Schoenorama From Spain, joined Apr 2001, 2440 posts, RR: 27 Posted (10 years 9 months 2 weeks 19 hours ago) and read 804 times:
Iraqi Conflict Timeline
3 March, 1991 - Iraq accepts the terms of a cease-fire.
Mid-March through early April, 1991 - Iraq suppresses rebellions in the Kurdish north of Iraq and the Shi’a south. Shi’a forces ask the US for access to captured Iraqi arms, but are denied; the US, which is patrolling the no-fly zone in the south at the time, allows Saddam Hussein to use helicopter gunships to suppress the rebellion.
Not only did the US fail to support the Kurdish and Shi'a uprising, which President Bush had called for, but even prevented the rebelling troops in the south from reaching captured arms depots and allowed Saddam Hussein's helicopters to slaughter them while US aircraft circled overhead. (Source: http://www.guardian.co.uk/weekend/story/0,3605,232986,00.html
3 April, 1991 - UN resolution 687 adds further conditions to the repeal of sanctions, stating that Iraq must agree to disarmament and inspections of its weapons sites.
9 June, 1991 - UN Special Commission to Oversee the Destruction of Iraq’s Weapons of Mass Destructions (UNSCOM) commences its first inspections.
27 June, 1993 - US launches cruise missiles at Iraqi intelligence headquarters, ostensibly in retaliation for an attempt to assassinate President George Bush in 1991.
In doing so, the US breaks unilaterally the cease-fire of 3rd March 1991.
14 April, 1995 - UN Security Council passes resolution 986, which allows Iraq to buy food and medical supplies with funds raised from the sale of oil. The 'Oil-for-Food' program is not accepted by Iraq until 1996.
1996 - A UNICEF report states that among children under the age of 5, there are 4,500 'excess deaths' every month that can be primarily attributable to sanctions.
In 1996, it was already clear the sanctions did not work.
On the 12th May, 1996, and during an interview at CBS Sixty Minutes by Leslie Stahl: "We have heard that a half million children have died (as a result of sanctions against Iraq). I mean, that is more children than died in Hiroshima. And, you know, is the price worth it?", Madeleine Albright answered: "I think this is a very hard choice, but the price, we think the price is worth it."
26 August, 1998 - American UN weapons inspector Scott Ritter resigns. In his resignation letter he stated: "that the lack of will [for inspections] stemmed from a policy shift by the Security Council and the Secretary General that was backed "at least implicitly by the United States." He asserted that between last November  and this August , the Administration had made at least seven efforts to delay or stop an investigation or block a line of inquiry. He made his resignation letter public in an effort to force the United States and the United Nations to return to a tougher stance." In an interview, Ritter asserted that the administration had been secretly trying since late last year to find a diplomatic solution for its confrontation with Saddam and in doing so had abandoned a policy -- in effect since the end of the Persian Gulf war in 1991 -- to use sanctions and the threat of military force to compel the Iraqi leader's cooperation. (Source: interview by Judith Miller, The New York Times August 27, 1998)
29 September, 1998 - US passes The Iraq Liberation Act (ILA), 'to seek to remove the regime headed by Saddam Hussein from power in Iraq and to promote the emergence of a democratic government.' The president is to designate one or more Iraqi democratic opposition organizations to provide assistance to, not exceeding $97 million.
The US has unilaterally decided to remove Saddam Hussein. There is NO UN resolution about this. With no specific UN resolution on removing Saddam Hussein, the US uses the existing 'Oil-for-Food' program to meet their goal.
30 September, 1998 - Director of the UN Oil-for-Food Program, Denis Halliday, resigns in protest over the inadequacy of Oil-for-Food, which he says does not even meet the minimum requirements for a healthy diet.
16-19 December, 1998 - The UN pulls its staff out of Iraq, and the US and UK begin Operation Desert Fox, a bombing campaign that aimed at destroying sites suspected of housing Iraq’s nuclear, chemical, and biological weapons programs.
Unlike stated on many occasions, the UN inspectors were NOT expelled by Iraq.
1998 - A World Health Organization report states that each month, between 5,000 and 6,000 Iraqi children die because of sanctions.
Another indication the US and UK backed santions did not work
6 January, 1999 - UN Secretary General Kofi Annan expresses his suspicion that intelligence gathered by UN arms inspectors was used for American efforts to undermine the Iraqi regime.
"The US has perverted the UN weapons process by using it as a tool to justify military actions, falsely so. ... The US was using the inspection process as a trigger for war." (-- Scott Ritter, former head of the UN arms inspection team in Iraq, on the NBC Today show, December 17, 1998.)
8 January, 1999 - Clinton Administration officials admit to monitoring coded radio communications of Saddam Hussein’s security forces, using equipment secretly installed by UN arms inspectors.
The US has used the UN for its own purposes, thereby undermining the whole UN Security Council and the Iraqi inspection process
13 February, 2000 - The second director of the Oil-for-Food Program, Hans von Sponeck, resigns in protest, objecting to the impact of sanctions on the Iraqi civilian population.
In a letter to UK's minister Peter Hain, von Sponeck wrote: "Unicef has repeatedly pointed out that this reality is only going to change when the sanctions regime is once again replaced by a normally functioning economy. Let me add that more often than not, it is the blocking of contracts by the US/UK which has created immense problems in implementing the oil-for-food programme. The present volume of blocked items amounts to $2.3bn the highest ever." (Source: see February 2001 link)
1 March 2000 - Hans Blix assumes the post of executive chairman of UNMOVIC, the new weapons inspectors.
With stating this, she admits that the US's only goal is to remove Saddam Hussein from power.
February 2001 - US/UK bombing raids try to disable Iraq's air defence network. The bombings have little international support. Iraq complains about ongoing raids and civilian casualties.
Again, these bombings are not based on ANY UN resolution. However, both the US and the UK do not listen to the growing critizism on these raids, specially from other permanent UN members France, Russia and China.
Note that the No-Fly zones have been installed by the US and UK, and is not backed by any UN resolution, as many people seem to believe.
Hans von Sponeck, former senior UN official, in a letter to UK's minister Peter Hain, wrote:
"The public does not know that you do this [patrolling Iraq No-Fly zones] without a mandate by the UN security council."
Von Sponeck ends his letter saying:
"Let me end by saying, the Iraq file cannot be handled objectively and in the interest of the people of Iraq unless the hidden agenda disappears. When this happens then but only then does this sentence in the closing paragraph of your Chatham House speech get the value it deserves. " We support human rights, transparency and accountability for other people because the values we demand for ourselves!" Yes, this is how it should be, Minister!"(Source: http://www.guardian.co.uk/international/story/0,3604,417598,00.html)
To be continued...
Utinam logica falsa tuam philosophiam totam suffodiant!
Ovelix From Greece, joined Aug 1999, 639 posts, RR: 4 Reply 3, posted (10 years 9 months 2 weeks 19 hours ago) and read 793 times:
OK, let's go a little bit earlier
Eight days before his Aug. 2, 1990, invasion of Kuwait, Saddam Hussein met with April Glaspie, then America's ambassador to Iraq. It was the last high-level contact between the two countries before Iraq went to war.
From a translation of Iraq's transcript of the meeting, released that September, press and pundits concluded that Ms. Glaspie had (in effect) given Saddam a green light to invade.
"We have no opinion on your Arab-Arab conflicts," the transcript reports Glaspie saying, "such as your dispute with Kuwait. Secretary [of State James] Baker has directed me to emphasize the instruction ... that Kuwait is not associated with America." Later Mrs Glaspie said she was the victim of "deliberate deception on a major scale, " and denounced the Iraqi transcript as "a fabrication" that distorted her position, though it contained "a great deal" that was accurate. Carleton Cole, US Ambassador to Iraq April Glaspie. , The Christian Science Monitor, 05-27-1999, pp THE HOME F.
Alpha 1 From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR: Reply 5, posted (10 years 9 months 2 weeks 19 hours ago) and read 779 times:
That's right, Kostas, even when it's not the fault of the U.S., you make it the fault of the U.S. In that meeting, Saddam heard what he wanted to hear. And, of course, when the U.S. representative said the transcript was a fabrication, you choose to believe Iraq over the U.S., right?
The U.S. gave no "green light" to invade Kuwait. At most, the import of the conversation was that if you want to resolve your Arab-Arab conflicts peacefully, then the U.S. will not interfere. It was not a green light to invade, but I think you know that already.
Ovelix From Greece, joined Aug 1999, 639 posts, RR: 4 Reply 6, posted (10 years 9 months 2 weeks 18 hours ago) and read 778 times:
Aphla1, I don't know what happened, I was not on the scene. I just cite the sources and, as you can see, I included Mr Glaspie's response. Now read this too.
Saddam reportedly decided on war sometime in July 1990, but before sending his army into Kuwait, he approached the United States to find out how it would react. In a now famous interview with the Iraqi leader, U.S. Ambassador April Glaspie told Saddam, "[W]e have no opinion on the Arab-Arab conflicts, like your border disagreement with Kuwait." The U.S. State Department had earlier told Saddam that Washington had "no special defense or security commitments to Kuwait." The United States may not have intended to give Iraq a green light, but that is effectively what it did.
Mearsheimer, John J; Walt, Stephen M, An unnecessary war. , Foreign Policy, 01-01-2003, pp 50.
Sebolino From France, joined May 2001, 3672 posts, RR: 5 Reply 7, posted (10 years 9 months 2 weeks 18 hours ago) and read 772 times:
All this is theater. The war will likely happen, and the US will probably show satellite pictures afterwards to justify it... That's a game for Bush.
I just read that 7 American Economy Nobel prices have signed a letter against the war. But who cares of this people anymore ? Military rules ! You just have to read the posts of some trigger-happy cowboys here.
Why aren't the US tracking Ben Laden and terrorists instead of preparing a war against Iraq ? It seems that nobody cares about that.
Alpha 1 From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR: Reply 8, posted (10 years 9 months 2 weeks 18 hours ago) and read 765 times:
No, Kostas, the U.S. didn't intend, nor effectively give the "green light" to anything. As I said, and as you obviously do not believe, Saddam heard what he wanted to, and that's his fault, not that of the U.S.
Why aren't the US tracking Ben Laden and terrorists instead of preparing a war against Iraq ?
How do you explain that the U.S. and Pakistan nabbed the self-proclaimed mastermind of 9/11, Sebollino? Or did that not make the news where you were? Why can not both be done if it must?
Thumper From United States of America, joined Nov 2001, 550 posts, RR: 0 Reply 12, posted (10 years 9 months 2 weeks 7 hours ago) and read 711 times:
Why is it all Europeans only keep track of America? What has France ,Germany, and especially Spain and Greece done about anything? Got the solution to the problem! Lets elect Schoenorama president of the U.S.A.! There isn't a thing he doesn't know about anything! Have you ever met a person with such intelligence and knowledge about all subjects! He could lead the most powerful country in the world then we would be always right! Then he could become anti-French or anti- Spanish and we could agree with him!
Schoenorama From Spain, joined Apr 2001, 2440 posts, RR: 27 Reply 13, posted (10 years 9 months 1 week 6 days 21 hours ago) and read 692 times:
"Why is it all Europeans only keep track of America?"
Because the actions and in-actions of the US directly affect people all over the world. That's why.
"What has France ,Germany, and especially Spain and Greece done about anything?"
You are probably not aware of the fact that Spain, as the UK, backs Bush in this whole Iraq issue. The fact that I live in Spain does not automatically mean I agree with the Spanish Governments' position, something that appearantly can't be said about many US citizens.
"Lets elect Schoenorama president of the U.S.A.! There isn't a thing he doesn't know about anything!"
All I do is seek information from different sources. Only with true objective information I am able (and any other person should be) to form my opinion on matters. I do not like one-sided information, even when this is in the benefit of the point I am trying to make.
The reason why I posted the above time-line is because of the very little knowlegde many pro-US posters on this board have shown to have about what exactly has happened in the past 12 years and what has brought us to the present situation. All the information I provided above is from the Internet. You don't have to do too much research to get the appropiate information. It would supprise you how many pro-Bush media in the past have published articles critisizing US politics in this whole matter. Do some 'research' yourselve instead of simply following the crowd!
Utinam logica falsa tuam philosophiam totam suffodiant!
Thumper From United States of America, joined Nov 2001, 550 posts, RR: 0 Reply 14, posted (10 years 9 months 1 week 6 days 8 hours ago) and read 675 times:
The problem with all your horseshit is you take everything out of context and fit it in to prove all your propaganda! You ,Indianguy,Airplay are all closet communists who like to run the U.S. down! America has done more to help Europe and the world than any country that ever existed! Its alright to disagree with someone but you three have a vendetta to make the U.S out as the worlds biggest tyrant! You have the guts to call Bush worse than Hitler or Suddam Hussein.You and your propaganda are worse than Hussein! There is a huge generation gape in Europe! The older people know and respect the U.S. AS WE DO THEM! The younger generation like you will learn the hard way!
Jaysit From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR: Reply 15, posted (10 years 9 months 1 week 6 days 7 hours ago) and read 671 times:
The history of Iraq viz a viz the United States doesn't start with the Iraqi invasion of Kuwait. The 1980s represented a sad chapter in our cozying up to this dictator. I suspect the champagne was French when Rummy toasted to Saddam's good health in Baghdad in 1988.
Schoenorama From Spain, joined Apr 2001, 2440 posts, RR: 27 Reply 16, posted (10 years 9 months 1 week 5 days 20 hours ago) and read 664 times:
"The problem with all your horseshit is you take everything out of context and fit it in to prove all your propaganda! You, Indianguy, Airplay are all closet communists who like to run the U.S. down!"
Is this the only way you can maintain a discussion? Calling names and insulting people? To you, I take everything out of your context. Propaganda? How about FACTS!
"You have the guts to call Bush worse than Hitler or Suddam Hussein."
Just where exaclty did I call Bush worse than Hitler? Please, tell me where? Don't be so foolish and arrogant to make assumptions about MY opinions.
"You and your propaganda are worse than Hussein!"
At least I gave you the sources of my information, something that can't be said about you. Most, if not all of the information I found is perfectly accessable via the Internet. No obscure communists sites here, all perfectly objective and controllable information.
"There is a huge generation gape in Europe! The older people know and respect the U.S. AS WE DO THEM!"
You say you respect the older people in Europe, yet in reply # 12 you ask why ALL Eurpeans only keep track of America. Isn't that a contradiction. Also, the good things the US has done in the past, and you are probably supprised I acknowledge that, does not mean I cannot critizise current events. I am getting the impression you want us all to simply shut up, close our eyes and follow the US blindly.
Utinam logica falsa tuam philosophiam totam suffodiant!
1980: April: the Iranian-supported Ad Dawah attempted to assassinate Iraqi foreign minister Tariq Aziz.
1980: September: Border skirmishes erupted in the central sector near Qasr-e Shirin, with an exchange of artillery fire by both sides. A few weeks later, Saddam Hussein officially abrogated the 1975 treaty between Iraq and Iran and announced that the Shatt al Arab was returning to Iraqi sovereignty. Iran rejected this action and hostilities escalated as the two sides exchanged bombing raids deep into each other's territory, beginning what was to be a protracted and extremely costly war.
1980 to 1982: Iran fights back using technology and military equipment provided by the US during past favorable relationship with US. (F-4s, F-5s and F-14s and Helicopters like Chinooks, Bell 214s and Sea Cobras armed with Maverick Missles) Iraq's army is primarily equiped with Russian technology. (Migs and SCUDs)
1982: September: Iraq retreats from Iran. President Reagan legalized conventional military sales to Iraq in 1982, and resulting sales amounted to more than a billion dollars' worth of exports with military use in the same year. Along with direct military-use products and even more "dual-use" exports, however, the Reagan and Bush administrations furnished more indirect potencies: with the assistance in intelligence -- if you call it that -- and money and arms, the United States also furnished Saddam with biological and chemical capabilities.
1984: Iraq returned purchased approximately thirty Mirage F-1 fighters equipped with Exocet missiles from France. By this time about 300,000 Iranians and 250,000 Iraqis have been killed in hostilities.
1984: February: The Iraqi command ordered the use of chemical weapons.
1985: Starting in 1985, The US Department of Commerce licensed 70 biological exports to Iraq between 1985 and 1989, including at least 21 batches of lethal strains of anthrax, sent by the American Type Culture Collection, then located in Rockville, Md., and now in northern Virginia. (It shares one building with George Mason University; its landlord for its main building is the Prince William County, Va., Board of Supervisors.) Shipments continued beyond Reagan under President Bush, after the Iran-Iraq war ended in 1988. In other words, Saddam Hussein was still able to purchase biological products for at least four more years after the justification of US/administration worry about Iran's threat to Saudi oil was past.
Also between 1985 and 1989, Iraq's Atomic Energy Commission got 17 batches of "various toxins and bacteria." In 1985, the CDC (Centers for Disease Control) shipped at least 3 samples of West Nile Fever virus to Basra University. Other lethal biological samples included botulins and E. coli.
Too many US corporations supplied Iraq with chemicals to list here; a class-action lawsuit filed by over a thousand Gulf War vets in Galveston, Texas, in 1994 (Coleman et al. v Alcolac et al.) names several, including Alcolac, Phillips Petroleum, Unilever, Allied Signal and Teledyne.
Aside from biological and chemical products, American companies were also licensed by the Commerce Department to supply Saddam with computers, components, electronics, and specialized equipment for future weaponry. Other US shipments went to Iraq without benefit of license, some directly to Iraq and some through other countries including Canada, Germany and Switzerland. The late US Rep. Henry B. Gonzalez (D-Texas), chairman of the House Banking Committee, entered at least 30 documents into the Congressional Record as part of his heroic investigations into US assistance to Iraq -- investigations in which he was thwarted at every juncture, be it noted, by the CIA, the Bush Department of Justice, and their supporters -- mostly GOP -- in Congress.
Again, too many companies provided essential assistance to Iraq to list here. A scant list would include 60 Hughes helicopters in 1982, at least 56 military helicopters from Bell Textron in 1984, and $8 million worth of Sikorsky Black Hawk helicopters in the late '80s; equipment for a tungsten-carbide manufacturing plant (later blown up) from Kennametal (Latrobe, Pa.); mainframes and other advanced computer systems from Digital, IBM and Hewlett Packard; a supercomputer from Silicon Graphics in California; and military technology including glass fiber and machine tools from Matrix-Churchill (based in Britain and Cleveland, Ohio). Matrix-Churchill also sold equipment to an arms dealer and manufacturer in Chile, Carlos Cardoen, who sent it to Iraq. The lawsuit in which Teicher's above affidavit is filed involves Cardoen.
1986: March: The UN secretary general, Javier Perez de Cuellar, formally accused Iraq of using chemical weapons against Iran. Citing the report of four chemical warfare experts whom the UN had sent to Iran in February and March 1986, the secretary general called on Baghdad to end its violation of the 1925 Geneva Protocol on the use of chemical weapons.
1987: Both superpowers indicated their interest in the security of the region. The United States decided it was imperative that Iran be thwarted, so it could not overrun the important oil-producing states in the Persian Gulf. It has long been known that the United States provided intelligence assistance to Iraq in the form of satellite photography to help the Iraqis understand how Iranian forces were deployed against them.
Though senior officials of the Reagan administration publicly condemned Iraq's employment of mustard gas, sarin, VX and other poisonous agents, the American military officers said President Reagan, Vice President George Bush and senior national security aides never withdrew their support for a highly classified program in which more than 60 officers of the Defense Intelligence Agency were secretly providing detailed information on Iranian deployments, tactical planning for battles, plans for airstrikes and bomb-damage assessments for Iraq.
Saudi Arabia played a crucial role in pressing the Reagan administration to offer aid to Iraq out of concern that Iranian commanders were sending waves of young volunteers to overrun Iraqi forces. Prince Bandar bin Sultan, the Saudi ambassador to the United States, then and now, met with President Saddam Hussein of Iraq and then told officials of the Central Intelligence Agency and the Defense Intelligence Agency that Iraq's military command was ready to accept American aid.
1988: In early 1988, after the Iraqi Army, with American planning assistance, retook the Fao Peninsula in an attack that reopened Iraq's access to the Persian Gulf.
Col. Walter P. Lang, retired, the senior defense intelligence officer at the time, said he would not discuss classified information, but added that both D.I.A. and C.I.A. officials "were desperate to make sure that Iraq did not lose" to Iran. "The use of gas on the battlefield by the Iraqis was not a matter of deep strategic concern," he said. What Mr. Reagan's aides were concerned about, he said, was that Iran not break through to the Fao Peninsula and spread the Islamic revolution to Kuwait and Saudi Arabia.
Colonel Lang asserted that the Defense Intelligence Agency "would have never accepted the use of chemical weapons against civilians, but the use against military objectives was seen as inevitable in the Iraqi struggle for survival." Senior Reagan administration officials did nothing to interfere with the continuation of the program, a former participant in the program said.
The American intelligence officers never encouraged or condoned Iraq's use of chemical weapons, but neither did they oppose it because they considered Iraq to be struggling for its survival, people involved at the time said in interviews.
"Having gone through the 440 days of the hostage crisis in Iran," he said, "the period when we were the Great Satan, if Iraq had gone down it would have had a catastrophic effect on Kuwait and Saudi Arabia, and the whole region might have gone down. That was the backdrop of the policy."
The Pentagon "wasn't so horrified by Iraq's use of gas," said one veteran of the program. "It was just another way of killing people -- whether with a bullet or phosgene, it didn't make any difference," he said.
CIA Director Casey personally spearheaded the effort to ensure that Iraq had sufficient military weapons, ammunition and vehicles to avoid losing the Iran-Iraq war ... the United States actively supported the Iraqi war effort by supplying the Iraqis with billions of dollars of credits, by providing US military intelligence and advice to the Iraqis, and by closely monitoring third country arms sales to Iraq to make sure Iraq had the military weaponry required. The United States also provide strategic operational advice to the Iraqis to better use their assets in combat. For example, in 1986, President Reagan sent a secret message to Saddam Hussein telling him that Iraq should step up its air war and bombing of Iran. This message was delivered by Vice President Bush, who communicated it to Egyptian President Mubarak, who in turn passed the message to Saddam Hussein. Similar ... advice was passed to Saddam Hussein through various meetings with European and Middle Eastern heads of state.
1988: The Iran-Iraq war lasted nearly eight years, from September of 1980 until August of 1988. It ended when Iran accepted United Nations (UN) Security Council Resolution 598, leading to a 20 August 1988 cease-fire. Casualty figures are highly uncertain, though estimates suggest more than one and a half million war and war-related casualties -- perhaps as many as a million people died, many more were wounded, and millions were made refugees.
Fast forward to the present: The current Bush administration does not mention where the much-touted "weapons of mass destruction" came from, nor that they've been extensively bombed already. But regrettably, the same corporations that profited by dealing with Iraq before -- including Cheney's Halliburton -- would also profit from an invasion of Iraq, and from a "rebuilding" afterward. The same companies are well able to purchase both Bush foreign policy and the bloodthirsty commentary that supports it -- defying reason, evidence, and common sense -- in the media.