change doesn't give the Kurds what they want.

[Ramo]

No, I believe there'll be a regime change. It's hard to imagine that not happening. But that doesn't mean we won't sell the Kurds out. Too much is at stake for the gov't as far as pro-Turkish (and anti-Iranian) interests go what with the "war on terror," etc.

Thats politics, i.e. law of the jungle.

No, that's supporting the authority of a state (in particular, ours) over the lives and liberties of millions of people.

[uh Clem]

Berzerker, stop watching Hannity & Colmes. Hannity's a liar and Colmes is utterly pathetic. Switch to something more enlightening for that hour, like, oh I don't know, the Cartoon Network or something like that.

[Sava]

Regardless of who gassed who, all of those weapons were "Made in the USA"...










God Bless America!

[Skanky Burns]

Originally posted by Velociryx
Flatulent camels done it.

-=Vel=-

No, it was Professor Plum in the Library with a Candle-Stick!

[Sava]

Originally posted by uh Clem
Berzerker, stop watching Hannity & Colmes. Hannity's a liar and Colmes is utterly pathetic. Switch to something more enlightening for that hour, like, oh I don't know, the Cartoon Network or something like that.

Everything on FoxNews is a crock for that matter.

Cartoon Network Samuria Jack is my favorite.

[Evil Knevil]

Who wanted to gas the Kurds originally?

We did!
In the 1920's we wished to gas rebellious "Kurds and other tribesmen" but only stopped when technology wasn't advanced enough for airel gas bombs. This was when Iraq was a British protectorate.

The secretary of State for war, SIR LAMING WORTHINGTON-EVANS:
If the Arab population realised that the peaceful control of Mesopotamia ultimately depends on our intention of bombing women and children, I’m very doubtful if we shall gain that acquiescence of the fathers and husbands of Mesopotamia to which the Secretary of State for the Colonies looks forward

[lord of the mark]

i beleive there is confusion becuase htere were 2 threads on this issue, one by GEpap and one by me.


The study that Peletiere cites was made by US intel shortly after the gassing. It apparently was done using PHOTOS of the dead bodies. the judgement was made that the positions of the bodies, the blue lip etc were more consistent with cyanide gas used by Iran than with Mustard gas used by iraq. case closed.

Interviews with Kurds indicate that the gassing was closely related to Iraqi actions in the town (halabja) Documents and tapes from the Iraqi military indicate Iraqi planning and gloating. The blue lips seem to be explained by the fact that Iraq used nerve agents capable of creating that effect. I will not add the cites here, they are on the other 2 threads.

What I have said does not unambigously add to the case for war on Iraq. While Iraqs actions are part of the case for war, part of the case against includes US support for the Iraqi regime - and the study Pelletiere cites seems to have been part of that - IE an attempt by US intell to blame Iran rather than Iraq for political reasons.

I am ashamed my country participated in such a cover-up. However it is important now that the truth be told, whether we go to war on Iraq or not.

The other threads also have more about Pelletiere personally. He turns out not to be an unbiased source.

[chequita guevara]

There was more than one city which was hit by gas. It's perfectly feasable that in one city (Halabja) it was perpetrated by the Iraqis, while in another (fergit the name) it was purpitrated by the Iranians.

[Ned]

Originally posted by Ramo
It's unlikely that Saddam hadn't gassed the Kurds. IIRC, HRW documented the situation fairly well.

I find it odd, however, that everyone has been emphasizing the "his own people" part as if it makes any difference. Saddam was crushing a Kurdish revolt. Is using chemical weapons any more or less justified (relative to conventional arms) in this circumstance than, say, during his invasion of Kuwait or when he fought in Iran?

Ramo, you raise a good point. I think the difference is killing civilians with WoMD vs. killing soldiers.

I think Saddam was able to hold off the Iranians because he used WoMD on them. It is interesting, though, that he never loaded his SCUDS with gas or bio when he landed them on Teheran.

Why?

[Willem]

Originally posted by Berzerker
Ramo -

I doubt it would happen again, Bush won't go through all this only to stop short of an actual regime change. But given how many times we've screwed them, I certainly wouldn't blame them for their anger and skepticism towards us. We'll see how these recent converts to Kurdish rights and autonomy react when the regime change doesn't give the Kurds what they want.

They'll have to screw them, Turkey would never accept any sort of autonomy for the Kurds, and America needs their support. The choice will be screw the Kurds or screw Turkey. Which one do you think they'll choose?

[chequita guevara]

Originally posted by Ned
It is interesting, though, that he never loaded his SCUDS with gas or bio when he landed them on Teheran.

Why?

Maybe we told him that we'd be unable to continue supporting him if he did that. It's one thing to use chem weapons in battle and another to use them on defenseless civilians. Do we care that the Iraqis and Iranians gassed each other's troops? Not really. We all care about the Kurdish civilians who got hit. If he dropped them in a major urban center, even one that was hated by the American people, I think that might have been too much, even for us.

[Ned]

Originally posted by chegitz guevara


Maybe we told him that we'd be unable to continue supporting him if he did that. It's one thing to use chem weapons in battle and another to use them on defenseless civilians. Do we care that the Iraqis and Iranians gassed each other's troops? Not really. We all care about the Kurdish civilians who got hit. If he dropped them in a major urban center, even one that was hated by the American people, I think that might have been too much, even for us.

Agreed.