Activism Change

OT a few home truths

Question:

Following on from this Russia looks set to bargain a free hand for the US in Iraq with Russia getting a free hand in Georgia, as Putin’s heartily sick of the carry-on down there in Tbilisi. Roarke "John Smith" <tb…@iol.ie> wrote in message

news:zcHg9.4090$cP3.9948@news.iol.ie… – Hide quoted text — Show quoted text -> There are many other examples, though some of those commonly invoked should > be treated with caution, particularly concerning Israel. The civilian toll > of Israel’s US-backed invasion of Lebanon in 1982 exceeded Saddam’s in > Kuwait, and it remains in violation of a 1978 Security Council resolution > ordering it to withdraw forthwith from Lebanon, along with numerous other > resolutions regarding Jerusalem, the Golan Heights, and other matters; and > there would be far more such resolutions if the US did not regularly veto > them. But the common charge that Israel, particularly its current > government, is violating UN 242 and the Oslo accords, and that the US > exhibits a "double standard" by tolerating those violations, is dubious at > best, based on serious misunderstanding of these agreements. From the > outset, the Madrid-Oslo process was designed and implemented by US-Israeli > power to impose a Bantustan-style settlement. The Arab world has chosen to > delude itself about the matter, as have many others, but it is clear in the > actual documents, and particularly in the US-supported projects of the > Rabin-Peres governments, including those for which Netanyahu’s Likud > government has been denounced.19 > It is clearly untrue to claim that "Israel is not demonstrably in violation > of Security Council decrees, but the reasons often given should be examined > carefully. > Returning to Iraq, it surely qualifies as a leading criminal state. > Defending the US plan to attack Iraq at a televised public meeting on > February 18, 1998, Secretaries Albright and Cohen repeatedly invoked the > ultimate atrocity: Saddam was guilty of "using weapons of mass destruction > against his neighbors as well as his own people," his most awesome crime. > "It is very important for us to make clear that the United States and the > civilized world cannot deal with somebody who is willing to use those > weapons of mass destruction on his own people, not to speak of his > neighbors," Albright emphasized in an angry response to a questioner who > asked about US support for Suharto. Shortly after, Senator Lott condemned > Kofi Annan for seeking to cultivate a "human relationship with a mass > murderer," and denounced the administration for trusting a person who would > sink so low. > Ringing words. Putting aside their evasion of the question raised, Albright > and Cohen only forgot to mention – and commentators have been kind enough > not to point out – that the acts that they now find so horrifying did not > turn Iraq into a "rogue state." And Lott failed to note that his heroes > Reagan and Bush forged unusually warm relations with the "mass murderer." > There were no passionate calls for a military strike after Saddam’s gassing > of Kurds at Halabja in March 1988; on the contrary, the US and UK extended > their strong support for the mass murderer, then also "our kind of guy." > When ABC TV correspondent Charles Glass revealed the site of one of Saddam’s > biological warfare programs 10 months after Halabja, the State Department > denied the facts, and the story died; the department "now issues briefings > on the same site," Glass observes. > The two guardians of global order also expedited Saddam’s other atrocities – > including his use of cyanide, nerve gas, and other barbarous weapons – with > intelligence, technology, and supplies, joining with many others. The Senate > Banking Committee reported in 1994 that the US Commerce Department had > traced shipments of "biological materials" identical to those later found > and destroyed by UN inspectors, Bill Blum recalls. These shipments continued > at least until November 1989. A month later, Bush authorized new loans for > his friend Saddam, to achieve the "goal of increasing US exports and [to] > put us in a better position to deal with Iraq regarding its human rights > record," the State Department announced with a straight face, facing no > criticism (or even report) in the mainstream. > Britain’s record was exposed, at least in part, in an official inquiry (tile > Scott Inquiry). The British government has just now been compelled to > concede that it continued to grant licenses to British firms to export > materials usable for biological weapons after the Scott Inquiry Report was > published, at least until December 1996, > In a February 28, 1998, review of Western sales of materials usable for germ > warfare and other weapons of mass destruction, the New York Times mentions > one example of US sales in the 1980s that included "deadly pathogens," with > government approval – some from the army’s center for germ research in Fort > Derrick. Just the tip of the iceberg, however.21 > A common current pretense is that Saddam’s crimes were unknown, so we are > now properly shocked at the discovery and must "make clear" that we > civilized folk "cannot deal with" the perpetrator of such crimes (in > Albright’s words). The posture is cynical fraud. UN reports of 1986 and 1987 > condemned Iraq’s use of chemical weapons. US Embassy staffers in Turkey > interviewed Kurdish survivors of chemical warfare attacks, and the CIA > reported them to the State Department. Human rights groups reported the > atrocities at Halabja and elsewhere at once. Secretary of State George > Shultz conceded that the US had evidence on the matter. An investigative > team sent by the Senate Foreign Relations Committee in 1988 found > "overwhelming evidence of extensive use of chemical weapons against > civilians," charging that Western acquiescence in Iraqi use of such weapons > against Iran had emboldened Saddam to believe – correctly – that he could > use them against his own people with impunity – actually against Kurds, > hardly "the people" of this tribal-based thug. The chair of the committee, > Claiborne Pell, introduced the Prevention of Genocide Act of 1988, > denouncing silence "while people are gassed" as "complicity," much as when > "the world was silent as Hitler began a campaign that culminated in the near > extermination of Europe’s Jews," and warning that "we cannot be silent to > genocide again." The Reagan administration strongly opposed sanctions and > insisted that the matter be silenced, while extending its support for the > mass murderer. In the Arab world, "the Kuwait press was amongst the most > enthusiastic of the Arab media in supporting Baghdad’s crusade against the > Kurds," journalist Adel Darwish reports. > In January 1991, while the war drums were beating, the International > Commission of Jurists observed to the UN Human Rights Commission that "after > having perpetrated the most flagrant abuses on its own population without a > word of reproach from the UN, Iraq must have concluded it could do whatever > it pleased"; UN in this context means US and UK, primarily. That truth must > be buried along with international law and other "Utopian" distractions.22 > An unkind commentator might remark that recent US/UK toleration for poison > gas and chemical warfare is not too surprising. The British used chemical > weapons in their 1919 intervention in North Russia against the Bolsheviks, > with great success, according to the British command. As Secretary of State > at the War Office in 1919, Winston Churchill was enthusiastic about the > prospects of "using poisoned gas against uncivilized tribes" – Kurds and > Afghans – and authorized the RAF Middle East command to use chemical weapons > "against recalcitrant Arabs as [an] experiment," dismissing objections by > the India office as > Rogue States > "unreasonable" and deploring the "squeamishness about t "We cannot in any > circumstances acquiesce in the non-uti weapons which are available to > procure a speedy termina order which prevails on the frontier," he > explained; chei are merely "the application of western science to moderr > The Kennedy administration pioneered the massive i weapons against civilians > as it launched its attack agair namin 1961-62. There has been much rightful > concern al on US soldiers, but not the incomparably worse effects on at > least. In an Israeli mass-circulation daily, the respe Amnon Kapeliouk > reported on his 1988 visit to Vietnam, . that "thousands of Vietnamese still > die from the effect chemical warfare," citing estimates of one-quarter of a > mi South Vietnam and describing the "terrifying" scenes in South, where > children were dying of cancer and hideous bi It was South Vietnam that was > targeted for chemical v North, where these consequences are not found, he > reporl substantial evidence of US use of biological weapons ag ported as > minor news in 1977, and at worst only a small coi tinuing US terror.24 > These precedents aside, the US and UK are now deadly form of biological > warfare in Iraq. The destructic hire and banning of imports to repair it has > caused diseas and early death on a huge scale, including more than 50 > according to UNICEF investigations – an average of 5,( ing each month. In a > bitter condemnation of the sanctions 1998, 54 Catholic bishops quoted the > archbishop of the of Iraq, who reports that "epidemics rage, taking away > sick by the thousands," while "those children who survi cumb to > malnutrition." The bishops’ statement, reportec ley Heller’s journal The > Struggle, received scant menti The US and Britain have taken the lead in > blocking aid i example, delaying approval for ambulances on the gr< could be > used to transport troops, and barring insecticide the spread of disease and > spare parts for sanitation systei Western diplomats point out, "The US had > directly ben humanitarian] operation as much, if not more, than the French," > for

… read more »

Response:

There are many other examples, though some of those commonly invoked should be treated with caution, particularly concerning Israel. The civilian toll of Israel’s US-backed invasion of Lebanon in 1982 exceeded Saddam’s in Kuwait, and it remains in violation of a 1978 Security Council resolution ordering it to withdraw forthwith from Lebanon, along with numerous other resolutions regarding Jerusalem, the Golan Heights, and other matters; and there would be far more such resolutions if the US did not regularly veto them. But the common charge that Israel, particularly its current government, is violating UN 242 and the Oslo accords, and that the US exhibits a "double standard" by tolerating those violations, is dubious at best, based on serious misunderstanding of these agreements. From the outset, the Madrid-Oslo process was designed and implemented by US-Israeli power to impose a Bantustan-style settlement. The Arab world has chosen to delude itself about the matter, as have many others, but it is clear in the actual documents, and particularly in the US-supported projects of the Rabin-Peres governments, including those for which Netanyahu’s Likud government has been denounced.19 It is clearly untrue to claim that "Israel is not demonstrably in violation of Security Council decrees, but the reasons often given should be examined carefully. Returning to Iraq, it surely qualifies as a leading criminal state. Defending the US plan to attack Iraq at a televised public meeting on February 18, 1998, Secretaries Albright and Cohen repeatedly invoked the ultimate atrocity: Saddam was guilty of "using weapons of mass destruction against his neighbors as well as his own people," his most awesome crime. "It is very important for us to make clear that the United States and the civilized world cannot deal with somebody who is willing to use those weapons of mass destruction on his own people, not to speak of his neighbors," Albright emphasized in an angry response to a questioner who asked about US support for Suharto. Shortly after, Senator Lott condemned Kofi Annan for seeking to cultivate a "human relationship with a mass murderer," and denounced the administration for trusting a person who would sink so low. Ringing words. Putting aside their evasion of the question raised, Albright and Cohen only forgot to mention – and commentators have been kind enough not to point out – that the acts that they now find so horrifying did not turn Iraq into a "rogue state." And Lott failed to note that his heroes Reagan and Bush forged unusually warm relations with the "mass murderer." There were no passionate calls for a military strike after Saddam’s gassing of Kurds at Halabja in March 1988; on the contrary, the US and UK extended their strong support for the mass murderer, then also "our kind of guy." When ABC TV correspondent Charles Glass revealed the site of one of Saddam’s biological warfare programs 10 months after Halabja, the State Department denied the facts, and the story died; the department "now issues briefings on the same site," Glass observes. The two guardians of global order also expedited Saddam’s other atrocities – including his use of cyanide, nerve gas, and other barbarous weapons – with intelligence, technology, and supplies, joining with many others. The Senate Banking Committee reported in 1994 that the US Commerce Department had traced shipments of "biological materials" identical to those later found and destroyed by UN inspectors, Bill Blum recalls. These shipments continued at least until November 1989. A month later, Bush authorized new loans for his friend Saddam, to achieve the "goal of increasing US exports and [to] put us in a better position to deal with Iraq regarding its human rights record," the State Department announced with a straight face, facing no criticism (or even report) in the mainstream. Britain’s record was exposed, at least in part, in an official inquiry (tile Scott Inquiry). The British government has just now been compelled to concede that it continued to grant licenses to British firms to export materials usable for biological weapons after the Scott Inquiry Report was published, at least until December 1996, In a February 28, 1998, review of Western sales of materials usable for germ warfare and other weapons of mass destruction, the New York Times mentions one example of US sales in the 1980s that included "deadly pathogens," with government approval – some from the army’s center for germ research in Fort Derrick. Just the tip of the iceberg, however.21 A common current pretense is that Saddam’s crimes were unknown, so we are now properly shocked at the discovery and must "make clear" that we civilized folk "cannot deal with" the perpetrator of such crimes (in Albright’s words). The posture is cynical fraud. UN reports of 1986 and 1987 condemned Iraq’s use of chemical weapons. US Embassy staffers in Turkey interviewed Kurdish survivors of chemical warfare attacks, and the CIA reported them to the State Department. Human rights groups reported the atrocities at Halabja and elsewhere at once. Secretary of State George Shultz conceded that the US had evidence on the matter. An investigative team sent by the Senate Foreign Relations Committee in 1988 found "overwhelming evidence of extensive use of chemical weapons against civilians," charging that Western acquiescence in Iraqi use of such weapons against Iran had emboldened Saddam to believe – correctly – that he could use them against his own people with impunity – actually against Kurds, hardly "the people" of this tribal-based thug. The chair of the committee, Claiborne Pell, introduced the Prevention of Genocide Act of 1988, denouncing silence "while people are gassed" as "complicity," much as when "the world was silent as Hitler began a campaign that culminated in the near extermination of Europe’s Jews," and warning that "we cannot be silent to genocide again." The Reagan administration strongly opposed sanctions and insisted that the matter be silenced, while extending its support for the mass murderer. In the Arab world, "the Kuwait press was amongst the most enthusiastic of the Arab media in supporting Baghdad’s crusade against the Kurds," journalist Adel Darwish reports. In January 1991, while the war drums were beating, the International Commission of Jurists observed to the UN Human Rights Commission that "after having perpetrated the most flagrant abuses on its own population without a word of reproach from the UN, Iraq must have concluded it could do whatever it pleased"; UN in this context means US and UK, primarily. That truth must be buried along with international law and other "Utopian" distractions.22 An unkind commentator might remark that recent US/UK toleration for poison gas and chemical warfare is not too surprising. The British used chemical weapons in their 1919 intervention in North Russia against the Bolsheviks, with great success, according to the British command. As Secretary of State at the War Office in 1919, Winston Churchill was enthusiastic about the prospects of "using poisoned gas against uncivilized tribes" – Kurds and Afghans – and authorized the RAF Middle East command to use chemical weapons "against recalcitrant Arabs as [an] experiment," dismissing objections by the India office as Rogue States "unreasonable" and deploring the "squeamishness about t "We cannot in any circumstances acquiesce in the non-uti weapons which are available to procure a speedy termina order which prevails on the frontier," he explained; chei are merely "the application of western science to moderr The Kennedy administration pioneered the massive i weapons against civilians as it launched its attack agair namin 1961-62. There has been much rightful concern al on US soldiers, but not the incomparably worse effects on at least. In an Israeli mass-circulation daily, the respe Amnon Kapeliouk reported on his 1988 visit to Vietnam, . that "thousands of Vietnamese still die from the effect chemical warfare," citing estimates of one-quarter of a mi South Vietnam and describing the "terrifying" scenes in South, where children were dying of cancer and hideous bi It was South Vietnam that was targeted for chemical v North, where these consequences are not found, he reporl substantial evidence of US use of biological weapons ag ported as minor news in 1977, and at worst only a small coi tinuing US terror.24 These precedents aside, the US and UK are now deadly form of biological warfare in Iraq. The destructic hire and banning of imports to repair it has caused diseas and early death on a huge scale, including more than 50 according to UNICEF investigations – an average of 5,( ing each month. In a bitter condemnation of the sanctions 1998, 54 Catholic bishops quoted the archbishop of the of Iraq, who reports that "epidemics rage, taking away sick by the thousands," while "those children who survi cumb to malnutrition." The bishops’ statement, reportec ley Heller’s journal The Struggle, received scant menti The US and Britain have taken the lead in blocking aid i example, delaying approval for ambulances on the gr< could be used to transport troops, and barring insecticide the spread of disease and spare parts for sanitation systei Western diplomats point out, "The US had directly ben humanitarian] operation as much, if not more, than the French," for example, by purchase of $600 million worth of Iraqi oil (second only to Russia) and sale by US companies of $200 million in humanitarian goods to Iraq. They also report that most of the oil bought by Russian companies ends up in the US.25 Washington’s support for Saddam reached such an extreme that it was even willing to overlook an Iraqi air force attack on the USS Stark, killing 37 crewmen, a privilege otherwise enjoyed only by Israel (in the case of the USS Liberty). It was Washington’s decisive support for Saddam, well after the crimes that now so shock the … read more »

Response:

Filed under: Human Rights

Related Posts

• F-16 Pilots Considered Ramming Hijacked Planes on 9-11
• Israeli Occupying Forces at Erez Crossing Open Fire at Palestinian Workers
• British Government plagiarises document
• If Communism Was/Is so Oppressive to Jews then Why Don't Jews Treat it the Same as They Do Nazism? V3,0c S_0507
• Giuliani proposes blowing up schools
• Protect Bidder's Identities - How?
• Today was the Mental Patient's Day in Portugal...
• Leftist News Media Against White America
• Shura, Democracy Debated In Khartoum Conference
• JOIN PROTEST SEPTEMBER 18th IN NYC (Israeli Minister of Foreign Affairs at the Council on Foreign Relations)