Re: Iraq

On Thu, 27 Sep 2007 12:07:31 -0700, Alistair
<alistair@ld50macca.demon.co.uk> wrote:

>On 27 Sep, 16:21, SkippyPB <swieg...@nospam.neo.rr.com> wrote: 
>
>Not won't but DOES NOT KNOW the true figures. There is no indisputable
>source of accurate figures; despite best intentions by some
>organisations.
> 
>
>It is a poor argument that you make here. I understand that much of
>the fakery was at the Grunt level and by people counting bodyless-
>blood trails. There may have been rounding-up errors at a higher level
>and exaggeration but the whole principle was phallacious and/or
>fallacious.
>

That is just not true.  It is a documented fact that then Defense
Secretary Robert McNamara's generals inflated enemy body counts so
politicians could claim the Vietnam War was going better than it
actually was.  McNamara himself said this in his biography.  It was
also reported in the Pentagon Papers.  And I, as a soldier on the
ground, heard it stated many times that if we took counts to multiply
by 10.
 
>
>Just institutionalised murder, rape and robbery. Oh, and ethnic
>cleansing.
> 
>
>All of whom use methods which are inaccurate and produce contradictory
>results. I have heard of figures from 80,000 up to 600,000 plus and
>seen documentaries which attempted an analysis of the methods and
>results and concluded that the figure was much less than the lower
>80,000 figure. In Iraq, everyone claims that their 89 year old
>grandmother died as a result of the invasion and occupation becuse, by
>doing so, they are entitled to compensation from the Allies.
> 
>
>The afore-mentioned documentaries leave one in no doubt as to how wide
>of the mark the 600,000 figure is and why. But, Hell, the truth
>doesn't sell papers.
> 
>
>Which occured long before the second invasion. The second invasion is
>the one to which the disputed body-count applies.
>
> 
>
>If you count the dead Iranians then that figure swells to in excess of
>1.5 million. BTW, that was a war that Saddam started and you can not
>lay the blame for that at the door of the US or the Allies.
> 
>
>And the accuracy of the figures is questionable and disputed. See
>above.
>
> 
>
>Sort of true. A cavalier statement was made by the then US
>administration to the effect that any anti-Saddam uprising would be
>welcome (and by implication probably supported by the US and the
>Allies) but when both the Kurds and the Shias revolted, the Saddam
>regime used it's helicopters (which we all allowed in the 'no-fly'
>zone) to put down the uprisings. The Anfal was in revenge (and to test
>WMDs) but was at sufficient distance to the revolt as to be
>effectively unconnected. An act of vengeance not a military act
>putting down an uprising. There is nothing you can say about the fact
>that he targeted unarmed civilians as the British did that in Iraq (in
>the first quarter of the 20th Century) and the US have done the same
>elsewhere (witness Hiroshima and Nagasaki).
>

I am not disputing those facts at all.  However, you should read "Web
of Deceit: The History of Western Complicity in Iraq, from Churchill
to Kennedy to George W. Bush" (Other Press) by Barry Lando.

And actually I  two periods of time and events in which GHWB
played a part in helping Saddam.  The last part was in 1991.  The
first part was in the early 80's when Regan's administraton sold
hundreds of millions of dollars worth of weapons and provided the
technology for Saddam's chemical, biological and nuclear programs.

It was GHWB who in February 1991, as American forces were driving
Saddam's troops out of Kuwait, called for the people of Iraq to rise
up and overthrow the dictator. That message was repeatedly broadcast
across Iraq. It was also contained in millions of leaflets dropped by
the U.S. Air Force. Eager to end decades of repression, the Shiites
arose. Their revolt spread like wildfire; in the north, the Kurds also
rose up. Key Iraqi army units joined in. It looked as if Saddam's days
were over.

But then George H. W. Bush blew the whistle. Things had got out of
hand. What Bush had wanted was not a messy popular uprising but a neat
military coup. The White House feared that turmoil would give the
Iranians increased influence, upset the Turks, wreak havoc throughout
the region.

But the Bush administration didn't just turn its back; it actually
aided Saddam to suppress the Intifada.

When Saddam's brutal counter-attack against the rebellions began, the
order was given to American troops already deep inside Iraq and armed
to the teeth not to assist the rebellion in any way -- though everyone
knew that they were condemning the Intifada to an awful defeat.

When the Intifada erupted, the Americans prompted the rebels to raid
the local prison in Kerbala and free the Kuwaitis who were being held
there. The rebels executed the guards in the prison. Prior to the
uprising, the rebels had also been feeding intelligence to the
Americans on what Saddam's local supporters were up to.

The American forces watched as Saddam's forces launched their
counterattack against the rebel-held city. Thousands of people fled
toward the American lines.  The American forces had huge stocks of
weapons they had captured from the Iraqis. But they were ordered to
blow them up rather than turn them over to the rebels.

Indeed, Saddam's former intelligence chief, General Wafiq al-Samarrai,
later recounted that the government forces had almost no ammunition
left when they finally squelched the revolt. "By the last w of the
intifada," he said, "the army was down to two hundred and seventy
thousand Kalashnikov bullets." That would have lasted for just two
more days of fighting.

In his autobiography, General Schwarzkopf, without giving details,
alludes to the fact that the American-led coalition aided Saddam to
crush the uprising. According to his curious reasoning, expressed in
another interview, the Iraqi people were not innocent in the whole
affair because "they supported the invasion of Kuwait and accepted
Saddam Hussein."
 
>
>The Iran-Contra affair was a way of passing arms to Iran in exchange
>for hostages from the ill-fated US Embassy siege in Tehran.
> 
>
>Bollox.
> 
>
>Probably not even 20% accurate.
>

Then perhaps you can come up with some figures that are more accurate.
It is one thing to criticize.  It is another to do so without a
solution or viable alternative argument.

Regards,
////
(o o)
-oOO--(_)--OOo-

"I assume full responsibility for my actions,
except the ones that are someone else's fault."
-- Unknown
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Remove nospam to email me.

Steve