952 replies to this topic

[DJS]

My goodness Lazarus, if I viewed things as cynically as you I would build myself a bunker and never come out. [B)]

If I were Putin now I would "ignore” attempts to procure "loose nukes"  by Iran and allow a small number to cross into that country so long as they were to demonstrate they are in possession of them by detonating within the next 6 months an underground test.

This is definitely a possibility, but I don't think Putin finds this necessary. Iran will be able to go nuclear within the next two years (maybe even less) simply by following IAEA guidelines. No covert, under the table, dealings are really necessary. Hell, for all we know Iran could have one or two nukes already. This is one of the reasons I think we will go after Syria first. Syria is a much less complicated matter. All of this, (absolutely all of this) is predicated on whether one finds a nuclear Iran acceptable. Is our intelligence good enough to guarantee success if a preemptive strike was unleashed on Iran's nuclear reactors? What would the effect of a preemptive strike have on the domestic political climate within Iran (would we be setting back the democratic movement taking hold in Iran)? These are questions that have yet to be answered, and to date, beyond my analysis. I am still working on my policy approach to Iran .

They have only tenuous control anyway over some of these stockpiles and regional interests will now pressure their release and they are less vulnerable to a direct response if they aren't in possession of the actual inventories.

You have a point on this one Lazarus. I was watching something on CSPAN a while back about anti proliferation within the former USSR. A really interesting point that one of the Russian journalist brought up was that the US has less influence in counter proliferation then one might be led to believe. He pointed out that a rogue state/terrorist organization that wants to acquire nuclear weapons deal directly with individuals within the buracracy of Russia. AKA, individual Russians get big bucks for proliferating. However, when the US tries to initiate policies to stop proliferation it can only fund government entities, not individuals. Even if the level of funding is equal on both sides of the proliferation game, the US will lose every time. Why? Because a bribe has a lot of "added value" with the Russian Mafia types. In other words, why would a gangster care that we gave Russia billions of dollars in anti-proliferation funds, he is still going to try to smuggle the war heads to the highest bidder.

What we here are failing to realize is that our security is predicated upon facing concentrated forces, their response will be in decentralizing their strategic response and placing it under localized control.  This is counter intuitive to classical thinkers because of the concentrated centralized traditions of the Soviet mind set but they are adapting to the changing strategic scenario also and they are decentralizing, as evidenced by their relatively "peaceful breakup” into the current largely Islamic Central Asian States.

I read something to this effect some where in the past. Proliferation is an issue that I am still educating myself on. My counter question(s) would be - 1. What makes you think we can stop this trend anyway if it is in Russia interests to do so? 2. Doesn't this just strengthen my argument for missile defense and superior homeland security? And a side question, "Did we really win the Cold War, or are we just in a new, more sinister phase of it?"

The Chinese have been cooperating with us and "quietly" forcing the DPRK to tone down its rhetoric and scale back, because the Chinese are assessing "How Much" a threat we intend to be to them both sooner and later, but the Russians are reevaluating their entire strategic policy and can do a lot more than just harrie our forces.

Is China being cooperative just a logical assumption on your part (assuming that the only reason DPRK would tone down its rhetoric is because of China?)? One additional point, the Russians have not had the resources to update or improve their arsenal since the break up of the USSR in 1991. Heck, they didn't really improve their arsenal for nearly a decade before that, just increase force strength etc. Plus, Russia's economy has been in the shitter for years and shows no signs of leaving. I think you place too much value on Russia's nuclear arsenal. Our defense technologies are way, way ahead of Russia. So what possible value would Russia's arsenal represent to an anti US bloc. Because, after all, we would not be talking about transfer of stock piles, but of technologies. No, the threat posed by Russia is not its strength, but its weakness.

They turned off all oil to the DPRK for three days and then claimed it was "an accident", then quietly reminded them that the DPRK depends upon China for 80% of its oil, and over 50% of its food.  They basically said "talk, or you are on your own AND naked in the wilderness".  They have a firm leash on their war dog.

Is this really true? Where did you hear this? I must not have been doing my homework. Only so much time for fun work. [blush]

The Russians (and some of our NATO allies and the Chinese) have already quietly begun to retool their nuclear programs into building tactical nukes as well.  The Russians are involved with joint military exercises with Iran, and Iran with India.  If German industrial and technological prowess is added to the mix then a credible and formidable strategic match can be generated against the US in a relatively short time.  It is in German economic Interest to do business with the Russians if we isolate them further.  The French are pondering how to balance this shift, but will likely join with the Eastern Force if we alienate them too.  Again it is in their self interest.

Russia has had tactical nukes for years. I have heard nothing of them "retooling". Questions: How long would it take this alliance to solidify? Couldn't the argument be made that an alliance would be less effective at technological advancement than a unified nation (with a huge head start). Do you really think the French or Germans would go that far out of the fold? Aren't you forgetting that other nations have suspicion about nations other than the US (Russia about China)?

Because nuclear stockpiles were being regulated for a time we have some understanding about location and inventories, but we are also aware of hundreds of unaccounted for warheads.  These didn't disappear, nor were they just accounting errors, they have been stockpiled at the doors to the "underground movements" as a hedge against what we are now doing and these will little doubt now start getting distributed.

This is bordering on conspiracy theory since I doubt you have any proof of this. However I wouldn't doubt it. The Russians have had suit case nukes for years. What stopped them from smuggling them into the US for a preemptive strike? [ph34r] I think there have been unwritten agreements for many years regarding the strategic balance of power. If this isn't the case, then it is a miracle that we haven't blown ourselves up already.

Obviously we have policy planners that have returned to the idea that a nuclear war can be winnable.  MAD has become obsolete regardless, and those who think they can just build bomb shelters and survive to come back out afterward better think twice.

Lazarus, no one wants a nuclear war. Not even us crazy neo-hawks. As far as a nuclear war being winnable...if you could prevent a nuclear strike from actually impacting the continental US, isn't that winning??

If Germany and the Soviets had been able to reach a "meeting of the minds" as Churchill (even more than Roosevelt) accomplished later with his “personally” declared enemy, then we would have a very different world today.

I am a WWII freak. My father use to give me pictorial history books of WWII when I was younger. I would stare at the pictures for hours and hours thinking to myself, jeez did this really happen? WWII was the last great war before the nuclear shadow tempered man's aggressive tendency toward "all out" war. And yes, Hitler was a fool who blew too many chances to be counted. Even the biggest idiots in the world have some luck. The problems for Hitler is that he used up all of his luck early on.

Many see what the US is doing as a Fifth column of the Third Reich moving against the emerging technologies to block their development and control global resources into their economies so as to force compliance with American Doctrine regardless of legitimacy.

Isn't this the very nature of hegemony (controlling technologies and resources that would alter the strategic balance of power)? As long as we rule fairly and humanely I think that is all that can be asked of us. And why do you keep persisting with your Nazi comments? The US is too much of a free, open and fair society to allow us neo-hawks to get away with too much. And Nazi references are just so nasty. I understand that you are trying to illustrate a point about abuse of power, but I don't see the correlation to modern America.

I hope you have found my commentary and questions to be respectable. I have used up all of my crassness for a while. I really am trying to get a wide array of opinions (especially on proliferation). At the ripe old age of 24 (my birthday was the 31st lol ) I still have much I want to learn before I can rule the world.

[Lazarus Long]

- 1. What makes you think we can stop this trend anyway if it is in Russia interests to do so? 2. Doesn't this just strengthen my argument for missile defense and superior homeland security? And a side question, "Did we really win the Cold War, or are we just in a new, more sinister phase of it?"

First I think we can stop the trend (and WERE until THIS WAR) because of what I call euphemistally the "Hot Potato Effect" first of all, as you no doubt realize having a nuke in your possession makes you a more desirable target for multilateral conflict then vitually any other type of WMD. The point is that when you reduce mulitlateralilsm you increase proliferation in direct proportion. The Hot Potato then becomes a rock in a riot. We are playing into a new age conflict with old age ideas.

Part of this is in direct response to the very concept of a Missile defense system. And No I am not aganist a Patriot III system or even a Patriot X. I am against the dominant militarization of Orbital and Outer space by a single nation, or frankly any group of nations, UNLESS in response to a real and verified Offworld Threat. [alien]

The issue here is that the reason for "going mobile" with portable Nukes (and all WMD's) is to bypass concentrated defenses. Ultimately the only way to stop this trend is to account for the weapons, destroy them, AND BREAK THE MOULDS!! Of course this requires MULTILATERAL COOPERATION AND PARTICIPATION.

If you even think that we can do this alone you are begging to have a war first and find out the failings of this doctrine after it is too late. I am capable of detonating a weapon of this order if I felt the threat sufficient, so are you, the difference is, I am saying we should choose a different weapon to fight our conflicts. The marketplpace is one such alternative battlefield, and weapons can be restiricted by "civilized nations".

However, if you don't understand that civilization exists in forms that are "alien" to your understanding then you are the threat, REGARDLESS OF YOUR STATED GOOD WILL. This is an aspect that is being overlooked in this current phase of popular monomania.

Yes we have a wonderful system but most certainly not an invulnerable or perfect system, and I use the NAZI's as a comparison because they went nuts with their own power as a PEOPLE, not just as a government. They had a LOT of Social Freedom before the War and gave it up FOR SECURITY. We are not invulnerable to our own excess.

Russia has had tactical nukes for years. I have heard nothing of them "retooling". Questions: How long would it take this alliance to solidify? Couldn't the argument be made that an alliance would be less effective at technological advancement than a unified nation (with a huge head start). Do you really think the French or Germans would go that far out of the fold? Aren't you forgetting that other nations have suspicion about nations other than the US (Russia about China)?

The real challenge to us isn't Iraq, it is a Doctrine that is inflexible, monomaniacle, and incapable of distiguishing friend from foe. One third of all our casualities in war, (this one too by the way) are inflicted by friendly fire. The casualities in the battlefield have been light and consistent with this, but the casualties in diplomatic conflict have been devastating and while there is yet a little time to heal some rifts that battle will be over the UN and winning this conflict could unite friend and foe against us WIth good reason and the clock on this time bomb is already ticking.

As for how fast they can retool to match our industrial might if only four nations united their technologies and relatiely vast resources against us?

You should look to our example of WWII and realize that if India, Russia, Germany, and France took over as leaders of the non alligned movement and respected China's neutrality they could develop an ultra modern military in a matter of months to a few years and can excuse this as a means of resolving their economic problems domestically.

They would also gain dozens of nations that don't harbor the mistrust that the Neo Cons do. You are Overly suspicious and the rest of the world is ready to do business. They are willing to compete in the market and we appear to be unwilling to and cheat instead by trying to impose a military autocracy. The French weren't invaded by the Russians, their history is reversed in that respect. They can see a lot of opportunity in "blowing US off". Putin is a real pro, not a junior G-Man, and he isn't a demogogue of the old school, he is more capable of assessing and responding to the current global scenario then I fear our own leadership cadre is. He was willing to cooperate and has demonstrated as much.

We are making his cooperation impossible. And still he is trying. You should beware that if you keep calling everybody a threat they will begin to believe and act accordingly, because as any animal knows if you are frightened you pose a threat. You really have little understanding of how to manage your own fear and face a formidable foe. More importantly you fail to understand how to turn your enemies into your friends. "Keep those you love close, keep your enemies closer."

If you can't take a page from our alliance with Stalin to fight the Axis then you are missing the point of history. They would be the Alllies and we the Axis of Evil in their eyes. As for China as a threat, no European credits this as seriously as you and the exteme right wing. But some confuse Mongols for Chinese because of a poor education just as many Americans don't know the difference between Iran and Iraq.

We will continue to debate strategy and tactics for Homeland security and Missiles for a long time but I don't expect any but NATIONAL Infrastructure to build missiles, I expect the vast amount of actual threat to be mounted assymetrically and a million missiles wouldn't stop it.

Ahhh, the Cold War... Yes I think celebrations for its demise were a bit premature, that is why I voted for the father against Clinton in the first place. I told you before that in the future the entire period since WWII will probably be called the Period of Proxy wars. If we are not careful we are doing a lot to make it worse before getting better. We aren't leading we are reacting and our truest and worst enemies have been successful at predicting our responses so far. You see victory I see hollow accomplishment. I am interested in substance not spectacle.

Our troops are acquiting themselves well and our military prowess is clear and demonstrated, it is time to demonstrate we are capable in other areas required for statecraft as well. The limits of the battlefield are at the end of the gun. There will be no victory until our goals have been accomplished and the "doctrine" has placed a very "high bar" that will require a commitment I do not think you or the neo-cons possess. BTW, you can bet our enemies don't think you possess the will to stay the course and build the peace either.

In fact I suggest they are counting on it. [ph34r]

Happy Birthday...

Edited by Lazarus Long, 05 April 2003 - 02:18 PM.

[bobdrake12]

Based on all the reported atrocities by Saddam's regime in Iraq, is it all that difficult to comprehend that the regime also lies?

bob


http://www.ptd.net/w...f.RPFz_DA3.html



US forces nowhere near Baghdad says Iraqi govt spokesman Thursday, 03-Apr-2003 8:41AM



BAGHDAD, IRAQ, 3-APR-2003: A video grab from Iraqi TV shows Iraqi Information Minister Mohammed Said al-Sahhaf reading a statement from President Saddam Hussein April 3, 2003 in Baghdad.


BAGHDAD, April 3 (AFP) - US forces are nowhere near Baghdad or its main airport, but remain trapped in combat with Iraqi resistance in every major town, Iraq's Information Minister Mohamed Said Al-Sahhaf said on Thursday.

"They are not even within 100 miles (160 kilometres), they are on the move everywhere. They are a pig moving in the desert," he said, referring to US and British troops as mercenaries and US Vice President Dick Cheney as "despicable".

"If that's the case we will welcome them with music and flowers," added Sahhaf mockingly.

A US commander south of Baghdad said Thursday US forces were within 15 kilometers (nine miles) of the city center near its main airport and controlled the southern approaches to the capital.

Sahhaf said Iraqi troops continued to fight coalition forces everywhere in Iraq, including Basra, Karbala, Najaf and Nasiriyah.

"It is not enough to say heavy casualties. We are destroying tanks, personnel carriers, killing them and we will continue," said the minister, the Iraqi regime's main spokesman since the start of the US-led campaign two weeks ago to topple Iraqi President Saddam Hussein.

Sahhaf said Iraqi fighters south of Karbala destroyed on Wednesday an F-18 warplanes, an Apache combat helicopter and a Chinook troop carrying helicopter.

The United States has admitted the loss of a F/A-18 and a smaller Black Hawk helicopter.

Fedayeen militia had also destroyed three tanks and a personnel carrier south of Karbala and another Apache in the southern Muthana province, he said, adding that the same unit destroyed another tank in Muthana.

Sahhaf said the 442nd regiment of the Iraqi army pushed back a coalition attack near the southern city of Basra on Wednesday.

"Basra is in good shape and our fighters remain there," he said adding that even in the port city of Umm Qasr there continues to be resistance.

Coalition forces captured and occupied Iraq's only deep water port and main access to the Gulf two weeks ago and are now in the process of cleaning the area of potential mines so to allow the unloading of humanitarian aid.

As for casualties of bombing raids on Baghdad, Al-Sahhaf said that according to initial estimates 140 were injured and five killed Wednesday night.

He added that early Thursday coalition forces dropped cluster bombs on the Al-Doura area of Baghdad killing 14 people and injuring 66, while raids on Mahmoudia district, 60 kilometers (37 miles) from Baghdad, killed five and injured 59.

sd/mb

Iraq-war-Baghdad-Sahhaf


Story from AFP
Copyright 2003 by Agence France-Presse (via ClariNet)

Edited by bobdrake12, 05 April 2003 - 03:04 PM.

[bobdrake12]

Saddam's regime tortured children.

Saddam's regime is about to come to an end.


bob



http://news.bbc.co.u...ent/2058253.stm



Saturday, 22 June, 2002, 11:26 GMT 12:26 UK

Iraq's tortured children (excerpts)

By John Sweeney - BBC correspondent in Iraq



Some witnesses had direct experience of child torture


The star witness against the government of Iraq hobbled into the room, her legs braced with clumsy metal callipers. "Anna" had been tortured two years ago. She is now four years old.

Her father, Ali, is a thick-set Iraqi who used to work for Saddam's psychopathic son, Uday. Some time after the bungled assassination of Uday, Ali fell under suspicion.




Saddam's secret police have been accused of torturing children


He fled north, to the Kurdish safe haven policed by Western fighter planes, but leaving his wife and daughter behind in Baghdad.

So the secret police came for his wife. Where is he? They tortured her. And when she didn't break, they tortured his daughter.

"When did you last see your father? Has he phoned? Has he been in contact?" They half-crushed the toddler's feet.

Now, she doesn't walk, she hobbles, and Ali fears that Saddam's men have crippled his daughter for life. So Ali talked to us.

I have been to Baghdad a number of times. Being in Iraq is like creeping around inside someone else's migraine. The fear is so omnipresent you could almost eat it. No one talks.

So listening to Ali speak freely was a revelation. He is not exactly a contender to be the next Archbishop of Canterbury.

He has the heft of an enforcer. He told me that he had tortured for the regime. But I don't think he was lying to us.


A murder story



A witness saw Saddam Hussein's son, Uday, murder another man


Ali told another story. He had seen Uday kill with his own eyes. This was some years ago, before the assassination attempt left Saddam's oldest son half-paralysed and impotent.

Uday's lust is famous in Baghdad. He wanted a woman who played tennis at Baghdad's Sports Club and he and Ali went round to the club.

As Uday was turning into the car park, a tennis ball came over the fence and bounced against the car of the woman he desired.

The tennis player came into the car park to retrieve the ball, apologised to the woman. Maybe there was a bit of flirting - that does happen at tennis courts, even in England.

From his car Uday watched the two of them. Enraged, he took out a wooden cosh and beat the tennis player's brains out.

And then - get this - a few days later, the dead man's relatives apologised to Uday for the distress their son had caused him.
Incredible?

I don't think so.


In northern Iraq - the only part of the country where people can speak freely - we met six other witnesses who had direct experience of child torture, including another of Saddam's enforcers - now in a Kurdish prison - who told us that an interrogator could do anything:

"We could make a kebab out of the child if we wanted to." And then he chuckled.

Edited by bobdrake12, 05 April 2003 - 03:20 PM.

[Lazarus Long]

Hell, for all we know Iran could have one or two nukes already. This is one of the reasons I think we will go after Syria first. Syria is a much less complicated matter.

You failed to understand the point of the example I made in the first place. There is a profound difference between suspicion and demonstrable fact. I said "detonate an underground test". Watch for that, because it not only suggests they have the production tech in place, it suggests they have more in reserve. If they were careful and did this with a "loose nuke" we wouldn't be able to discern the difference in time to prevent the actual production technology from going online.

Syria is not only more compicated than you appreciate (because it will guarantee Israeli troops and involvement) but because the generational shift in power that occurred there recently was another example of an opportunity missed and a situation made ostesibly much worse by what we did in Iraq. Isreal is under seige now, but if we attack Syria the entire region from the Suez to Pacific will end up in constant war and no Israeli community will be immune from the carnage of real war. No one can justify an attack on Syria and the Russians will consider this a threat against them and ally themselves with the vast majority of dissenting Islamic States as is consistent with their self interest. The French will be torn by this but probably side with them as well, and the Germans, may already be there. India would see this as a way to circumvent Pakistan and garner support from the rest of the Islamic world to destroy its renegade Islamic neighbor and literally all hell will break loose.

I understand the President's strategy of having the likes of you and I debate these issues ad nauseum and then choose between the options as he best understands them but is anyone really "thinking outside the box"? In fact is anyone realizing assessing the actual risk/rewards here?

I am unconvinced that the "so called" experts are actually able to think beyond doctrinaire prejudice. I question the chosen strategy because thereis too much spin and too little substance, and teh American People are ignorant of the subtleties to make a meanigful decision in time. I doubt they will override the Bush Administratin in the next election and I believe that is also spinning the foreign policy.

Back to Syria

Bashir is an Oxford educated dentist, he has close ties to the European establishment, England in particular and went into power willing and able to begin a reform process domestically. What we have done is leave him out in the cold and at the mercy of his own demogogues with little support and benefit his desire to cooperate with the west. You are so willing to shoot first and ask questions later that you justify the concern that the rest of the world sees from US. We are becoming more the problem then the solution.

Other Nations designed and built Nuclear weapons without ever testing them, Israel and South Africa being two prime examples, ask yourself why they don't want other nations to be sure of their possession of such weapons? Ask Why South Africa willingly disarmed and why Israel won't waste a single bomb to test whether they will actually work or not?

You still don't understand that we are forcing a new and dangerous realignment of global military strength and we are also forcing the Military Industrial Establishments in all capable countries to go into high gear for producing a vast array of next generational weapons that will be a legacy that threatens all humanity for the next few centuries. This is still preventable, but not by indulging its worst excess.

[Lazarus Long]

Saddam's regime tortured children.

Saddam's regime is about to come to an end.

bob

And good riddance to bad rubbish, but "how" we dispose of the worst problems is even more important then the fact we "have" them to deal with in the first place.

Have we recycled one old despot for a million suicide bombers?

It will take more than a decade to answer this question.

[bobdrake12]

Have we recycled one old despot for a million suicide bombers?

It will take more than a decade to answer this question.

If the US and Britain do the job, they will establish a true democracy with a Bill of Rights.

A Free Iraq will probably be a threat to its neighbors that are run by tyranical dictatorships who would certainly prefer the status quo.

A true democracy with a Bill of Rights could distabilize the region.

bob

Edited by bobdrake12, 05 April 2003 - 07:54 PM.

[bobdrake12]

http://news.bbc.co.u...ews/2919805.stm



Saturday, 5 April, 2003, 15:40 GMT 16:40 UK

British find 'makeshift morgue' (excerpts)


Hundreds of skulls and bundles of bone in strips of military uniform have been found by British soldiers at an abandoned Iraqi military base.




Some of the human remains have identity cards attached.


Forensic specialists are expected to examine what appears to be a makeshift morgue on the outskirts of the town of al-Zubayr.

The remains were found in plastic bags and unsealed hardboard coffins, and experts will try to determine how long they have been there.




'These are all executions'

[DJS]

My friend from San Diego sent this to me. Did you ever see those Visa commercials? Hey, we all need a good laugh sometimes lol .

Attached Files

•  PricelessFlag.jpg   106.63KB   0 downloads

Edited by Kissinger, 05 April 2003 - 08:00 PM.

[bobdrake12]

http://news.bbc.co.u...ews/2920039.stm



Saturday, 5 April, 2003, 12:25 GMT 13:25 UK

'These are all executions'


Hundreds of bundles of bone in strips of military uniform have been found by British soldiers at an abandoned Iraqi military base on the outskirts of the town of al-Zubayr.




Piles of bones lie in plastic bags


Faded black-and-white photographs show corpses mutilated beyond recognition, their faces burned and swollen.

Most of the victims appear to have been executed by gunshots to the head.

Skulls, their teeth broken and missing, look out from plastic bags in unsealed hardboard coffins stacked five deep in a warehouse.

Some of the bags have split open, spilling bones and scraps of clothing onto the dirt floor.

Outside, in a courtyard, a brick wall riddled with bullets stands behind a foot-high tiled platform, with a drainage ditch running in-between.




The soldiers think this bullet-riddled spot was a "shooting gallery"


It looks like "a purpose-built shooting gallery" says one British soldier.

Next to the courtyard, a building contains what look like cells with metal hooks hanging from racks on the ceiling - and a picture of Iraqi president Saddam Hussein.

Some of the paperwork suggests the "makeshift morgue" was operating in 1985.

Each coffin carries an Arabic inscription and the bags have been scrawled on with marker pens.

The first British soldier into the warehouse, Captain Jack Kemp, of the 3rd Regiment of the Royal Horse Artillery, said it contained more than 200 bags filled with "very old" human remains.

It is certainly not from the recent conflict but it could be from the one before," the 40-year-old from Fraddam, near Newquay, Cornwall, added.

"We have placed it out of bounds to all personnel and will treat it as a mass grave.

"It's part of being at war - just another thing you have to deal with and get on with it.

"As the war goes on you expect to see everything."

Moments later, a younger soldier dashed over to Capt Kemp with a catalogue of photographs.

"Bloody hell," he whispered




Gruesome catalogues show mutilated corpses


These are all executions. You can see the bullets - shots to the head."

Moments later the soldiers and the five western journalists who had been allowed to visit the site were hurriedly ushered out, as senior officers began to realise the possible significance of what had been discovered.

The soldiers are already asking if they could have chanced upon a death camp.

"Isn't it important for Muslims to be properly buried?" one said. "It's like a deliberate disrespect.

"Whoever these people were, they weren't very important to the people who did this."

[bobdrake12]

Based on all the reported atrocities by Saddam's regime in Iraq, is it all that difficult to comprehend that the regime also lies?

bob




Iraq's Information Minister Mohamed Said Al-Sahhaf


http://story.news.ya...been_broken&e=1

Sat, Apr 05, 2003

Defiant Iraqis Say U.S. Advance Has Been Broken (excerpts)

By JOHN F. BURNS The New York Times


BAGHDAD, Iraq (news - web sites), April 5 Senior Iraqi officials remained defiant today in the face of American military might, asserting that Iraqi soldiers and suicide bombers had "crushed" American troops at Baghdad's international airport and broken the American advance on the capital into isolated pockets that were surrendering to relentless Iraqi attacks.

But Mr. Sahhaf said, essentially, that the Americans were in the world of make-believe.

"We have defeated them, in fact we have crushed them in the place of Saddam International Airport," he said today. "We have pushed them outside the whole area of the airport."

To drive home this claim of American desperation, he added this account of the battle: "They have done everything crazy, everything crazy, in order to lessen the pressure we have put on their troops."

The Iraqi strategy, Mr. Sahhaf said, was to drive the Americans back to pockets of resistance outside Baghdad. One place mentioned was Abu Ghraib, a town about 15 miles west of the capital, notorious as the site of the grimmest prison in Mr. Hussein's gulag.

Travelers reaching Baghdad in recent days described American troops with tanks at checkpoints on the expressway that passes Abu Ghraib on the way to Jordan. But Mr. Sahhaf said that the American units there, and at two other locations he named as Hadithi and Qadissiyah, were surrounded by Iraqi troops.

"We nailed them down" he said.

These expressions of bravado appeared to have been reinforced by the television footage shown on Friday and again today of a man identified as Mr. Hussein visiting neighborhoods in western Baghdad and being greeted with jubilation by ordinary Iraqis. Iraqis who saw the broadcast said they had no doubt that the man was indeed Mr. Hussein and not a double.

Oddly, the political flourish involved in the Iraqi leader's televised walkabout was followed today by a reversion to one of the expedients of the past two weeks that had led American intelligence analysts and many Iraqis to conclude that Mr. Hussein might have been killed or incapacitated by the missile strike. This afternoon, Mr. Sahhaf was back on television reading a message to the Iraqi people from Mr. Hussein, without any explanation as to why the leader could not have delivered the message himself.

The message made no reference to the American seizure of the airport or the Iraqi counterattack that followed, curious perhaps given that most television viewers a small minority, since Baghdad has been without electricity for 48 hours must have known of the fighting on the city's southern rim.

Certainly the thunderous American bombing, along with the boom of Iraqi and American artillery, would have been enough to signal that something momentous was afoot. But Mr. Hussein's statement was economical in his references to the fighting, saying only that the "invaders" were concentrating on Baghdad but weakening elsewhere.

"To hurt the enemy more, raise the level of your attacks," he told Iraqi fighters. "The criminals will be humiliated."

Edited by bobdrake12, 05 April 2003 - 08:27 PM.

[bobdrake12]

Many gave credibility to the reports by Iraq's Information Minister Mohamed Said Al-Sahhaf.

Here is an example of one of his former reports (January 28, 1998).

Bob


http://www.cnn.com/W...presser.update/


Iraq lashes out at chief U.N. weapons inspector (excerpts)




BAGHDAD, Iraq (CNN) -- As a Russian envoy delivered a message to Iraq on Wednesday, Iraqi Foreign Minister Mohammed Saeed al-Sahhaf accused chief U.N. weapons inspector Richard Butler of overstepping his inspection mandate and said Iraq may complain to the World Court.

Speaking at a news conference, al-Sahhaf said Iraq was "shocked" by Butler's allegations -- reported in Tuesday's New York Times -- that Iraq had enough biological weapons "to blow away Tel Aviv."

"Mr. Butler is not a neutral expert. He is biased and blindly committing mistakes, deadly mistakes.

Al-Sahhaf said Iraq had asked U.N. Secretary-General Kofi Annan "for him to be punished."

The foreign minister said Butler had clearly gone beyond his U.N. duty of leading international inspections aimed at ridding Iraq of any weapons of mass destruction. Iraq must do this before the U.N. Security Council will lift economic sanctions imposed after the 1990 invasion of Kuwait.

The latest standoff was caused when Iraq refused to grant U.N. weapons inspectors access to certain cites such as presidential palaces. Iraq maintains it is complying with all U.N. resolutions on the issue.

"We think this crisis has been fabricated by the United States of America," al-Sahhaf said.

Edited by bobdrake12, 05 April 2003 - 08:37 PM.

[DJS]

First I think we can stop the trend (and WERE until THIS WAR) because of what I call euphemistally the "Hot Potato Effect"  first of all, as you no doubt realize having a nuke in your possession makes you a more desirable target for multilateral conflict then virtually any other type of WMD.  The point is that when you reduce mulitlateralilsm you increase proliferation in direct proportion.    The Hot Potato then becomes a rock in a riot.  We are playing into a new age conflict with old age ideas.

I am not sure if I agree with this. Having a nuke (1), might make you more of a target, but having a nuclear arsenal makes you virtually untouchable. Isn't this the whole argument the liberal establishment is giving as to why preventative action will have unanticipated negative blow back (AKA, countries will speed up their nuclear programs to make themselves "safe" from our preemption. Hence, preemption would actually increase proliferation).

Part of this is in direct response to the very concept of a Missile defense system.

No doubt, but should we constrain our defense policy objectives because we are afraid of theoretical blow back in the form of a new arms race? More over, can we take the chance? Just imagine, after a nuclear detonation in a major US city, the President telling the American public, "Well, I thought they would be deterred." I never trust the motives of others. That is a big difference between you and I.

The issue here is that the reason for "going mobile" with portable Nukes (and all WMD's)  is to bypass concentrated defenses.  Ultimately the only way to stop this trend is to account for the weapons, destroy them, AND BREAK THE MOULDS!! Of course this requires MULTILATERAL COOPERATION AND PARTICIPATION.

Yes, I agree that portable nukes are intend to bypass our classic defense infrastructure. What I do not agree with is that there is no defense to this new escalation. I have previously posted an article about "lab on a chip" technology. Within the next decade, even trace amounts of WMD (including radiation) will be detectable immediately through out the United States using this technology. The kind of sneak attack you are eluding to will soon be defendable. Of course, you could argue that I am naive for believing in such "false security", but I will always believe that there is a solution to every problem. And we need not compromise security or strategic relations for these solutions.

If you even think that we can do this alone you are begging to have a war first and find out the failings of this doctrine after it is too late.  I am capable of detonating a weapon of this order if I felt the threat sufficient, so are you, the difference is, I am saying we should choose a different weapon to fight our conflicts.  The market place is one such alternative battlefield, and weapons can be restricted by "civilized nations".

Yes, but your policies have risks as well. Embarking on your new and radical policy approach could leave us vulernable. What makes you think that our competitors/enemies base their actions solely on our actions? Don't you think that maybe they are in this game to win no matter how well behaved we are? Even if the US did suddenly become "enlightened" like you keep promoting, do you really think that every other nation of the world would also become so enlightened? That is the problem with the world, their are hundreds of different, potentially conflicting, national interests. Hoping for unity on a matter such as proliferation or arms limitation seems naive too me.

Yes we have a wonderful system but most certainly not an invulnerable or perfect system, and I use the NAZI's as a comparison because they went nuts with their own power as a PEOPLE, not just as a government.  They had a LOT of Social Freedom before the War and gave it up FOR SECURITY.  We are not invulnerable to our own excess.

Yes, but unlike Germany in WWII we can take the rest of the world with us. [ph34r] The nuclear shadow tempers everyone actions, including ours. Isn't it ironic that nukes actually increase stability? I know, I know, MAD is bound to be followed to its logical conclusion at some point. It hasn't yet, and that is because people can be reckless, aggressive, and even "evil", but they are very rarely suicidal.

there is yet a little time to heal some rifts that battle will be over the UN and winning this conflict could unite friend and foe against us WIth good reason and the clock on this time bomb is already ticking.

This is your fear of what is to come. It is not yet fact. After the war we will see if your analyses pans out. I think you prognostication is sometimes overly dramatic.

You should look to our example of WWII and realize that if India, Russia, Germany, and France took over as leaders of the non aligned movement and respected China's neutrality they could develop an ultra modern military in a matter of months to a few years and can excuse this as a means of resolving their economic problems domestically.

I firmly believe that the military technology that the general public knows of is at least two generation behind what the military actually possesses. I don't think the rest of the world can catch us, even if they tried. We are too far ahead, and we are just too good at making weapons. Look at the Chinese, many say that their latest attempt at a new, domestically developed, ICBM is riddled with flaws. You have to admit that the US' quality control is second to none.

[bobdrake12]

http://news.bbc.co.u...ast/2917707.stm



Saturday, 5 April, 2003, 00:55 GMT 01:55 UK

'We will triumph' says Saddamm (excerpts)

Iraqi President Saddam Hussein has issued a call to the Iraqi people to defend their homeland.

The message was read out by Iraqi Information Minister Muhammad Sa'id al-Sahhaf on Iraqi TV on Friday.




Saddam's message was read out on TV by Iraq's Information Minister


I tell you, after we relied on Almighty God, and after Almighty God granted us faith and the courage of the believers, we will be victorious, God willing. We will triumph over our criminal invader enemies.

God will grant us righteous victory on all combat fronts after we triumphed over ourselves by faith and the love each one of us has for the other, for our nation, and humanity.

As we told you brothers and sons before the decisive days began, the enemy will resort to manoeuvring, landing operations, or movements here and there wherever it finds a land free of the defences of our heroic army.

The enemy will wait for our army units to attack it with large numbers and to chase it wherever it moves to harm these units with its aircraft and long-range missiles...

It has done all this, exactly as we expected.

Based on this expectation, we have organized our defences. This includes defending Baghdad from appropriate depths.

[bobdrake12]

This is your fear of what is to come. It is not yet fact. After the war we will see if your analyses pans out. I think you prognostication is sometimes overly dramatic.

Kissinger,


In Iraq, fear was a reality because of the atrocities of Saddam's regime.


Fear is a weapon of propaganda.



Piles of bones lie in plastic bags
BBC (Saturday, 5 April, 2003, 12:25 GMT 13:25 UK - 'These are all executions')


The fear of the atrocities of Saddam's regime is coming to an end.


bob

[Lazarus Long]

Do you know why Chess is called the Game of Kings?

To distinguish a game of dominance played by a " Rule of Law" versus one played by the " Law of the Jungle". If I kill you to prevent your move it isn't a way to win the play, only forfeit my chance at victory.

You don't understand why Nations in possession of nukes are THE target for assymetric warfare for generations to come? Even more so the ones that possess the largest arsenals?

You had better hope "Mr. King of the World" that the billions of Earth's masses have something worth living for, because otherwise why not be a martyr?

Better to die as a David and take down Goliath than live off alms in the ghetto parasitizing your own family and tribe. As yet you don't comprehend the enemy, you still expect him to think like you, and still fail to appreciate that different values aren't automatically issues of right and wrong.

I guarantee this, if you fail to understand the threat you face you will lose. If your argument is that if you lose then you will take me with you, then I will hunt you as the enemy too for then you have forfeit your right to play.

This "Policy" makes us the enemy of all life on Earth and the real Evil Empire, the Dark Lords of Death. If we allow ourselves to be seen this way the war will never stop and trying to be hegemon at this juncture of history insures that we are understood to be this regardless of any claim to the contrary. We must call for the establishment of a Global Legal and Commonly Recognized Democratic Institution that we participate in and not dictate to. If we attempt anything less than this there will be no safe place on this planet or in its vicinity; our hypocrisy will be our just dessert.

Hope doesn't come from preventing total destruction for the enemy we actually face, only their Valhalla. If you don't change the nature of the debate you will find that no shadow will remain safe, no family or supposed sanctuary, those are the Rules of Total war when you don't possess WMD's and have only your own life to give for your cause.

Any American who has read the words of Patrick Henry, Nathan Hale, or John Brown should grasp of what I mean. Maybe you should read more about ourselves. I suggest a review of the Federalist Papers, the Constitution and the history of the period from mid 18th Century through Civil War is long overdue.

Edited by Lazarus Long, 05 April 2003 - 11:25 PM.

[Lazarus Long]

The fear of the atrocities of Saddam's regime is coming to an end.


bob

And the fear of American Military might is real, present and accounted for. There are thousands of dead combatants already and even the minions of evil have, mothers, brothers, children and friends. There are thousands of these dead already by our hands too and more yet to come, just calling them the enemy will not alter that reality for that population. Calling them "all" the enemy will only paint that brush onto their families and children and if we don't alter this trend soon we will find a hostile populace everywhere we turn.

I didn't say "innocents" though some dozens of them have been killed too. It is at least a significant blessing that so far we have kept the death toll of innocents to a remarkably low minimum but those human sacrifices were made too.

This scenario is not posed as a fear mongering idle threat, it is most definitely the enemies intent. We ignore their strategy at our peril if we only pander to it. We have broken the system now are we capable of repairing it?

This isn't about the "spoils of war", if we go into the UN talking that way we've lost the diplomatic struggle before it has started. It will make lies of all our High sounding Claims and it will make a lie of all that you are hoping for Bob.

If we fail to make the transistion to the system we are claiming is our intent then we will take the blame no matter how we try to spin it on to those that were unwilling, there would be no Period of Peaceful transition just an Unending Occupation that steadilly deteriorates. But the reality is that spoils of war are what must be addressed.

The harvest of fear isn't over, this is the period of Terror and Proxy war. We had better contain this process soon or it most definitely will spread around the globe for the combatants are already spread all over the world, al Qaeda is just the tip of the Underground Iceberg, and any intelligence officer worth their salt will say the same and most of the reports the President has recieved have said as much.

Edited by Lazarus Long, 05 April 2003 - 11:12 PM.

[Saille Willow]

At this point al I can say, is that I am in "Shock and Awe'. I do agree with what Lazarus is saying and can back up what he is saying from many articles, from historical perspective, colonialist experience, the realities on the ground after 'liberation', my personal experience in South Africa and in Africa but I know it will make no difference now, history is repeating itself and there is no stopping what has been unleashed. I can only quote a reporter George Monbiot from his article 'It will end in disaster';" I hope I've missed something here, and will be proved spectacularly wrong, but it seems to me that the US and British governments have dragged us into a mess from which we might not emerge for many years. They have unlocked the spirit of war, and it could be unwilling to return to its casket until it has traversed the world." Guardian Newspaper 2003

I am no cynic but I have seen and experienced enough to know where this is going.

[Thomas]

Politicians using army force, should be as dentists using their equipment.

Causing as less pain as possible, to prevent as much pain as possible.

The worst is to let things as they are, when the pain is already present. In Iraq the pain was immense.

- Thomas

Edited by Thomas, 06 April 2003 - 01:41 PM.

[Saille Willow]

i agree you can not leave it as it is but the plans for the future, from what I have seen is going to make it worse. No one is asking the people what they want, where are the plans to bring all the parties together in peace talks instead of imposing a Western model doomed to failure as has happened in the past?

[Lazarus Long]

Saille is having problems posting still and sent this article to me to post for her and support how the view in South Africa is coalescing. Please understand that MOST OF THE WORLD'S PEOPLE don’t need or want strong men in this world to “dictate” to them anymore the people want compassion. Compassionate Conservatism is more powerful than Neo-Conservative Unilateralism. More over if the words of the Compassionate Conservative are seen to be self serving deceit it will drive the whole world to war.

LL/kxs


Lessons from imperial history
Jeff Guy | Durban
07 March 2003 15:06

One of the weapons historians use to defend their discipline from the ill-disciplined hordes from commerce, computer and media studies is a banner with the slogan “to understand the present you must understand the past”. I’ve tried this tactic myself — and have been bowled, banner and all, into the gutter as battalions of first-years head for the computers and move, as their counter-slogans say, “into the future”.
And yet increasingly over the past few months, as the latest world crisis moves towards war, it is not the future but history, the tragic and terrifying past, of which I am reminded. It is time for history to reclaim and regain its place as the discipline not only of the past, but of the future.

Let’s look at an event from South Africa’s past. One-hundred-and-twenty years ago the most powerful country in the world came to the conclusion that it should force a change in the geo-politics of a distant part of the world in which it had an interest/
It was time, this great power felt, to bring progress to the region. If this meant removing some of the less progressive individuals and states from the equation — well, who could object to the march of civilisation and of Christianity?
The most powerful country was, of course, Great Britain. The obstacle to the plan to bring about a unified, progressive, capitalist South Africa was the Zulu kingdom under Cetshwayo kaMpande.

How was the plan carried out? First the argument had to be individualised — it is easier to hate a person than a people — and a case was devised against the Zulu king.
The press and MPs in London were fed reports showing that Cetshwayo was a cruel despot. His people yearned to be released from the tyranny of his rule. His army was a “celibate man-slaying machine” that posed a threat to peace and progress in South Africa. He was in contact with other African leaders, urging them to resist white rule and restore the idle savagery of traditional Africa. The safety and security of South Africa, it was argued, depended on the removal of the Zulu king, and thousands of British troops were ordered to the borders of the Zulu kingdom to prepare for this.

But not everyone agreed that war was necessary. A commission was set up to examine the boundary dispute between the Zulu and the Boers — and it found in favour of the Zulu.
But the finding was not made public. Instead an ultimatum was drawn up: if the Zulu king did not disband his army within 30 days, then the British army would do so by force. Of course it was known that the Zulu king would never abandon his sovereignty. In January 1879 the British invaded the Zulu kingdom.

It is all so reminiscent of what is happening today in the plans to invade Iraq. I am not, of course, arguing that the historical links are direct: a Zulu king is not like an Iraqi dictator; and the reasons that those who rule the United States need to control the Middle East today are not the same as those that drove Britain to gain control of South Africa more than a century ago. But if we step back from these events and take the broader perspective, then the landscape becomes familiar — it is the landscape of imperialism.
And this is what we see. A distant, sovereign state gets in the way of the plans of a world power to extend its interests. In order to get rid of this nuisance it is decided to use war to bring about regime change. Of course this can’t be said openly, so a great moral purpose — freedom for the oppressed — is invoked. The media are fixed, allies are bribed, attempts at peace are subverted, an individual is depicted as the epitome of evil. Massive numbers of troops are moved into the region and an ultimatum is drawn up to provide the pretext for war.

It is such themes that link the imperial past with events in the contemporary world. It is these imperatives — when those with power use moral arguments to justify their destruction of the less powerful —that characterise so many imperial wars. It is these themes that the British invasion of the Zulu kingdom of 1879, and the intended invasion of Iraq today, have in common. And it is these shared themes that give me the confidence to write on my banner the embattled historians’ slogan: “to understand the present we must understand the past”.
And my confidence in history extends further. If I am correct in suggesting that, despite the enormous differences in specific details, it is still possible to use imperial wars of the past to understand the imperial wars of the present, then it might also be possible to use the past to gain some insight into what’s going to come. Let’s look at what happened in the Zulu kingdom after the invasion began.

Firstly, the invading force’s modern military technology — rifles, machine guns, artillery and rockets — inflicted terrible casualties on men armed with assegais. Then there was the damage that occupation by an invading army did to the non-combatants — the women, the children and the aged. In the end the Zulu terminated their military resistance to limit this collateral damage. They surrendered, the king was exiled and the victors divided the country among those who had opposed the old order. Civil war broke out: various forces sitting on the ex-kingdom’s borders moved in to get hold of what pieces were left. The result? The Zulu lost their independence, their autonomy, the products of their labour and their land. It has never been recovered.

So the lessons to be learned from imperial history are severe. Once the war plan goes into action dreadful suffering will be visited on the people in whose name the war is waged. They will then be liberated from despotic rule: a liberation that will prove hollow as the new rulers fight for their share of the spoils. There can be no democracy: democracy is too difficult to manipulate. The people in whose name the war was waged will lose again — just as the people of the Zulu kingdom lost the moment they were liberated by the British from the despotic rule of their king.

The lessons from history about the future are therefore gloomy, dreadfully gloomy: victory for cultural arrogance, media spin, lies, for those who already possess by far the greatest holdings of the world’s weapons of mass destruction, the further suffering of a people who have already suffered more than enough.

But we can’t leave it at that and there is a third slogan that those who believe in the importance of history like to use. It is one that carries a warning: “Unless we understand the mistakes of the past we are condemned to repeat them.”
And here there is a suggestion that we are learning at last; a hint that we are beginning to understand something about the history of imperial power, about the use of force in the making of our global world, about the lies propagated in pursuit of Western civilisation. The hopeless inadequacy of the men and women pursuing war in the Middle East, the transparency of their diplomatic manoeuvring, has become apparent to the people of the world, and millions are coming to realise that the imperial process has to be halted.

On February 15 the ordinary people of the world went on to the streets to show their opposition to this latest imperial adventure. It was the largest popular demonstration in the history of the world. We often hear how the global economy is made possible by the instant movement of capital. Now the people of the globalised world are on the move. At last we have not just an empire, but protest at empire, upon which the sun never sets.

The struggle for people’s rights, for democracy, for the end of the system of lies and deceit by which the global few rule the global many, is only just beginning. The disparities in power and control remain immense. Our understanding of the way in which imperialism has worked against popular aspirations has yet to be developed and spread.
A closer examination of what happened in the South African past, of how the exercise of imperial violence shaped South Africa, does enable us to understand the present more clearly through the past. Hopefully, we will also be able to use this understanding to avoid repeating past mistakes. For, in spite of the obvious differences, it is still possible to discern in the preparations being made for war today, the echoes of other imperial wars, like the war that was made on the Zulu kingdom, so long ago in terms of years, and yet so close to us in terms of the broad objectives of those who prosecuted it, and the methods they used. We have to find ways to stop it happening yet again, to anyone, anywhere.

Jeff Guy is professor of historical studies at the University of Natal, Durban, author of The Destruction of the Zulu Kingdom, and a member of Minister of Education Kader Asmal’s ministerial history committee

[Lazarus Long]

Another voice of "those people" is heard.
Two articles this time.
LL/kxs

INTERNATIONAL Post-war liberation must be real
Neal Ascherson | London
28 March 2003 09:27
The landscape after the battle, in a conquered country, does not smile on a warm morning of freedom. Instead, there begins a rat-infested twilight, and many of the rats are human.

The prisoners will emerge and the exiles will return. But as they shoulder their rucksacks and try to find their homes in ruined streets, they will often see those who imprisoned and exiled them riding past in the conquerors' jeeps, wearing new armbands of authority.

Politicians in new offices will sell options on good jobs and stolen aid shipments. Decent families will scrabble like white mice for food and favours.

Iraq, at first, will be no different. But the world cannot afford to leave it like that. For this potentially wealthy country of 23-million people, with a large and sophisticated middle class, there has to be a new invention of nationhood. The sad limbo status of yet another United Nations protectorate, partitioned and Mafia-ridden, is not an option for Iraq. With neighbours like Iran and Turkey, the appearance of an enormous grey area of indefinite sovereignty in one of the most contested regions on Earth would invite catastrophe.

Incredibly, with United States tanks half way to Baghdad, there is still no agreement on how to run a military occupation regime, let alone on a programme to reconstruct an Iraqi state. (The best suggestion so far is for a UN "blue police force" drawn from Muslim countries to restore order and justice at local level.) But last week's quarrel at Brussels is not as serious as it looks: Tony Blair is evasive about free elections in Iraq, but at least he and Jacques Chirac seem to agree that the Security Council must authorise a post-Saddam Hussein civil authority. The real trouble is in Washington.

There, the most extreme hawks not only reject US involvement in "nation-building" but resist any role for the detested UN beyond emergency aid provision. They are likely to be overruled. Jay Garner, the retired US general who is supposed to become the temporary civilian head of the occupation authority knows that the UN will have to take political responsibility of some kind, and the Azores meeting committed the reluctant President George W Bush to seek Security Council endorsement of "a post-conflict administration". But precious time is being wasted.

The project of building a strong, just and reasonable Iraq faces awful obstacles, but starts with two huge advantages. The first is the sheer speed of the US/UK onslaught. This means that there has been no time for regional warlords to get their armed forces into the act as recognised "allies" and claim a share of central power. And the speed of the advance may also -- with luck -- ward off the real doomsday scenario now looming over the conflict. This is a full-scale, Cyprus-style Turkish invasion of northern Iraq, which would crush the Kurds, cripple a future Iraqi state and destabilise the whole Middle East for a generation. If the Americans can get first and in force to Mosul and Kirkuk, they may be able to head off this disaster.

The second advantage is the powerful tradition of Iraqi nationalism. All nation-states are constructs, and the fact that Iraq was invented by the British in 1920 out of three Ottoman provinces has not prevented the growth of a patriotism directed largely against foreign interference. The British granted Iraq formal independence in 1932, but returned heavily during World War II and pushed Iraq around for Cold War purposes until their credibility collapsed after Suez.

Two rebellions against Western "neo-colonialism" have become mythic. The first was the unsuccessful 1941 revolt against the British by Rashid Ali, misleadingly dismissed by western historians as "pro-German".
The second was the savage putsch by General Qasim in 1958, which murdered the king and tore Iraq out of the pro-western Baghdad pact. The ensuing struggles, which ended in Saddam's dictatorship and the one-party rule of the Ba'ath, have not diminished Iraqi pride in an independence perceived as wrested from foreigners by force. And this tradition, although hijacked and betrayed by Saddam, is still solid enough to build a new state on.

What sort of state? The example of post-war Germany suggests that the best ideology for the purpose is social democracy. One of the first things the British did in their zone of Germany was to sponsor a new trade union confederation, the sheet anchor of democracy in the years to come. But this approach is now unthinkable. So is any "Mesopotamian Marshall plan". Instead, Iraq will probably be abandoned to the joys of an uncontrolled free-market regime, supervised by the World Bank.

Iraq owes foreign financiers about $200-billion to $400-billion in debt. If the experience of Serbia after its own "regime change" is anything to go by, almost all the financial aid offered by the "international community" will be clawed back into debt repayment. Iraq's oil revenues of some $10-billion a year will probably go on being managed by the UN oil-for-food programme.

The Iraqis, in other words, will be generously permitted to go on paying for their own food and medicine. Moreover, the Saddam regime was maintained not only by terror but by an enormous network of kinship-based corruption. The tale of post-communist Europe suggests that if a one-party controlled economy is instantly opened to unregulated capitalism, party networks of clientship turn rapidly and naturally into relationships of organised crime.

But the most urgent question is the state's form. Put crudely, what sort of constitution can prevent ethnic and religious civil war if Shia and Sunni Muslims and the Kurds demand autonomy or independence and resort to arms?

For outsiders, the obvious answer is a loosely federal Constitution. But things are not so simple. Many Iraqis fear that autonomy would lead to disintegration; the Kurds pushing for full independence and the Shia falling under Iranian influence. Just possibly, the opposition parties now in exile could agree to a federal deal. The danger is that a large part of the Iraqi people might reject such a settlement as a betrayal of national unity.

Then there is the question of Islam. Iraq, under the parliamentary democracies before 1958 as under the Ba'athist dictatorship, has been a secular state. But the Americans, above all, have to accept that this is going to change. Islam is going to be much more powerful in the new Iraq, and not only in the Shia south. If the transitional governors show wisdom, a moderate form of sharia law can co-exist with liberal democracy. If they panic, then a surge towards fundamentalist theocracy could become unstoppable. And the Americans will also have to accept that a free, democratic Iraq will support the Palestinian cause and condemn Israel. Liberation hurts. In Iraq, it comes with humiliation and fear about the future.

A UN transition regime must replace the military governors as soon as possible, and must move quickly towards democracy. And the White House fanatics have to realise that a free Iraq cannot be designed to suit their ideology. It will be ungrateful. It will have policies they dislike. This is called independence. If it is denied, then the real liberation of Iraq will happen unpredictably, and bloodily, in the future.
-- © Guardian Newspapers 2003


Secret plan to impose new regime on Iraq

01 April 2003 07:03A disagreement has broken out at a senior level within the Bush administration over a new government that the US is secretly planning in Kuwait to rule Iraq in the immediate period after the overthrow of Saddam Hussein.

Under the plan, the government will consist of 23 ministries, each headed by an American. Every ministry will also have four Iraqi advisers appointed by the Americans, the Guardian has learned.

The government will take over Iraq city by city. Areas declared "liberated" by General Tommy Franks will be transferred to the temporary government under the overall control of Jay Garner, the for mer US general appointed to head a military occupation of Iraq. In anticipation of the Baghdad regime's fall, members of this interim government have begun arriving in Kuwait.

Decisions on the government's composition appear to be entirely in US hands, particularly those of Paul Wolfowitz, the deputy secretary of defence. This has annoyed Gen Garner, who is officially in charge but who, according to sources close to the planning of the government, has had to accept the inclusion of a number of controversial Iraqis in advisory roles.

The most controversial of Wolfowitz's proposed appointees is Ahmed Chalabi, the head of the opposition Iraqi National Congress, together with his close associates, including his nephew.

During his years in exile, Chalabi has cultivated links with Congress to raise funds, and has become the Pentagon's darling among the Iraqi opposition. The defence secretary, Donald Rumsfeld, is one of his strongest supporters. The state department and CIA, on the other hand, regard him with deep suspicion.

Chalabi had envisaged becoming prime minister in an interim government, and is disappointed that no such post is included in the US plan. Instead, the former banker will be offered an advisory job at the finance ministry.

A senior INC official said last night that Chalabi would not countenance a purely advisory position. The official added: "It is certainly not the INC's intention to advise any US ministers in Iraq. Our position is that no Americans should run Iraqi ministries. The US is talking about an interim Iraqi authority taking over, but we are calling for a provisional government."

The revelation about direct rule is likely to cause intense political discomfort for Tony Blair, who has been pressing for UN and international involvement in Iraq's reconstruction to overcome opposition in Britain as well as heal divisions across Europe.

The Foreign Office said last night that a "relatively fluid" number of British officials had been seconded to the planning team. Last week Colin Powell, the US secretary of state, told Congress that immediately after the fall of President Saddam's regime, the US military would take control of the Iraqi government.

His only concession was that this would be done with the "full understanding" of the international community and with "the UN presence in the form of a UN special coordinator".

By imposing Chalabi and his clique on the official administration-in-waiting, Wolfowitz seems to be trying to appease the INC leader, even at the risk of annoying Gen Garner and those in Washington who consider him unsuitable for a senior post.

Chalabi is former chairman of the Petra Bank in Jordan which collapsed,
bringing ruin to many of its depositors. He was eventually convicted of fraud in his absence by a Jordanian court, though he maintains he is innocent.

Chalabi has not lived in Iraq since 1956, apart from a short period organising resistance in the Kurdish north in the 1990s, and is thought to have little support inside Iraq.
- Guardian Unlimited © Guardian Newspapers Limited 2003

[Lazarus Long]

Sounds like Chalabi should have Neil Bush for a running mate, they both seem to know how to get the most from the People's Saving's and Loans.

For those that think I should be offended at being called left wing by Kissinger get real, I am calling him a Neo fascist. Obviously the truth as always is somewhere in the middle. But understand this also about what is happening, Islam as a struggle against the imposition of Evangelical Christian Doctrine is going to be joined by a Class struggle that was never resolved in the 20th Century and was being seen as won ONLY by those that were benefitting from the wealth being concentrated within the Technocracies.

If we turn our backs now on the rest of the world and try to impose a "benign dictatorship" to replace a "malignant" one then we will lose. This isn't an example of novel thinking at all, it is the ancient art of imperialist war, a colonialist strategy, and little else.

We call them heroes, but the death toll mounts and will begin to mount everyday, even if we kill a thousand to one the death will mount on all sides. Call them the enemy all you want and history will still call it genocide.

LL/kxs

US reveals its true imperial colours

By playing its hand so brazenly in Iraq, the US has exposed itself and made itself vulnerable, writes author

Arundhati Roy

On the steel torsos of their missiles, adolescent US soldiers scrawl colourful messages in childish handwriting: "For Saddam, from the Fat Boy Posse." A building goes down. A marketplace. A home. A girl who loves a boy. A child who only ever wanted to play with his brother's marbles.

On March 21, the day after US and British troops began their illegal invasion and occupation of Iraq, an "embedded" CNN correspondent interviewed a US soldier. "I wanna get in there and get my nose dirty," Private AJ said. "I wanna take revenge for 9/11."

To be fair , the correspondent did suggest weakly that so far there was no evidence linking the Iraqi government to the September 11 attacks. Private AJ stuck his tongue out all the way down to the end of his chin. "Yeah, well, that stuff's way over my head."

According to a New York Times-CBS News survey, 42% of the US public believes that Saddam is directly responsible for the September 11 attacks on the World Trade Center and the Pentagon. And an ABC news poll says 55% believe he directly supports al-Qaeda. What percentage of the US armed forces believes these fabrications is anybody's guess.

It is unlikely that British and US troops fighting in Iraq are aware their governments supported Saddam politically and financially through his worst excesses.

Hundreds of thousands of men, tanks, ships, choppers, bombs, ammunition, gas masks, high-protein food, whole aircraft ferrying toilet paper, insect repellent, vitamins and bottled mineral water are on the move.

The phenomenal logistics of Operation Iraqi Freedom make it a universe unto itself. It doesn't need to justify its existence any more. It is.

President George W Bush has issued clear instructions: "Iraq. Will. Be. Liberated." US and British citizens owe it to the supreme commander to forsake thought and rally behind their troops. Their countries are at war. And what a war it is.

After using the "good offices" of United Nations diplomacy (economic sanctions and weapons inspections) to ensure Iraq was brought to its knees, its people starved and half a million of its children killed, and after making sure that most of its weapons have been destroyed, in an act of cowardice that must surely be unrivalled in history, the "Allies/Coalition of the Willing" (better known as the Coalition of the Bullied and Bought) sent in an invading army.

So far the Iraqi army, with its hungry, ill-equipped soldiers, its old guns and ageing tanks, has managed temporarily to confound, and occasionally even outmanoeuvre, the "Allies".

Faced with the richest, best-equipped, most powerful armed forces the world has ever seen, Iraq has shown spectacular courage and has even managed to put up what amounts to a defence - a defence that the Bush-Blair pair immediately denounced as deceitful and cowardly. (But then deceit is an old tradition with us natives. When we are invaded/ colonised and stripped of all dignity, we turn to guile and opportunism.)

The extent to which the "Allies" and their media cohorts are prepared to go is astounding to the point of being counterproductive to their own objectives.

When Saddam appeared on national TV to address the Iraqi people after the failure of the most elaborate assassination attempt in history - "Operation Decapitation" - we had Geoff Hoon, the British Defence Secretary, deriding him for not having the courage to stand up and be killed.

Then we had a flurry of coalition speculation: Was it really Saddam, was it his double? Or was it Osama shaved? Was it prerecorded? Was it black magic?

After dropping not hundreds but thousands of bombs on Baghdad, mistakenly blowing up a market and killing civilians, a US army spokesman implied that the Iraqis were blowing themselves up: "They're using very old stock. Their missiles go up and come down."

If so, may we ask how this squares with the accusation that the Iraqi regime is a paid-up member of the Axis of Evil and a threat to world peace?

When the Arab TV station Al-Jazeera shows civilian casualties, this is denounced as "emotive" Arab propaganda aimed at orchestrating hostility towards the "Allies", as though Iraqis are dying only to make the "Allies" look bad.

Even French television has come in for some stick for similar reasons. But the awed, breathless footage of aircraft carriers, stealth bombers and cruise missiles arcing across the desert sky on US and British TV is described as the "terrible beauty" of war.

When invading US soldiers (from the army "that's only here to help") are taken prisoner and shown on Iraqi TV, Bush says it violates the Geneva Convention and "exposes the evil at the heart of the regime". But it is entirely acceptable for US television stations to show the hundreds of prisoners being held by the US government in Guantanamo Bay, kneeling on the ground with their hands tied behind their backs, blinded with opaque goggles, and with earphones clamped on their ears, to ensure complete visual and aural deprivation.

US government officials don't deny that these prisoners are being ill-treated. They call them "unlawful combatants", implying that their harsh treatment is legitimate.

When the "Allies" bombed the Iraqi television station (also, incidentally, a contravention of the Geneva Convention), there was vulgar jubilation in the US media. It was seen as a righteous blow against Arab propaganda. But mainstream US and British TV continue to advertise themselves as "balanced".

Why should propaganda be the exclusive preserve of the Western media? Just because they do it better? Western journalists "embedded" with troops are given the status of heroes reporting from the frontlines of war. Non-"embedded" journalists (such as the BBC's Rageh Omaar, reporting from Baghdad) are undermined before they begin their reportage: "We have to tell you that he is being monitored by the Iraqi authorities."

Increasingly, on British and US TV, Iraqi soldiers are being referred to as "militia" (that is, rabble). One BBC correspondent portentously referred to them as "quasi-terrorists". Iraqi defence is "resistance" or, worse still, "pockets of resistance". Iraqi military strategy is deceit.

Clearly for the "Allies", the only morally acceptable strategy the Iraqi army can pursue is to march out into the desert and be bombed by B-52s or be mown down by machine-gun fire. Anything short of that is cheating.

As of July last year, the delivery of $5.4-billion (about R43.2-billion) of supplies to Iraq was blocked by the Bush-Blair pair. It didn't really make the news. But now, under the loving caress of live TV, 450 tons of humanitarian aid - a minuscule fraction of what's actually needed - arrived on a British ship, the Sir Galahad, meriting a whole day of live TV broadcasts. Barf bag, anyone?

We oughtn't to be surprised, though. It's an old tactic.

It's called winning hearts and minds.

So, here's the moral maths as it stands: 200 000 Iraqis estimated to have been killed in the first Gulf War. Hundreds of thousands dead because of the economic sanctions. More being killed every day. Tens of thousands of US soldiers who fought the 1991 war officially declared "disabled" by a disease called the Gulf War Syndrome, believed in part to be caused by exposure to depleted uranium. It hasn't stopped the "Allies" from continuing to use depleted uranium.

And now this talk of bringing the UN back into the picture. But that old UN girl, it turns out that she just ain't what she was cracked up to be. She's been demoted. Now she's the world's janitor, used and abused at will.

Despite Blair's earnest submissions, Bush has made it clear that the UN will play no independent part in the administration of postwar Iraq. The US will decide who gets those juicy "reconstruction" contracts. But Bush has appealed to the international community not to "politicise" the issue of humanitarian aid. On March 28, after Bush called for the immediate resumption of the UN's oil-for-food programme, the UN Security Council voted unanimously for the resolution. This means that everybody agrees that Iraqi money (from the sale of Iraqi oil) should be used to feed Iraqi people who are starving because of US-led sanctions and the illegal US-led war.

Contracts for the "reconstruction" of Iraq, we're told, could jump-start the world economy. Funny how the interests of US corporations are often so successfully and deliberately confused with the interests of the world economy.

While the US people will end up paying for the war, oil companies, weapons manufacturers, arms dealers and corporations involved in "reconstruction" work will make direct gains from the war.

Many of them are old friends and former employers of the Bush-Cheney-Rumsfeld-Rice cabal. Bush has already asked Congress for $75-billion (about R600-billion).

Operation Iraqi Freedom, Blair assures us, is about returning Iraqi oil to the Iraqi people. That is, returning Iraqi oil to the Iraqi people via corporate multinationals. Like Shell, like Chevron, like Halliburton. Or are we missing the plot here? Perhaps US Vice-President Dick Cheney (who is a former director of Halliburton) is a closet Iraqi?

As the rift between Europe and the US deepens, there are signs that the world could be entering a new era of economic boycotts. CNN reported that Americans are emptying French wine into gutters, chanting: "We don't want your stinking wine." We've heard about the re-baptism of French fries to freedom fries. There's news trickling in about Americans boycotting German goods.

The thing is that if the fallout of the war takes this turn, it is the US which will suffer the most. Its homeland may be defended by border patrols and nuclear weapons, but its economy is strung out across the globe, vulnerable to attack in every direction.

Already the Internet is buzzing with elaborate lists of US and British government products and companies that should be boycotted. Apart from the usual targets - Coke, Pepsi and McDonald's - government agencies such as USAID and the British department for international development, British and US banks and corporations such as General Electric could find themselves under siege.

These lists are being honed and refined by activists across the world. They could become a practical guide that directs and channels the amorphous but growing fury in the world.

It's become clear that the war against terror is not really about terror and the war on Iraq not only about oil. It's about a superpower's self-destructive impulse towards supremacy, stranglehold, global hegemony.

Finally, there's the matter of Saddam's arsenal of weapons of mass destruction. (Oops, nearly forgot about those.)

In the fog of war one thing's for sure - if Saddam's regime has weapons of mass destruction, it is showing an astonishing degree of responsibility and restraint in the teeth of extreme provocation.

In the fog of war we're forced to speculate: either Saddam is an extremely responsible tyrant or he simply does not possess weapons of mass destruction. Either way, regardless of what happens next, Iraq comes out of the argument smelling sweeter than the US.

So here's Iraq - rogue state, grave threat to world peace, paid-up member of the Axis of Evil. Here's Iraq, invaded, bombed, besieged, bullied, its sovereignty shat upon, its children killed, its people blown up in the streets.

And here's all of us watching. CNN-BBC, BBC-CNN, late into the night. Here's all of us, enduring the horror of the war, enduring the horror of the propaganda and enduring the slaughter of language as we know and understand it. Freedom now means mass murder. When someone says "humanitarian aid" we automatically go looking for induced starvation. "Embedded", I have to admit, is a great find. It's what it sounds like. And what about "arsenal of tactics"? Nice.

In most parts of the world the invasion of Iraq is seen as a racist war. The real danger of a racist war unleashed by racist regimes is that it engenders racism in everybody - perpetrators, victims, spectators. It sets the parameters for the debate; it lays out a grid for a particular way of thinking.

There is a tidal wave of hatred rising for the US. In Africa, Latin America, Asia, Europe, Australia. I encounter it every day.

Sometimes it comes from the most unlikely sources. Bankers, businessmen, yuppie students - and they bring to it all the crassness of their conservative, illiberal politics. That absurd inability to separate governments from people: the US is a nation of morons, a nation of murderers, they say (with the same carelessness with which they say, "All Muslims are terrorists").

Even in the grotesque universe of racist insult, the British make their entry as add-ons. Arse-lickers, they're called.

Suddenly, I, who have been vilified for being "anti-American" and "anti-West", find myself in the extraordinary position of defending the people of the US. And Britain.

Those who descend so easily into the pit of racist abuse would do well to remember the hundreds of thousands of US and British citizens who protested against their country's stockpile of nuclear weapons. And the thousands of US war resisters who forced their government to withdraw from Vietnam.

They should know that the most scholarly, scathing, hilarious critiques of the US government and the "American way of life" come from US citizens. And that the funniest, most bitter condemnation of their prime minister comes from the British media. They should remember that hundreds of thousands of British and US citizens are on the streets protesting against the war.

The Coalition of the Bullied and Bought consists of governments, not people. More than a third of US citizens have survived the relentless propaganda they've been subjected to and many thousands are actively fighting their own government.

In the ultra-patriotic climate that prevails in the US, that's as brave as any Iraqi fighting for his or her homeland.

While the "Allies" wait in the desert for an uprising of Shia Muslims on the streets of Basra, the real uprising is taking place in hundreds of cities across the world. It has been the most spectacular display of public morality ever seen.

Most courageous of all are the hundreds of thousands of US people on the streets of America's great cities - Washington, New York, Chicago, San Francisco.

The fact is that the only institution in the world today that is more powerful than the US government is US civil society. US citizens have a huge responsibility riding on their shoulders.

Dictators like Saddam, and all the other despots in the Middle East, in the central Asian republics, in Africa and Latin America, many of them installed, supported and financed by the US government, are a menace to their own people.

Other than strengthening the hand of civil society (instead of weakening it as has been done in the case of Iraq), there is no easy, pristine way of dealing with them.

(It's odd how those who dismiss the peace movement as utopian don't hesitate to proffer the most absurdly dreamy reasons for going to war: to stamp out terrorism, install democracy, eliminate fascism and, most entertainingly, to "rid the world of evildoers".)

But these tinpot dictators are not the greatest threat to the world.

The real and pressing danger, the greatest threat, is the locomotive force that drives the political and economic engine of the US government, currently piloted by Bush. Bush-bashing is fun, because he makes such an easy, sumptuous target. It's true that he is a dangerous, almost suicidal pilot, but the machine he handles is far more dangerous.

Despite the pall of gloom that hangs over us today, I'd like to file a cautious plea for hope: in times of war, one wants one's weakest enemy at the helm of his forces. And Bush is certainly that. Any other even averagely intelligent US president would have probably done the very same things, but would have managed to smoke up the glass and confuse the opposition. Perhaps even carry the UN with him.

Bush's tactless imprudence and his brazen belief that he can run the world with his riot squad have done the opposite.

He has achieved what writers, activists and scholars have striven to achieve for decades. He has exposed the ducts. He has placed in full view the working parts, the nuts and bolts of the apocalyptic apparatus of the US empire.

Now that the blueprint (The Ordinary Person's Guide to Empire) has been put into mass circulation, it can be disabled quicker than pundits predicted. Bring on the spanners.

*Roy is the author of The God of Small Things and of The Algebra of Infinite Justice, a collection of essays

[bobdrake12]

http://www.sundayherald.com/32893

Iraq gives up its grim secrets (excerpts)

Abandoned warehouse is a tomb for hundreds of tortured and executed Iraqis

From Paul Harris in Al Zubayr, Southern Iraq


THE coffins are laid out in neat rows in an abandoned warehouse. In each lies a crumpled bag of bones, old and dusty but still recognisably human. Out of the open end of one sack, a skull can be seen buried in the fragments of skeleton.
Its eye sockets are empty. Its teeth are smashed. Two ribs point out like accusing fingers.

Something terrible happened here. Something murderous. Something evil.

The proof lies in a cargo container nearby. Its metal door hangs open and inside are pages and pages of files. Each sheaf of notes contains a picture of a man or woman. Each and every one has been shot in the head. Their wounds are mangled and gaping. Many of them barely look human any more as the anonymous photographer chronicled their dead faces. It is a horror almost beyond words.

It is hard not to look at the black-and-white photographs -- two for each victim -- and wince. Yet each was a brother, a father or a son; or a mother, a daughter or a sister. Each had a past and hopes for a future, yet each ended here, in this dry and dusty hall of the dead. There must be at least 200 of them in the plywood coffins, roughly hammered together by a hurried carpenter. All of them are in bags, jumbled together in sad piles of remains.

'Whoever they are, they have been desecrated in their death. No one should ever treat the dead like this,' said Sgt Simon Brain, a veteran of tours in Bosnia, who has seen places in the Balkans that look similar to this. 'That is in two countries now that I have seen mass graves,' he added with a shake of his head.

There are signs of torture too. Outside the warehouse stands a wall. It is dotted in the centre with a spray of bullet holes. Nearly all of them are at head height. There is a ditch behind it. If anyone was shot against the wall, their blood would have drained cleanly away. In another warehouse, a dozen tiny concrete cells have been built of breeze blocks inside the hangar. In some of them, portraits of Saddam Hussein stare from the grey walls. In several, an iron pole has been hung from the roof. Dangling from it are cruel, rusting metal hooks. They are ideal torture chambers.

'We can't speculate on what this is until an investigation,' a British military spokesman said. But one officer, speaking privately and looking in shock at the warehouse, was more blunt. 'Just look at those photos. Look at this place.

'People were being tortured and executed here,' he said.

Exactly who they were is so far a mystery. But there are a few clues. Some of the bags are made of plastic and inside them can be seen a few pieces of military equipment. The green belt of the Iraqi army is plainly visible in several of the sacks.

Were they soldiers suspected of disloyalty in recent years? Were they Shia rebels from 1991, many of whom were in the army? More than 50,000 Shia were killed by the forces of Saddam Hussein in their doomed revolt. Are these some of their corpses? In most of the bags there is no trace of clothing. Just bones.

In one sack a single photo lies. It is a simple ID card. On it a middle-aged man stares out. He has black hair, a long face and a drooping moustache. In life he would perhaps have looked pensive. But lying, half-covered by his own dusty remains, the man pictured within looks sad and forlorn. He looks regretful for the life stolen from him. A splotch of bloodstain on the corner of the card is reminder enough of the brutality of how all his hopes died.

It is hard to stay in the warehouse long. In one corner, empty coffins are stacked four or five high. Whoever was doing this grim work was stopped before they finished their task. That is a small mercy but no respite for those already dead.

Yet these are not isolated horrors. Last night allegations of the torture and murder of dozens of children by Saddam Hussein's Ba'ath Party also came to light, with bodies discovered hanging from street lighting.

The killings were carried out after the party headquarters in Basra was bombed last week, said some Iraqi women, one of whom's niece had been killed. Families believed to have been aiding coalition forces were targeted.

Interpreter Vanessa Lough, formerly attached to the UN and based in Basra said: 'In one street alone they said three children could be seen hanging from the lamp posts, and around the corner one child lay burnt on the ground.

'The women said some of the children's bodies are now being held in the city's hospital mortuary.'

©2002 smg sunday newspapers ltd.

[bobdrake12]

http://news.bbc.co.u...ews/2921711.stm



Sunday, 6 April, 2003, 09:13 GMT 10:13 UK

Human remains 'are Iranian soldiers'


Human remains found in an abandoned Iraqi military base are those of Iranian soldiers killed in the Iran-Iraq war, an Iranian general has said.



The identity of the remains is the subject of huge debate


The identity of the remains is the subject of huge debate

Human remains found in an abandoned Iraqi military base are those of Iranian soldiers killed in the Iran-Iraq war, an Iranian general has said.

Brigadier-General Mirfeisal Baqerzadeh said the bodies were discovered at the base near al-Zubayr in southern Iraq recently after a joint search operation between the two countries.

But, he said, the current conflict had meant arrangements to return the bodies to Iran had been put on hold.

Forensic scientists from the UK are due to examine the skulls and bones, which were discovered wrapped in fragments of military clothing in makeshift coffins, in an attempt to establish their identities

Evidence found at the scene suggests many of the deaths occurred on the premises.




Scientists will sift through reams of documents to identify the bodies


Human rights groups suggest they may even be victims of the 1991 Gulf War.

Hania Mufti, of Human Rights Watch, told BBC News Online that thousands of executions of people accused of plotting against the Iraqi government had taken place since the conflict.

The Iraqi regime has refuted all claims that the skeletal remains are those of executed opponents of Saddam Hussein.

It says the remains are those of Iraqi soldiers killed during the 1980-88 Iran-Iraq conflict and had been returned recently from Tehran.

The area has now been sealed off and is being treated as a mass war grave by UK troops.

Edited by bobdrake12, 06 April 2003 - 07:01 PM.

[bobdrake12]

http://news.bbc.co.u...l/uprisings.stm



UPRISINGS FROM 1991

Almost immediately after Iraq accepted the ceasefire, uprisings began to spread from dissident areas in the north and south of the country.




1.5 million Kurds fled Iraq


Shia Muslims in Basra, Najaf and Karbala in southern Iraq took to the streets in protest against the regime.

Kurds in the north persuaded the local military to switch sides. Suleimaniyeh was the first large city to fall.

Within a week the Kurds controlled the Kurdish Autonomous Region and the nearby oil-rich city of Kirkuk.

In mid-February, President Bush Snr had called on the Iraqi people and military to “take matters into their own hands”.

But the hoped for US support never came. Instead, Iraqi helicopter gunships arrived.

INDICT, a group campaigning for Iraqi leaders to be tried for war crimes, says civilians and suspected rebels were executed en masse, and hospitals, schools, mosques, shrines and columns of escaping refugees were bombed and shelled.

According to the US, which has been criticised for allowing Saddam Hussein to continue using the military helicopters, between 30,000 and 60,000 people were killed.

In the north, 1.5 million Kurds fled across the mountains into Iran and Turkey. As the harsh conditions created a humanitarian catastrophe, the UN launched Operation Provide Comfort, air-dropping aid supplies to the refugees

[Mind]

I said early on I would hold the Neo-hawks to their words of promise. Tomorrow’s struggles will demonstrate that today’s war is but a skirmish. You are right that the people of the world are not in the dark, and many, many of them see us as in the dark about them. We in America aren’t using this medium of the internet for gaining an understanding of foreign culture; we are using it to send a message preceding our weapons that we are coming to a neighborhood near you soon.

If U.S. cictizens are sooooo in the dark, then they will continually make the wrong choices. Their decisions will wreak havoc in the world and the chickens will come home to roost. National suicide. I predict this will not happen.

[DJS]

For those that think I should be offended at being called left wing by Kissinger get real, I am calling him a Neo fascist.  Obviously the truth as always is somewhere in the middle.

Neo-fascist? [huh] I thought I would have to crash a peace rally to get slurs like that hurled at me. Hhhmmm, let's see if I can think of good one for you. How about a trans-human socialist? Obviously the truth is somewhere in the middle. )

[Saille Willow]

Did you know the US were planning to divide Iraq into three zones after the war? Leaded, unleaded and diesal - from Berlin

[DJS]

No chemicals, yeah right! My first Reuters post ever.

Report: U.S. Finds Missiles with Chemical Weapons
Reuters
Monday, April 7, 2003


WASHINGTON (Reuters) - U.S. forces near Baghdad found a weapons cache of around 20 medium-range missiles equipped with potent chemical weapons, the U.S. news station National Public Radio reported on Monday.

NPR, which attributed the report to a top official with the 1st Marine Division, said the rockets, BM-21 missiles, were equipped with sarin and mustard gas and were "ready to fire." It quoted the source as saying new U.S. intelligence data showed the chemicals were "not just trace elements."

It said the cache was discovered by Marines with the 101st Airborne Division, which was following up behind the Army after it seized Baghdad's international airport.

U.S. Central Command headquarters in Qatar had no immediate comment.

The United States and Britain launched the war against Iraq to rid the country of weapons of mass destruction. Iraq denies having such weapons.