Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.
The
Seven Big Lies About Iraq
by Jon
Basil Utley
3/9/01
ONE –It’s Saddam’s fault that half a million children died since the economic blockade, saddam could feed his people if he cared instead of using his money to buy weapons – "More than one million Iraqis have died- 500,000 of them children-as a direct consequence of economic sanctions... As many as 12% of the children surveyed in Baghdad are wasted, 28% stunted and 29% underweight." – UN FAO, December 1995. For details see Morbidity and Mortality Among Iraqi Children 1990-98.
ANSWER – Nearly all oil sales money has been allocated through United Nations inspectors, subject to nearly 40% reduction for reparations and UN expenses, and subject to Washington's veto and foot dragging – usually months for even the simplest decision. Washington has allowed food and medicine imports, but almost nothing else. For nearly ten years it blockaded chlorine to sanitize the water and any equipment to rebuild the electricity grid, sanitation and irrigation facilities. Even pencils for school children were prohibited. (A New York Times editorial 2/11/01 reports, "currently American diplomats are holding up billions of dollars of imports needed for civilian transportation, electric power generation...and even medical treatment"). Finally the Europeans rebelled at the cruelty and shamed Washington into allowing such imports, (New York Times 12/6/00). Until oil prices increased last year, sales ran about $4 billion yearly minus about 35% withheld by UN left 2.6 billion divided by 20 million population = $130 per year per person = 36 cents per day per person for food, medicine. Obviously Iraq needed to rebuild its agriculture and transport infrastructure to feed itself, but this was prevented by Washington.
Washington blockaded supplies to rebuild Iraq's bombed oil production and refining facilities since 10 years, although it went to war supposedly to assure oil supplies for the world. Iraq is now also getting substantial monies through sales of smuggled oil, especially since the price of oil went up and the rest of the world tires of the American blockade. No doubt some of this goes for weapons purchases.
TWO – If Iraq allowed inspections for wmd (weapons of mass destruction), Washington would remove the blockade. Iraq iraq must prove that it has now wmd and that it won't manufacture any in the future.
ANSWER – There's No Connection Between Inspections and Sanctions on Iraq and consequently no incentive for Iraq to comply. Equally No Nation can "prove" a negative, that it's not doing something. Biological and chemical weapons can be made, "in a large closet which is all the space you need to mix deadly chemical weapons...... Chemical and biological weapons are the great equalizers against our atomic weapons." (Time "Everyman a Superpower," 11/24/97).
Re inspections, Reuters reported, 12/13/99, – "The (European) aim was to prevent the United States and Britain from imposing arms requirements that Iraq could not meet and thus keeping the sanctions in place for years to come." And AFP 12/13/99, "French diplomats retorted that by insisting on full cooperation, the council would give the United States an excuse to refuse to suspend sanctions on the flimsiest grounds." Madeleine Albright declared in 1997: "We do not agree with the nations who argue that if Iraq complies with its obligations concerning weapons of mass destruction, sanctions should be lifted." Clinton went one step further when he said, "sanctions will be there until the end of time, or as long as he [Saddam] lasts." The Bush Administration has not repudiated these statements
Scott Ritter, former head of the U.N. arms inspection team in Iraq, on the NBC Today Show, 12/17/98, explained, "Washington perverted the U.N. weapons process by using it as a tool to justify military actions, falsely so. ... The U.S. was using the inspection process as a trigger for war."
THREE – Iraq wouldn't let the UN/US monitors inspect possible wmd production or storage sites. that's why America started bombing.
ANSWER – Iraq did so from 1991 until 1998, but Washington still wouldn’t take off the trade blockade. Scott Ritter, the former UNSCOM inspector, told CNN on 2/18 "In terms of large-scale weapons of mass destruction programs, these had been fundamentally destroyed or dismantled by the weapons inspectors as early as 1996, so by 1998 we had under control the situation on the ground."
Then in 1998 Washington also demanded access to the Iraq's government personnel files, the basis of the its power structure. Saddam saw that U.S. demands were just always increased with no hope of sanctions being lifted.
FOUR – It's Iraq's fault that the blockade continues. America has nothing against Iraq's people, only against its government.
ANSWER – Britain and Washington have introduced a "peace plan"demanding that Iraq must allow inspections in return for nothing.
Russia and France have introduced a plan (vetoed by Washington) allowing for immediate lifting of sanctions in return for continued, ongoing WMD inspections. Washington has already often stated policy of no relief from blockade no matter what Iraq does, as long as Saddam stays in power. This is typical Washington policy (denounced by former Pres. Jimmy Carter) of demanding rulers follow policies to get themselves killed or at least thrown out of power (and then tried for "war crimes") and then starves the nations' civilians on and on for years (Pat Buchanan speech) while nothing changes. (For detailed discussion of resolution see CASI from Cambridge and IAC detailed analysis of UN Resolution).
LATE NEWS, 3/7 – Secretary of State Powell implied in testimony to Congress that America might now go along with this option.
FIVE – The United Nations ordered sanctions and Washington is just enforcing them.
ANSWER – Most nations in the world want them lifted for non-military goods. It is the U.S. veto that prevents lifting of the sanctions (UPI, 11/1/00) Imposed in 1990 many nations argue that they were never intended to last for years and are one of the most brutal sanction regimes in modern history. The crippling trade embargo is incompatible with the UN charter as well as UN conventions on human rights and the rights of the child (BBC News Online, 9/30/00). Unilaterally attacking Iraq is totally unconstitutional and illegal under United Nations Charter and Nuremberg Judgements.
SIX – If we don't bomb Iraq, Saddam will use his WMD against us or his neighbors or Israel.
ANSWER – Saddam is rational. He had these weapons during the First Gulf War and didn't because he feared our threats of consequences even when his nation was being decimated. Israel has some 200 atomic bombs and can well defend itself. It has already threatened Iraq with their use if Iraq attacks with WMD. Meanwhile Washington arms all Iraq's neighbors (except Iran), and Turkey bombs and invades Iraq at will.
SEVEN – Saddam gassed his own people.
ANSWER – Didn’t our government also do that at WACO? The C2 gas used by the FBI killed children who couldn’t fit into gas masks and then created an explosive mixture which triggered fire and immolation, (see super documentary, WACO, nominated for an Academy Award). Remember how often Americans were lied to in order to get us into wars. (See Subjects, How Hill and Knowlton Public Relations "sold" the Iraq War). For the First World War, it was stories that German soldiers ate Belgian babies. For the Iraq war it was lies about babies being thrown out of incubators, "testified" to a Congressional Committee by a "mystery" witness who later turned out to be the daughter of the Kuwaiti sheik’s ruling family who is Ambassador in Washington. It was all lies. Then we were told there were aerial photographs of the Iraqi Army massed on Saudi Arabia’s border ready to attack. They were never released; they apparently were lies too. How do we know we weren't also lied to about the gassing? See Jude Wanniski report for detailed analysis of gassing.
CONCLUSION – Look at the above and think how America is now hated. No wonder many Arabs engage in suicide missions. American military are so unpopular in Saudi Arabia that the government hides our Airmen away in desert bases to keep them out of sight from its citizenry. (A CNN reporter from Time magazine once said that the dream of glory for many young Saudis was to die in battle killing Americans – and that's among Saudi, or "friends"). How the world sees us was reported by the Wall Street Journal's European edition editor (2/24/98) "What came up most were charges of American hypocrisy. The US wants to bomb Iraq over its violations of UN directives, but won’t take any action against the Israelis for theirs (e.g. occupation of part of Lebanon and settlements in Palestine)."
If Washington showed justice and fairness in its policies, then it would not be creating sworn and desperate enemies who, in former Ambassador Jeane Kirkpatrick's words, "define themselves as being Enemies of America." The best security for Americans is not to make so many enemies (see Joseph Sobran column, How Many Enemies Do We Want?)
ADDENDUM – (Evidence from Kosovo of similar Washington tactics against civilians).
The Boston Globe (5/16/99) reported:
"In planning the 1991 Persian Gulf War, US officers found a 12 bridges for the movement of Iraqi troops in and out of Kuwait. US planes bombed those bridges over and over, with little effect. So they bombed every bridge in Iraq, 160 in all, about two-thirds of them far from Kuwait. After a while, all bridges were seen and treated equally. Similarly, now in Belgrade, it seems, all military agencies are seen and treated as if they were of equal importance. The Pentagon announced last week that three-quarters of the targets hit in this air war, 270 out of 380, have been 'strategic targets.' Only 110 have been directly connected to the soldiers and militias in Kosovo."
Mr. Utley is Robert A. Taft Fellow at the Ludwig von Mises Institute. He was formerly a foreign correspondent in South America for Knight Ridder Newspapers, has written for the Harvard Business Review and Washington Post, and was formerly a director of Accuracy in Media, a contributing editor to Conservative Digest and affiliated with many conservative organizations.
Israel has some 200 atomic bombs and can well defend itself. It has already threatened Iraq with their use if Iraq attacks with WMD.
If Saddam Hussein felt threatened by Israel's atomic weapons, why did he fire missiles at Tel Aviv during the Gulf War? That would seem like an awfully stupid provocation if he really believed Israel would use nukes.
A missle with all the sophistication of a German V-2 rocket with a conventional HE warhead doesn't comprise a WMD. Consequently, no need to irradiate all of Iraq.
A missle with all the sophistication of a German V-2 rocket with a conventional HE warhead doesn't comprise a WMD. Consequently, no need to irradiate all of Iraq.
But would he really provoke Israel in that way if he believed Israel was itching to use its nukes?
Let's face it. Even Saddam believes that Israel's nukes are only for last-resort self defense. They pose no threat to its neighbors.
When did FreeRepublic beocome the 'blame America first' site? This article is complete BS! What's next? The defense of North Korea?
Oh, there's lots of wingnuts here on FR. I've seen an awful lot of junk posts and junk replies lately with a marked increase since the election. I guess FR got a lot of notoriety which brought the fringe out of the woodwork. Antiwar.com and the droolings of it's creator, one Justin Raimondo, are plain garbage. Look for the source on these postings and ignore them. Let the anti-Americans and nuts blast away at each other. Hopefully, they'll soon lose interest and go away.
I agree. And your reply confirms the author of the article's logic: that Hussein is rational enough to know that had he used anything against the US or Israel that was on the wrong side of conventional, we would have retaliated in kind. Since he doesn't want to rule over a devasted wasteland, he didn't use WMD.
And the premise still holds, that Israel is able to fend for itself, armed with its formidable Army, and defensive weapons of last resort.
> When did FreeRepublic beocome the 'blame America first' site? This article is complete BS! What's next? The defense of North Korea?
When did our Republic become killers for convenience and profit? When did our Republic devolve into lying to its citizens to carry on ill-conceived bombing adventures? When did saving some money on oil become sufficient justification for killing people?
You state the article is "complete BS." Which part? Can you support your assertion with facts and sources?
It’s Saddam’s fault that half a million children died since the economic blockade,
True...All he has to do is follow international law
If Iraq allowed inspections for wmd (weapons of mass destruction), Washington would remove the blockade.
Again, completely true.
Saddam gassed his own people
Yep, sorry but he did. Women and children. Nice guy.
– If we don't bomb Iraq, Saddam will use his WMD against us or his neighbors or Israel.
Oh, I don't know....he's always been so nice to his neighbors. Israel and Iran and maybe Kuwait may disagree.
The United Nations ordered sanctions and Washington is just enforcing them.
How can you deny an absolute fact?
America has nothing against Iraq's people, only against its government.
I've never heard anything different.
Iraq wouldn't let the UN/US monitors inspect possible wmd production or storage sites. that's why America started bombing
I seem to remember he kicked out the monitors...was I dreaming? Again I say this article is a liberal piece of crap. Now why don't you start a thread on how Hitler was really a nice guy?
> Antiwar.com and the droolings of it's creator, one Justin Raimondo, are plain garbage.
I respectfully disagree. I have found antiwar.com to be a great source of news and commentary concerning our seeming intense need to stick our nose into the world's affairs. As for Mr. Raimondo, I don't necessarily agree with some of his commentary, just as I don't agree with many other commentators. Still, Mr. Raimondo often offers valuable insight into the issues he chooses to tackle.
Let the anti-Americans and nuts blast away at each other.
There is nothing anti-American about questioning our foreign policy and demanding a Constitutional approach to making war. Nothing anti-American about expecting Congress to do its job and the President to abide by our laws.
America should get out of all this foreign (mis)adventures.
Follow the advice of founding fathers such as
George Washington and Thomas Jefferson
All this new stupid foreign policy is result of
stupid presidents of 20th century
(from the article) Saddam is rational.
yeah gasses the virtually defenseless Kurds, launches artillery fire on a hospital (American troops who witnessed this in 1991 volunteered to go after his troops ... ROE said "no") ...
I mean it's not like he invaded Kuwait and his soldiers raped the women and plundered the goods and all that ... oh, yeah IT IS LIKE THAT ...
though there was a bit too much pomp and circumstance dancing after the Gulf War, I never thought Saddam would win the propaganda war ... he's making inroads ... who can doubt he continually buys new weapons and **expensive** AAA and SAM systems, all the while complaining they can't afford food ... yeah, right ...
When did our Republic become killers for convenience and profit? When did our Republic devolve into lying to its citizens to carry on ill-conceived
bombing adventures? When did saving some money on oil become sufficient justification for killing people?
Lemme see... They haven't. They didn't (except about Waco perhaps). The last one though... depends on who has the oil, now, doesn't it?
Is there anything more anti-American than smearing dissent against the American political establishment as anti-American?
I never thought Saddam would win the propaganda war ... he's making inroads ...
As long as there are antiAmerican cowards around, Saddam will have his friends. I wish he could take them with him when he dies.
Putting aside the fact that you provide no facts or sources for your statements, I will attempt to respond.
> It’s Saddam’s fault that half a million children died since the economic blockade,
> True...All he has to do is follow international law
Actually, Saddam doesn't care about his people. Neither does the U.S. apparently care about the Iraqi people since the sanctions, basically only supported by the U.S. and Britain, have killed more Iraqi innocents than Saddam's armed forces ever did.
Is this the same "international law" that the U.S./NATO violated in bombing Yugoslavia? When should sanctions against the U.S. start?
> If Iraq allowed inspections for wmd (weapons of mass destruction), Washington would remove the blockade.
> Again, completely true.
How so? Didn't the U.S. have inspectors in Iraq between 1991 and 1998? Were sanctions suspended during this time?
Talking about weapons of mass destruction. What would you call sanctions that have reportedly killed 1 million innocent Iraqis, including as many as 500,000 children?
> Saddam gassed his own people
> Yep, sorry but he did. Women and children. Nice guy.
Saddam is reputed to have used chemical weapons on the Kurds of Northern Iraq in the 1980s. Of course he was fighting Iran at the time with significant military and financial assistance from the U.S. Perhaps you can point me to the immediate action the U.S. took to end the practice? One hint, you won't find anything other than mild U.S. protests. You see, at the time, Saddam was our buddy. Our buddies can maim, torture and kill anyone they want.
Don't believe me? Take a look at how many Kurds our Turkish allies have killed. Over 35,000, many of them in Northern Iraq. Since Iraq is no longer our buddy, they cannot kill Kurds in Northern Iraq. Since Turkey is still our buddy, they are allowed to kill Kurds in Northern Iraq. They even use equipment we provided for them.
As for your "nice guy" comment. How many Iraqi children would you personally want to kill? How "nice" a guy is the one that supports that sort of carnage?
> If we don't bomb Iraq, Saddam will use his WMD against us or his neighbors or Israel.
> Oh, I don't know....he's always been so nice to his neighbors. Israel and Iran and maybe Kuwait may disagree.
I really don't have any comment here, since it seems obvious any use of nuclear or biochemical weapons on the part of Iraq outside its borders would mean the demise of Saddam. I believe he knows this quite clearly.
> The United Nations ordered sanctions and Washington is just enforcing them.
> How can you deny an absolute fact?
You mean the absolute fact that all nations except the U.S. and Britain want the sanctions dropped?
BTW, perhaps you can point to the U.N. resolution that created the no-fly zones over Northern and Southern Iraq?
> America has nothing against Iraq's people, only against its government.
> I've never heard anything different.
Have you heard that, as of 1996, our sanctions had killed 500,000 Iraqi children? Had you heard that Madeleine Albright said that it was "worth it" to kill all those children? If we care so much about the Iraqi people, how come we are killing them by the hundreds of thousands?
This sounds like the pathetic argument during the Kosovo bombing. "We have nothing against the Yugoslav people, our fight is with Milosevic." As we proceeded to bomb civilian trains, shopping markets, hospitals, T.V. stations, and even a foreign embassy.
> Iraq wouldn't let the UN/US monitors inspect possible wmd production or storage sites. that's why America started bombing
> I seem to remember he kicked out the monitors...was I dreaming?
Iraq kicked out the American monitors. All other monitors were able to stay, but chose to leave. > Again I say this article is a liberal piece of crap. Now why don't you start a thread on how Hitler was really a nice guy?
It seems to me you refuse to accept the fact that we are responsible for the deaths of hundreds of thousands of innocent people. Easy to blame Saddam, but it's us who are killing his hostages.
Scott Ritter, the former UNSCOM inspector, told CNN on 2/18 "In terms of large-scale weapons of mass destruction programs, these had been fundamentally destroyed or dismantled by the weapons inspectors as early as 1996, so by 1998 we had under control the situation on the ground."
This is another point made by Scott Ritter, which is conveniently forgotten in CNN documentaries and in the mainstream media, which explains why the UNSCOM mission collapsed: "The CIA began placing American spies among U.N. weapons inspectors in Iraq only a year after the end of the Persian Gulf war of 1991 and worked closely with the United Nations to organize the inspections, a former arms inspector says. The former inspector, Scott Ritter, said in a new book that he and a senior CIA official operating under an assumed name had planned some of the largest and most complex inspections undertaken by the United Nations and that the United Nations inspection teams had included 'CIA paramilitary covert operatives.' He said a coup attempt against President Saddam Hussein of Iraq in June 1996 coincided with the presence of a U.N. inspection team that included nine CIA officials." CIA Was With UN in Iraq for Years, Ex-Inspector Says
Easy to blame Saddam, but it's us who are killing his hostages.
I am killing no one. If these people are hungry, they should take it up with their leader. If they're too stupid or too afraid to do that then.......stuff happens. I have no respect for those that will not fight for their rights. Maybe that's because I'm an American and damn proud of it.
JD> When did our Republic become killers for convenience and profit? When did our Republic devolve into lying to its citizens to carry on ill-conceived bombing adventures? When did saving some money on oil become sufficient justification for killing people?
RD> Lemme see... They haven't.
Quote from USMC Major General Smedley Butler:
"I wouldn't go to war again as I have done to protect some lousy investment of the bankers. There are only two things we should fight for. One is the defense of our homes and the other is the Bill of Rights. War for any other reason is simply a racket."
From "Smedley Butler on Interventionism" found on the Marine Corps University web site.
RD> They didn't (except about Waco perhaps).
Actually remember the claims of 100,000s of thousands dead in Kosovo, mass graves, Milosevic's bad faith negotiations at Rambouillet, operation horseshoe, satellite images of mass graves, 140 Serb tanks destroyed, the civilian train was moving too fast and we could not avoid bombing it . . . twice? I would characterize these as lies to the American public, designed to get us behind a killing campaign we had no business being in.
Here's some more on the subject:
RD>The last one though... depends on who has the oil, now, doesn't it?
So how many gas station attendants would you personally be willing to murder in order to get fuel? It's easy to be lackadaisical, but that is what it comes down to. How many people are you willing to murder in order to get their property "sold" to you at an acceptable price and quantity?
Just this one:
America has nothing against Iraq's people, only against its government.
- I've never heard anything different.
Probably because you watch only CNN... or forgot to pull out bananas from your ears.
Probably because you watch only CNN
Sorry, but I never watch CNN...only Fox News....doofus.
You're so cute....smoooch!
As many as 12% of the children surveyed in Baghdad are wasted
I wonder how they can get and afford the drugs???
blush
An excellent and informative post.. For some patriots the truth of this matter will be too hard to bear..
thanks for the post, too bad some Freepers still believe in the tired anti-American nonsense produced by the pro-War liberal media.
Intervention is not American
bump!!
Bump
I fail to see how the butcher of the Shatila refugee camps in 1982(Sharon)is preferable to Saddam.
They truly deserve each other, and our "benigh neglect."
"They truly deserve each other, and our "benigh neglect."
I agree.. I hope we aren't stuck in old, lose-lose foreign policy.
" Saddam is rational."
Sure lost me there.
This is pure drivel. Saddam luxuriates in, what, 70? gaudy palaces while his people suffer. Every dime goes to himself, his family, and his cronies.......oh yes, and his military. The author needs to pull his head out of his a**.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.
[
Top
|
Latest Posts
|
Latest Articles
|
Self Search
|
Add Bookmark
|
Post
|
Abuse
|
Help!
]
FreeRepublic , LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794 Forum Version 2.0a Copyright © 1999 Free Republic, LLC |