Publish to Newswire
Add an EventFrom the Open-Publishing Calendar
From the Open-Publishing Newswire
Indybay Feature
WHY NOT TO CATCH THE HUSSEIN ALIVE
An excerpt from a lucid iranian english-written blog
I doubt Saddam will ever be captured alive. Getting him alive may mean a lengthy and public trial and there are too many people involved with possible fear of such event. Imagine this:
Mr. Hussein, did you attack Iran with chemical weapons?
Yes, you supplied them to me, plus strategic and considerable intelligence as where their troops were and how I could use them more effectively.
Mr. Hussein, did you invade Kuwait without reason?
Yes, I told you I was going to and you all said you will look the other way.
Mr. Hussein, did you murder thousands of your regimes opponents?
Of course I did. Don't you remember we were friends while I was doing it?
SADDAM'S SONS
I'll be the last person to defend either one of Saddam's sons, although they'll never be tried so the extent of their possible crimes will never be proven. Of course their opponents have much to present in alleged atrocities contributed to them, but all stories have two sides and even a possible crazy mass-murderer tyrant deserves his/her day in court.
Now, let me see if I got this right. All accounts point to their cousin, the homeowner they had been hiding with, approaching the U.S. command and basically turning them in. Supposedly he had his wife and daughters leave the property that morning, then surrendered with his son as soon as the troops got there.
Apparently the higher ups were told who the targets are, although the front line troops had no idea (as it should be). So, the $30 million guy spills who is hiding at his house and probably offers more details as to how many guards they have and how well they are armed.
Now the U.S. army command knows there's only one guard, plus a 14 year old boy and the two targets. They also knew no heavy weaponry is present and they only had personal firearms and maybe grenades. Now you surround the house and as is usual vacate the vicinity. Homeowner and his son come out, confirming who is left inside (if you had any doubts). You are the commander in charge, what do you do?
As for me, I'd just camp out and wait. Where are they going to go? You have two of the three top targets of this entire operations inside a house. You know they have no heavy weaponry. You know there is no escape tunnel or similar, as the homeowner surely supplied a floor plan. There's limited food and water in the house and what is there as for utilities, etc. can be cut off from outside. I'd bring in extra enforcements, secure a solid perimeter and wait it out. They either commit suicide or give themselves up. There are no other options and in both case you come ahead.
But no, this is not how the cowboy mentality works. The cowboy only wants to conquer, overpower and destroy, just ask the native communities of North America. Everyone wants to be their own one-man terminator and use full force, regardless of if it is the best choice or not. Or perhaps them coming out alive wasn't such an attractive possibility anyways. We may never know now. So, out come the missiles, rockets and other explosives, combined with heavy fire and at the end, four severely damaged bodies are left.
Volumes of knowledge and unique information, destroyed forever. Best possible scenario? Doubt it.
The display of bodies was just repulsive, also. Particularly the bone out of the leg and autopsy cuts. This was a new low for this or any war. If you have people not believing your word, maybe it is a good time to look at your past conduct and find out how you lost your credibility and maybe fix it. Not try to prove a fact by using ghastly displays. Besides, as we have all seen, such conduct will only backfire as non-believers will not be convinced and the rest are just appalled.
One last note, Saddam's father was Hussein (whose father was Majid from Tikrit, thus his full name of Saddam Hussein Al-Majid Al-Tikriti). So, how western centric is our media to even assume the entire world uses the western style first name, last name system and calls them Odai and Qusai Hussein.
Mr. Hussein, did you attack Iran with chemical weapons?
Yes, you supplied them to me, plus strategic and considerable intelligence as where their troops were and how I could use them more effectively.
Mr. Hussein, did you invade Kuwait without reason?
Yes, I told you I was going to and you all said you will look the other way.
Mr. Hussein, did you murder thousands of your regimes opponents?
Of course I did. Don't you remember we were friends while I was doing it?
SADDAM'S SONS
I'll be the last person to defend either one of Saddam's sons, although they'll never be tried so the extent of their possible crimes will never be proven. Of course their opponents have much to present in alleged atrocities contributed to them, but all stories have two sides and even a possible crazy mass-murderer tyrant deserves his/her day in court.
Now, let me see if I got this right. All accounts point to their cousin, the homeowner they had been hiding with, approaching the U.S. command and basically turning them in. Supposedly he had his wife and daughters leave the property that morning, then surrendered with his son as soon as the troops got there.
Apparently the higher ups were told who the targets are, although the front line troops had no idea (as it should be). So, the $30 million guy spills who is hiding at his house and probably offers more details as to how many guards they have and how well they are armed.
Now the U.S. army command knows there's only one guard, plus a 14 year old boy and the two targets. They also knew no heavy weaponry is present and they only had personal firearms and maybe grenades. Now you surround the house and as is usual vacate the vicinity. Homeowner and his son come out, confirming who is left inside (if you had any doubts). You are the commander in charge, what do you do?
As for me, I'd just camp out and wait. Where are they going to go? You have two of the three top targets of this entire operations inside a house. You know they have no heavy weaponry. You know there is no escape tunnel or similar, as the homeowner surely supplied a floor plan. There's limited food and water in the house and what is there as for utilities, etc. can be cut off from outside. I'd bring in extra enforcements, secure a solid perimeter and wait it out. They either commit suicide or give themselves up. There are no other options and in both case you come ahead.
But no, this is not how the cowboy mentality works. The cowboy only wants to conquer, overpower and destroy, just ask the native communities of North America. Everyone wants to be their own one-man terminator and use full force, regardless of if it is the best choice or not. Or perhaps them coming out alive wasn't such an attractive possibility anyways. We may never know now. So, out come the missiles, rockets and other explosives, combined with heavy fire and at the end, four severely damaged bodies are left.
Volumes of knowledge and unique information, destroyed forever. Best possible scenario? Doubt it.
The display of bodies was just repulsive, also. Particularly the bone out of the leg and autopsy cuts. This was a new low for this or any war. If you have people not believing your word, maybe it is a good time to look at your past conduct and find out how you lost your credibility and maybe fix it. Not try to prove a fact by using ghastly displays. Besides, as we have all seen, such conduct will only backfire as non-believers will not be convinced and the rest are just appalled.
One last note, Saddam's father was Hussein (whose father was Majid from Tikrit, thus his full name of Saddam Hussein Al-Majid Al-Tikriti). So, how western centric is our media to even assume the entire world uses the western style first name, last name system and calls them Odai and Qusai Hussein.
For more information:
http://www.eyeranian.net/
Add Your Comments
Comments
(Hide Comments)
I ASK MY SELF THE SAME QUESTION "WHY CATCH SADAM ALIVE???
Our CIA had told Bush that Saddam and his sons cannot be kept alive because they have stockpiled a substantial amount of Kryptonite and they're ready to destroy Bush by a simple act of releasing the Kryptonite into the air.
For the safety of our fearless leader Bush, we mustn't let Saddam live.
For the safety of our fearless leader Bush, we mustn't let Saddam live.
The U.S., which followed developments in the Iran-Iraq war with extraordinary intensity, had intelligence confirming Iran's accusations, and describing Iraq's "almost daily" use of chemical weapons, concurrent with its policy review and decision to support Iraq in the war . The intelligence indicated that Iraq used chemical weapons against Iranian forces, and, according to a November 1983 memo, against "Kurdish insurgents" as well.
What was the Reagan administration's response? A State Department account indicates that the administration had decided to limit its "efforts against the Iraqi CW program to close monitoring because of our strict neutrality in the Gulf war, the sensitivity of sources, and the low probability of achieving desired results." But the department noted in late November 1983 that "with the essential assistance of foreign firms, Iraq ha[d] become able to deploy and use CW and probably has built up large reserves of CW for further use. Given its desperation to end the war, Iraq may again use lethal or incapacitating CW, particularly if Iran threatens to break through Iraqi lines in a large-scale attack"
http://www.gwu.edu/~nsarchiv/NSAEBB/NSAEBB82/
Within a year of this memo the US was secretly arming Iraq ....
What was the Reagan administration's response? A State Department account indicates that the administration had decided to limit its "efforts against the Iraqi CW program to close monitoring because of our strict neutrality in the Gulf war, the sensitivity of sources, and the low probability of achieving desired results." But the department noted in late November 1983 that "with the essential assistance of foreign firms, Iraq ha[d] become able to deploy and use CW and probably has built up large reserves of CW for further use. Given its desperation to end the war, Iraq may again use lethal or incapacitating CW, particularly if Iran threatens to break through Iraqi lines in a large-scale attack"
http://www.gwu.edu/~nsarchiv/NSAEBB/NSAEBB82/
Within a year of this memo the US was secretly arming Iraq ....
Remember one of Seinfeld's episodes in which George lived under his desk for a week. I bet Saddam has acclimated himself under Rummy's desk.
BTW. Thanks for providing the link to the videotape. Rummy looked dashy and very righteous.
BTW. Thanks for providing the link to the videotape. Rummy looked dashy and very righteous.
1980 (Iran-Iraq war starts; world sides with Iraq following hostage crisis ends with Reagans rise to power in the US)
"Open war as Iraq is bombed
From James MacManus in Amman and agencies in Beirut
Tuesday September 23, 1980
The border conflict between Iraq and Iran turned into a full-scale war yesterday after both sides bombed each other's airbases and clashed repeatedly on the ground and at sea along the 720-mile frontier.
Iraqi jetfighters swept deep into Iran for the second time in less than 12 hours with a night-time bombing run over seven blacked-out Iranian airfields and radar stations.
Iraq also threatened to extend the war to the strategic Hormuz Straits. Nearly one third of all the oil used in the world passes through the straits.
The second Iraqi attack came a few hours after Iran retaliated for the first Iraqi bombing incident by blockading Iraqi ports, declared its coastal waters "war zones" and launching its own bombers against two Iraqi air bases, including Basra.
Conflicting reports from Baghdad and Tehran claimed that at least 24 Iraqis were killed, 36 Iranians were injured or captured, four Iraqi missile boats were sunk, 20 Iraqi aircraft were shot down and 11 Iranian planes or helicopters were lost.
The Iraqi news agency said that six Iranian jets were shot down and three Iranian pilots were captured during the night mission, when Iraq's jets swept hundreds of miles inside Iran. On the political front, the United Nations Secretary-General called for a ceasefire, Ayatollah Khomeini urged the Iraqis to overthrow their president and, in London, gold leaped by $34 an ounce to $711.50.
"
http://212.187.153.33/1980-1989/Story/0,6051,108172,00.html
1981 (Reagan shows some support for Iraq but mentions that Iraq started Iran-Iraq war)
"Q. Mr. President, have you learned anything in the past 10 days that would support Israel's contention that its attack on the Iraqi nuclear plant was defensive? If it was defensive, was it proper? If it wasn't defensive, what action should the United States take beyond condemnation?
The President. Well, I did make a statement in which I condemned that and thought that there were other options that might have been considered -- that we would have welcomed an opportunity, for example, to try and intervene with the French who were furnishing the nuclear fuel and so forth.
I can't answer the last part of your question there about future action, because this is still under review. Under the law I had to submit to the Congress the fact that this did appear to be a violation of the law regarding American weapons that were sold for defensive purposes. But I've not heard back yet from the Congress, and that review is not yet complete.
On the other hand, I do think that one has to recognize that Israel had reason for concern in view of the past history of Iraq, which has never signed a cease-fire or recognized Israel as a nation, has never joined in any peace effort for that -- so, in other words, it does not even recognize the existence of Israel as a country.
But I think the biggest thing that comes out of what happened is the fact that this is further evidence that a real peace, a settlement for all of the Mideast problems, is long overdue, that the area is torn by tension and hostility. We have seen Afghanistan invaded with the Soviets, Iran invaded by Iraq, and that was in violation of a treaty. Lebanon's sovereignty has been violated routinely. Now this latest act. And I think that what it should be is a compelling move -- and this I have stated to the representatives of several Arab countries -- a compelling reason why we should once and for all settle this matter and have a stable peace.
"
http://www.reagan.utexas.edu/resource/speeches/1981/61681b.htm
1983 (On Iran and during it war with Iraq)
"The crisis between the United States and Iran which began in 1979 has eased, but it has not been fully resolved. The internal situation in Iran remains uncertain; the war between Iran and Iraq continues. The international arbitral tribunal established for the adjudication of claims of U.S. nationals against Iran and by Iranian nationals against the United States continues to function; however, full normalization of commercial and diplomatic relations between the U.S. and Iran will require more time. In these circumstances, I have determined that it is necessary to maintain in force the broad authorities that may be needed to respond to the process of implementation of the January 1981 agreements with Iran and the eventual normalization of relations. "
http://www.reagan.utexas.edu/resource/speeches/1983/110483d.htm
1984 (shift towards Iraq but not open support even though the US was providing covert support at this point)
"Mr. Oliver. Mr. President, at the beginning of the Second World War in the Middle East, a United States admiral sent home a now famous telegram. He was confused and said, ``Please advise, who is the enemy?'' [Laughter] And I think that a lot of people here in Washington are asking the same things at this moment -- who is the enemy in the Gulf? Iran or Iraq?
The President. Well, let's look at it this way. Iraq did confine its raids, its attacks on shipping that was vital to Iran's economy. And Iran, when it responded, however, did not respond against Iraq; it attacked ships that belonged to neutral nations that were getting oil and doing business with countries like Saudi Arabia and Kuwait and so forth. And you had to say, ``What was on Iran's mind?'' I think we've always recognized that in a time of war, the enemy's commerce and trade is a fair target, if you can hurt them economically. So, in that sense, Iraq had not gone beyond bounds, as Iran had done.
And now, even though Iraq, we must admit, is the one who started the war 4 years ago, Iraq now had made overtures to have a negotiated settlement and end the war. And Iran has refused to do this. So, Iran is in more or less the position of demanding unconditional victory. And if there was any way that any of the rest of us could, by appeal, bring an end to that fighting, I'm sure we would all do it, because it's a tremendous and horrible bloodletting that is going on. And Iran, as I say, is the one now who seems to resist any effort, short of a total victory, ending that war.
"
http://www.reagan.utexas.edu/resource/speeches/1984/53184i.htm
1985 (more of a shoft towards talking about Iran and terrorism)
"Q. Are you satisfied with the safety of the Gulf States from any external danger?
The President. No, I am not satisfied with the current situation. As long as the Iran-Iraq war continues, and as long as Iran pursues its policy of supporting terrorism and declines to resume a responsible role in the family of nations, the stability and security of the Gulf States will be at risk. The United States has a vital interest in maintaining freedom of navigation in the Gulf and stability in the region generally, and we have worked with our friends in the area, including Saudi Arabia and the other members of the Gulf Cooperation Council, to support their legitimate defensive needs and to encourage their collective security efforts. These countries are now in a better position to defend, with their own resources, their sovereignty and territorial integrity against potential adversaries, but more remains to be done. We agree with the Gulf States that the only way to end the Iran-Iraq war is through peaceful negotiations, and we have supported their efforts in the U.N. and elsewhere to bring this about. We also support the position of Kuwait and other Gulf States that the only way to eradicate terrorism is to refuse to give in to demands and provocations and to work with other concerned members of the international community to find ways to end this scourge once and for all.
"
http://www.reagan.utexas.edu/resource/speeches/1985/61185c.htm
1985
US statements on Irans Debts To The US
http://www.reagan.utexas.edu/resource/speeches/1985/111385e.htm
1986 (US comes close to open conflict with Iran)
"Nevertheless, we consider the Iranian policy of stopping and searching neutral shipping in the Gulf region to be one of the significant consequences created by the Iran-Iraq war. The dangerous conflict between Iran and Iraq now continues because of Iran's intransigent refusal to participate in a negotiated solution. We have stated our deep concern about this incident because of the danger of misunderstandings, overstepping of rights and norms, and even violence, which are inherent in all ship search incidents. The United States Government repeats its call for Iran to change its position regarding a solution to the conflict, and again calls for the earliest possible end to the war, with the sovereignty and territorial integrity of both sides intact."
1987 (Iran lays mines, Iraq kills many on the USS Stark but the US continues covert aid to Iraq since Iran is seen as greater enemy)
http://usresolve.org/uss-stark-ffg31.php
http://www.geocities.com/rainforest/4617/stark/stark600.html
1988 (US shoots down USS Vincennes shootdown of Iran Air Flight 655)
"On July 3, 1988, and American warship shot down an Iranian airliner, killing 290 civilians"
http://www.geocities.com/CapitolHill/5260/vince.html
1988 (Iran-Iraq war ends US need for Iraq wanes)
"In the fall of 1988, the Iraqis displayed in Baghdad captured Iranian weapons amounting to more than three-quarters of the Iranian armor inventory and almost half of its artillery pieces and armored personnel carriers.
The Iran-Iraq war lasted nearly eight years, from September of 1980 until August of 1988. It ended when Iran accepted United Nations (UN) Security Council Resolution 598, leading to a 20 August 1988 cease-fire. "
http://www.fas.org/man/dod-101/ops/war/iran-iraq.htm
1990 (US knows that Iraq will invade Kuwait but does nothing)
http://www.socialconscience.com/articles/2002/iraqgate/kuwait/
----
and then suddenly..
Hussein is proclaimed as the new Hitler as the US engages in the first Gulf War and and everything becomes black and white.
Was Hussein a US pawn?
Not quite, Reagan supported him but only as a ballance to Iran which the US was seeing as the new "enemy" as Gorby made the Soviet Union look less of a threat.
Did the US ignore the gassing of the Kurds and look the other way when Hussein used chemical weapons?
Yep, but this made the US look bad so support for Iraq had to remain covert (remember this was a time when the US was funding hundreds of terrorist groups worldwide through shady figures like Oliver North)
Did the US want Iraq to invade Kuwait?
Khomenei had died in 1989 so Iran looked less scary to the US and Iraq was no longer needed.
There really isnt evidence that the US wanted the invasion but it didnt seem to treat it like a huge threat. The US had a lot to gain in the first Gulf War. It improved US relations with the Saudis (who helped fund the war) and was seen a way to "cure" the public of the Viet Nam syndrome.
---
The US probably wouldnt hide Saddam today since most evidence he could give about support from the US is already out there (if you look). But just like the Taliban and Al Qaida (which the US indirectly helped create but then no longer needed), Saddam really never was the point. The US wants a new regime in Iraq that will allow for greater security for Israel and US oil interests. News has a short lifetime so if Saddam were captured who could the US blame for attacks? While the US is probably not hiding Saddam, the US comes out best if he is captured or killed around the same time as elections are held in Iraq. Its in Bush's interest if Saddam is captured a month or two before the US Presidential election; its doubtful Bush coud openly schedule such a thing, but Im sure he's hoping that it takes a little more time.
"Open war as Iraq is bombed
From James MacManus in Amman and agencies in Beirut
Tuesday September 23, 1980
The border conflict between Iraq and Iran turned into a full-scale war yesterday after both sides bombed each other's airbases and clashed repeatedly on the ground and at sea along the 720-mile frontier.
Iraqi jetfighters swept deep into Iran for the second time in less than 12 hours with a night-time bombing run over seven blacked-out Iranian airfields and radar stations.
Iraq also threatened to extend the war to the strategic Hormuz Straits. Nearly one third of all the oil used in the world passes through the straits.
The second Iraqi attack came a few hours after Iran retaliated for the first Iraqi bombing incident by blockading Iraqi ports, declared its coastal waters "war zones" and launching its own bombers against two Iraqi air bases, including Basra.
Conflicting reports from Baghdad and Tehran claimed that at least 24 Iraqis were killed, 36 Iranians were injured or captured, four Iraqi missile boats were sunk, 20 Iraqi aircraft were shot down and 11 Iranian planes or helicopters were lost.
The Iraqi news agency said that six Iranian jets were shot down and three Iranian pilots were captured during the night mission, when Iraq's jets swept hundreds of miles inside Iran. On the political front, the United Nations Secretary-General called for a ceasefire, Ayatollah Khomeini urged the Iraqis to overthrow their president and, in London, gold leaped by $34 an ounce to $711.50.
"
http://212.187.153.33/1980-1989/Story/0,6051,108172,00.html
1981 (Reagan shows some support for Iraq but mentions that Iraq started Iran-Iraq war)
"Q. Mr. President, have you learned anything in the past 10 days that would support Israel's contention that its attack on the Iraqi nuclear plant was defensive? If it was defensive, was it proper? If it wasn't defensive, what action should the United States take beyond condemnation?
The President. Well, I did make a statement in which I condemned that and thought that there were other options that might have been considered -- that we would have welcomed an opportunity, for example, to try and intervene with the French who were furnishing the nuclear fuel and so forth.
I can't answer the last part of your question there about future action, because this is still under review. Under the law I had to submit to the Congress the fact that this did appear to be a violation of the law regarding American weapons that were sold for defensive purposes. But I've not heard back yet from the Congress, and that review is not yet complete.
On the other hand, I do think that one has to recognize that Israel had reason for concern in view of the past history of Iraq, which has never signed a cease-fire or recognized Israel as a nation, has never joined in any peace effort for that -- so, in other words, it does not even recognize the existence of Israel as a country.
But I think the biggest thing that comes out of what happened is the fact that this is further evidence that a real peace, a settlement for all of the Mideast problems, is long overdue, that the area is torn by tension and hostility. We have seen Afghanistan invaded with the Soviets, Iran invaded by Iraq, and that was in violation of a treaty. Lebanon's sovereignty has been violated routinely. Now this latest act. And I think that what it should be is a compelling move -- and this I have stated to the representatives of several Arab countries -- a compelling reason why we should once and for all settle this matter and have a stable peace.
"
http://www.reagan.utexas.edu/resource/speeches/1981/61681b.htm
1983 (On Iran and during it war with Iraq)
"The crisis between the United States and Iran which began in 1979 has eased, but it has not been fully resolved. The internal situation in Iran remains uncertain; the war between Iran and Iraq continues. The international arbitral tribunal established for the adjudication of claims of U.S. nationals against Iran and by Iranian nationals against the United States continues to function; however, full normalization of commercial and diplomatic relations between the U.S. and Iran will require more time. In these circumstances, I have determined that it is necessary to maintain in force the broad authorities that may be needed to respond to the process of implementation of the January 1981 agreements with Iran and the eventual normalization of relations. "
http://www.reagan.utexas.edu/resource/speeches/1983/110483d.htm
1984 (shift towards Iraq but not open support even though the US was providing covert support at this point)
"Mr. Oliver. Mr. President, at the beginning of the Second World War in the Middle East, a United States admiral sent home a now famous telegram. He was confused and said, ``Please advise, who is the enemy?'' [Laughter] And I think that a lot of people here in Washington are asking the same things at this moment -- who is the enemy in the Gulf? Iran or Iraq?
The President. Well, let's look at it this way. Iraq did confine its raids, its attacks on shipping that was vital to Iran's economy. And Iran, when it responded, however, did not respond against Iraq; it attacked ships that belonged to neutral nations that were getting oil and doing business with countries like Saudi Arabia and Kuwait and so forth. And you had to say, ``What was on Iran's mind?'' I think we've always recognized that in a time of war, the enemy's commerce and trade is a fair target, if you can hurt them economically. So, in that sense, Iraq had not gone beyond bounds, as Iran had done.
And now, even though Iraq, we must admit, is the one who started the war 4 years ago, Iraq now had made overtures to have a negotiated settlement and end the war. And Iran has refused to do this. So, Iran is in more or less the position of demanding unconditional victory. And if there was any way that any of the rest of us could, by appeal, bring an end to that fighting, I'm sure we would all do it, because it's a tremendous and horrible bloodletting that is going on. And Iran, as I say, is the one now who seems to resist any effort, short of a total victory, ending that war.
"
http://www.reagan.utexas.edu/resource/speeches/1984/53184i.htm
1985 (more of a shoft towards talking about Iran and terrorism)
"Q. Are you satisfied with the safety of the Gulf States from any external danger?
The President. No, I am not satisfied with the current situation. As long as the Iran-Iraq war continues, and as long as Iran pursues its policy of supporting terrorism and declines to resume a responsible role in the family of nations, the stability and security of the Gulf States will be at risk. The United States has a vital interest in maintaining freedom of navigation in the Gulf and stability in the region generally, and we have worked with our friends in the area, including Saudi Arabia and the other members of the Gulf Cooperation Council, to support their legitimate defensive needs and to encourage their collective security efforts. These countries are now in a better position to defend, with their own resources, their sovereignty and territorial integrity against potential adversaries, but more remains to be done. We agree with the Gulf States that the only way to end the Iran-Iraq war is through peaceful negotiations, and we have supported their efforts in the U.N. and elsewhere to bring this about. We also support the position of Kuwait and other Gulf States that the only way to eradicate terrorism is to refuse to give in to demands and provocations and to work with other concerned members of the international community to find ways to end this scourge once and for all.
"
http://www.reagan.utexas.edu/resource/speeches/1985/61185c.htm
1985
US statements on Irans Debts To The US
http://www.reagan.utexas.edu/resource/speeches/1985/111385e.htm
1986 (US comes close to open conflict with Iran)
"Nevertheless, we consider the Iranian policy of stopping and searching neutral shipping in the Gulf region to be one of the significant consequences created by the Iran-Iraq war. The dangerous conflict between Iran and Iraq now continues because of Iran's intransigent refusal to participate in a negotiated solution. We have stated our deep concern about this incident because of the danger of misunderstandings, overstepping of rights and norms, and even violence, which are inherent in all ship search incidents. The United States Government repeats its call for Iran to change its position regarding a solution to the conflict, and again calls for the earliest possible end to the war, with the sovereignty and territorial integrity of both sides intact."
1987 (Iran lays mines, Iraq kills many on the USS Stark but the US continues covert aid to Iraq since Iran is seen as greater enemy)
http://usresolve.org/uss-stark-ffg31.php
http://www.geocities.com/rainforest/4617/stark/stark600.html
1988 (US shoots down USS Vincennes shootdown of Iran Air Flight 655)
"On July 3, 1988, and American warship shot down an Iranian airliner, killing 290 civilians"
http://www.geocities.com/CapitolHill/5260/vince.html
1988 (Iran-Iraq war ends US need for Iraq wanes)
"In the fall of 1988, the Iraqis displayed in Baghdad captured Iranian weapons amounting to more than three-quarters of the Iranian armor inventory and almost half of its artillery pieces and armored personnel carriers.
The Iran-Iraq war lasted nearly eight years, from September of 1980 until August of 1988. It ended when Iran accepted United Nations (UN) Security Council Resolution 598, leading to a 20 August 1988 cease-fire. "
http://www.fas.org/man/dod-101/ops/war/iran-iraq.htm
1990 (US knows that Iraq will invade Kuwait but does nothing)
http://www.socialconscience.com/articles/2002/iraqgate/kuwait/
----
and then suddenly..
Hussein is proclaimed as the new Hitler as the US engages in the first Gulf War and and everything becomes black and white.
Was Hussein a US pawn?
Not quite, Reagan supported him but only as a ballance to Iran which the US was seeing as the new "enemy" as Gorby made the Soviet Union look less of a threat.
Did the US ignore the gassing of the Kurds and look the other way when Hussein used chemical weapons?
Yep, but this made the US look bad so support for Iraq had to remain covert (remember this was a time when the US was funding hundreds of terrorist groups worldwide through shady figures like Oliver North)
Did the US want Iraq to invade Kuwait?
Khomenei had died in 1989 so Iran looked less scary to the US and Iraq was no longer needed.
There really isnt evidence that the US wanted the invasion but it didnt seem to treat it like a huge threat. The US had a lot to gain in the first Gulf War. It improved US relations with the Saudis (who helped fund the war) and was seen a way to "cure" the public of the Viet Nam syndrome.
---
The US probably wouldnt hide Saddam today since most evidence he could give about support from the US is already out there (if you look). But just like the Taliban and Al Qaida (which the US indirectly helped create but then no longer needed), Saddam really never was the point. The US wants a new regime in Iraq that will allow for greater security for Israel and US oil interests. News has a short lifetime so if Saddam were captured who could the US blame for attacks? While the US is probably not hiding Saddam, the US comes out best if he is captured or killed around the same time as elections are held in Iraq. Its in Bush's interest if Saddam is captured a month or two before the US Presidential election; its doubtful Bush coud openly schedule such a thing, but Im sure he's hoping that it takes a little more time.
We are 100% volunteer and depend on your participation to sustain our efforts!
Donate
$190.00 donated
in the past month
Get Involved
If you'd like to help with maintaining or developing the website, contact us.
Publish
Publish your stories and upcoming events on Indybay.
Topics
More
Search Indybay's Archives
Advanced Search
►
▼
IMC Network