Tweet
I went over the post and the wikipedia quotes.
Sadly, half of what you said is refuted by wikipedia itself.
for instance:
from your own article:
This supports the notion that the US only decided to support Saddam post-factum, and use the reality to its advantage - and not as you claimed, tried to instigate the war or choose a side when it began.
Claim no.2 you made
from your own article:
Not at all. There is no standard by which people are tried in the Hague. You gave exactly 2 examples out of... hundreds of tyrants and criminals - most of whom never seen a court and never will.
Saddam was tried by an Iraqi court. Which you can claim is staged - and that has a certain point. It isn't the fairest of trials. But so were all the other trials - Nazis and Miloshevic.
The Israeli trials of captured Nazis btw were much more fair. Because we acquitted one of them, even though we were pretty sure it was the guy. Just because we weren't 100% sure, but rather 90%.
Second, i just wanted to tell that there were many leaders who committed the same or comparable crimes but it rarely happens that a country leaders pay for their crimes (like Saddam). Bush is responsible for many thousand deaths in Iraq as well, but he'll never be hanged. So, i find it funny when one murderer (Bush) talks about "justice" while killing another murderer (Saddam) with the hands of his Iraq puppet regime. That's not a legitimate judgement. They should have allowed Haag tribunal to judge Saddam.
If you can't understand the difference between Saddam directly gassing and torturing people he doesn't like, and Bush trying to stabilize an ongoing Iraqi civil war, then I'm afraid that's a lost cause.
You could claim that Bush's bad judgement brought an instability and encouraged a setting in which civil war is prevalent.
However, equating it to ordering 100,000 Iraqis killed because of their religion / ethnicity - is beyond my abilities to argue.
Is there a difference between what Putin has done in Chechnya, and what the Nazis had done to the Jews? I think there is.
But in your standards - there is none. Right?
That's a silly argument.
When someone revolts against US imposed order - people are expected to die too. Here you go. I absolved the US of its victims.
Easy? yes.
Logical? no.
I had a decent start of reply regarding the numbers of dead, but the browser crashed. I still have to research some more, and rewrite. It'll take some time.
But I'm glad that we're finally using data.
Sadly, half of what you said is refuted by wikipedia itself.
for instance:
Wait a little. Iran war was a USA affair, it doesn't matter if they did it with Iraq hands.
Well, there is no proof that US provoked Saddam to attack Iran. So what? The timing was perfect and US helped Saddam to fight in that war. As your admitted himself, it's consistent with an US policy to fight with someones' else hands if possible.
from your own article:
According to then National Security Advisor Zbigniew Brzezinski, during the administration of U.S. President Jimmy Carter, the United States initially took a largely neutral position on the Iran-Iraq war, with some minor exceptions.
First, the United States acted in an attempt to prevent the confrontation from widening, largely in order to prevent additional disruption to world oil supplies and to honor US security assurances to Saudi Arabia. As a result, the US reacted to Soviet troop movements on the border of Iran by informing the Soviet Union that the US would defend Iran in the event of Soviet Invasion. The US also acted to defend Saudi Arabia, and lobbied the surrounding states not to become involved in the war. Brzezinski characterizes this recognition of the Middle East as a vital strategic region on a par with Western Europe and the Far East as a fundamental shift in US strategic policy.[2]
Second, the United States explored whether the Iran-Iraq war would offer leverage with which to resolve the Iranian Hostage Crisis. In this regard, the Carter administration explored the use of both "carrots," by suggesting that they might offer military assistance to Iran upon release of the hostages, and "sticks," by discouraging Israeli military assistance to Iran and suggesting that they might offer military assistance to Iraq if the Iranians did not release the hostages. (Ultimately, however, Brzezinski does not suggest that the Carter Administration provided military assistance to either side).[2]
U.S. support for Iraq
After the Iranian Revolution, enmity between Iran and the U.S. ran high. Realpolitikers in Washington concluded that Saddam was the "lesser of the two evils", support for Iraq gradually became the order of the day.
"In June, 1982, President Reagan decided that the United States could not afford to allow Iraq to lose the war to Iran. President Reagan decided that the United States would do whatever was necessary and legal to prevent Iraq from losing the war with Iran. President Reagan formalized this policy by issuing a National Security Decision Directive ("NSDD") to this effect in June, 1982," said the "Teicher Affidavit," submitted on 31 January 1995 by former NSC official Howard Teicher to the U.S. District Court, Southern District of Florida.[3]
First, the United States acted in an attempt to prevent the confrontation from widening, largely in order to prevent additional disruption to world oil supplies and to honor US security assurances to Saudi Arabia. As a result, the US reacted to Soviet troop movements on the border of Iran by informing the Soviet Union that the US would defend Iran in the event of Soviet Invasion. The US also acted to defend Saudi Arabia, and lobbied the surrounding states not to become involved in the war. Brzezinski characterizes this recognition of the Middle East as a vital strategic region on a par with Western Europe and the Far East as a fundamental shift in US strategic policy.[2]
Second, the United States explored whether the Iran-Iraq war would offer leverage with which to resolve the Iranian Hostage Crisis. In this regard, the Carter administration explored the use of both "carrots," by suggesting that they might offer military assistance to Iran upon release of the hostages, and "sticks," by discouraging Israeli military assistance to Iran and suggesting that they might offer military assistance to Iraq if the Iranians did not release the hostages. (Ultimately, however, Brzezinski does not suggest that the Carter Administration provided military assistance to either side).[2]
U.S. support for Iraq
After the Iranian Revolution, enmity between Iran and the U.S. ran high. Realpolitikers in Washington concluded that Saddam was the "lesser of the two evils", support for Iraq gradually became the order of the day.
"In June, 1982, President Reagan decided that the United States could not afford to allow Iraq to lose the war to Iran. President Reagan decided that the United States would do whatever was necessary and legal to prevent Iraq from losing the war with Iran. President Reagan formalized this policy by issuing a National Security Decision Directive ("NSDD") to this effect in June, 1982," said the "Teicher Affidavit," submitted on 31 January 1995 by former NSC official Howard Teicher to the U.S. District Court, Southern District of Florida.[3]
This supports the notion that the US only decided to support Saddam post-factum, and use the reality to its advantage - and not as you claimed, tried to instigate the war or choose a side when it began.
Claim no.2 you made
Besides, that's where Saddam got all his WMD from USA. And that's why CIA was 100% sure that he still has some WMD somewhere (after all, Saddam didn't use it all).
from your own article:
In December 2002, Iraq's 1,200 page Weapons Declaration revealed a list of Eastern and Western corporations and countries—as well as individuals—that exported chemical and biological materials to Iraq in the past two decades. By far, the largest suppliers of precursors for chemical weapons production were in Singapore (4,515 tons), the Netherlands (4,261 tons), Egypt (2,400 tons), India (2,343 tons), and Germany (1,027 tons). One Indian company, Exomet Plastics (now part of EPC Industrie) sent 2,292 tons of precursor chemicals to Iraq. The Kim Al-Khaleej firm of Singapore supplied more than 4,500 tons of VX, sarin, and mustard gas precursors and production equipment to Iraq. [12]
By contrast, Alcolac International, for example, a Maryland company, transported thiodiglycol, a mustard gas precursor, to Iraq. Alcolac was small and was successfully prosecuted for its violations of export control law. The firm pleaded guilty in 1989. A full list of American companies and their involvements in Iraq was provided by The LA Weekly in May 2003. [13]
By contrast, Alcolac International, for example, a Maryland company, transported thiodiglycol, a mustard gas precursor, to Iraq. Alcolac was small and was successfully prosecuted for its violations of export control law. The firm pleaded guilty in 1989. A full list of American companies and their involvements in Iraq was provided by The LA Weekly in May 2003. [13]
You forget that just about anyone else was judged by a world tribunal (like, Nazis after WW II or Slobodan Miloshevich). But USA didn't want to let Saddam to talk and he was the only one with a close ties to USA (as you said himself). Isn't it obvious why they did it?
Not at all. There is no standard by which people are tried in the Hague. You gave exactly 2 examples out of... hundreds of tyrants and criminals - most of whom never seen a court and never will.
Saddam was tried by an Iraqi court. Which you can claim is staged - and that has a certain point. It isn't the fairest of trials. But so were all the other trials - Nazis and Miloshevic.
The Israeli trials of captured Nazis btw were much more fair. Because we acquitted one of them, even though we were pretty sure it was the guy. Just because we weren't 100% sure, but rather 90%.
Second, i just wanted to tell that there were many leaders who committed the same or comparable crimes but it rarely happens that a country leaders pay for their crimes (like Saddam). Bush is responsible for many thousand deaths in Iraq as well, but he'll never be hanged. So, i find it funny when one murderer (Bush) talks about "justice" while killing another murderer (Saddam) with the hands of his Iraq puppet regime. That's not a legitimate judgement. They should have allowed Haag tribunal to judge Saddam.
Why not? They're responsible for many deaths in Iraq, Chechnya and Lebanon, respectively. In that regard, they're as "bad" as Saddam. But somehow only Saddam is a "bad" dictator and a murderer. That's a double standarts.
If you can't understand the difference between Saddam directly gassing and torturing people he doesn't like, and Bush trying to stabilize an ongoing Iraqi civil war, then I'm afraid that's a lost cause.
You could claim that Bush's bad judgement brought an instability and encouraged a setting in which civil war is prevalent.
However, equating it to ordering 100,000 Iraqis killed because of their religion / ethnicity - is beyond my abilities to argue.
Is there a difference between what Putin has done in Chechnya, and what the Nazis had done to the Jews? I think there is.
But in your standards - there is none. Right?
Well, when someone revolts in a despotic country, people are expected to die.
That's a silly argument.
When someone revolts against US imposed order - people are expected to die too. Here you go. I absolved the US of its victims.
Easy? yes.
Logical? no.
I had a decent start of reply regarding the numbers of dead, but the browser crashed. I still have to research some more, and rewrite. It'll take some time.
But I'm glad that we're finally using data.
Comment