Free Iraq

(Continuing discussion with Amos from this 'Free Iraq' post.)
Amos, Correctly you note that I leave many articles critical of U.S. behaviour. The following is one more. My question to you: Do you disagree with the content of this article? If so, perhaps we could discuss your points of departure.


Kurt Nimmo, X'ing Out Cheney: Sounds Good to Me: Matt Drudge, who boosted his questionable career exposing the juvenile sexual dalliance of Clinton, is all a twitter about somebody at CNN flashing an X over Cheney’s face as he gave a speech at the American Enterprise Institute, the criminal neocon organization responsible in part for killing more than 100,000 Iraqis. According to Drudge, a “top White House source expressed concern about what was aired over CNN. ‘Is someone in Atlanta trying to tell us something?’”

No doubt it was a “somebody” and not the management at CNN, since the cable news network serves as an enthusiastic Bush-Cheney cheerleader, only out-cheerleadered by Fox News. No doubt, as well, “somebody” will be flushed out and fired for this egregious crime.

Dick Cheney’s crimes against humanity are so numerous and heinous no mere X flashed on the screen a few times for less than a second can do them justice.
[ . . . ]

Since Cheney is a sadist, he likes the idea of torturing innocent people. Cheney connived with his staff (most notably David Addington and John Hannah) to continue a policy of torture, directly violating the Geneva Conventions. It wasn’t all that long ago people were prosecuted at the Nuremberg tribunal for torture—but then we lived in a more sane world in those days.

Cheney is connected to several criminal organizations, including the war profiteering Carlyle Group (in 2003, Dick received the Citizen Works’ “Daddy Warbucks” award for his shameless war profiteering). He is a former Senior Fellow with the American Enterprise Institute (where he was speaking when the mysterious X appeared on his face), served on the Advisory Board of the Jewish Institute for National Security Affairs, and has been linked to the Project for the New American Century. He is a world-class war criminal and multiple offender who makes the (dead) al-Zarqawi look like a piker.
 

"The ease with which the US has, for more than 2 ½ years "wasted" Iraqis, the ease with which culturally we participate in acts of wanton cruelty, demonizing of Iraqis, savage acts of inhumanity and barbarism, brutish violations of international conventions and laws, and our willingness to look the other way in the face of monstrous US induced misery, suffering and death, is symbolized graphically in the haunting specter of the US "wasting" of Fallujah one year ago: "Operation Phantom Fury."

The LA Times reported that "the US military" assaulted the city of Fallujah with the full "understanding" that "civilians…would be killed."

. One year after the 'wasting" of Fallujah the "sickening odor of rotting corpses" continues to permeate the horrid air in Iraq, and the "sickening," swarming specter of US war crimes continues to wreak destruction across Iraq. Several questions come to the fore.
What must be accomplished politically and culturally to:
(1) overcome the ease with which we remain distanced from acts of wanton cruelty and savage acts of inhumanity;
(2) apply to US leaders the same standards of law and morality we would demand of others in the face of barbaric violations of international conventions and laws;
(3) transform the institutions that give rise to so much US induced misery, suffering and death.

At what point will we demand that US leaders responsible for these crimes of war be held accountable?

"How Many Dead Innocent Iraqis is Too Many?"

"How Many Dead US Soldiers are Too Many?"

What "right" does the US have to "waste" Iraqis?

What will the "blowback" be for these crimes against humanity?

Will we pay reparations to the Iraqis for the damage?

What will it take to stop the US killing machine?

What will it take to stop the next Fallujah?

"Who are the real barbarians?"

These are questions of grave import to all US citizens concerned with justice, freedom, peace, survival and accountability."

The complete article is Wasting Fallujah
 

Gunmen kill Iraqi tribal chief: "Gunmen have shot dead a prominent Sunni Arab tribal chief, his three sons and a son-in-law as they slept in their home in Baghdad, police say.

"Khadim Sarhid al-Hemaiyim was the leader of the al-Batta tribe, a branch of the al-Dulaym tribe, one of the largest Sunni tribes in Iraq."
[ . . . ]
 

As a matter of interest . . .
US forces closing in on Zarqawi: general
 

And, this . . .
US sees conditions for troop reductions in Iraq 'fairly soon': "Appearing on two television channels, Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice said the possibility of handing over to Iraqis important security responsibilities is being constantly discussed in Baghdad by coalition commander General George Casey and US Ambassador Zalmay Khalilzad.

"And in both interviews she stressed that the moment when US soldiers will start returning home could be close."
 

Sean Smith, Guardian, Up close: the reality of Iraq's hidden war: "When people saw a ferocious assault was under way, they began to leave town. Women and children came out carrying white flags. It was eerie seeing columns of people appearing through the smoke and explosions, with no one knowing which direction the shooting was coming from. I am sure we will hear of more casualties.

"All men of military age were detained. they had material sprayed on their hands to reveal whether they had handled explosives or gunpowder. Families were split up and loudspeakers were barking commands. Some of the detainees came back and some did not.

"At Rawa the Iraqi army carried out searches, with US advisers. They did not arrest all males of military age, only those on a two-page list of suspects . They found about 3,000lb of explosives. They took the detainees - about 20 - to a hill overlooking Rawa. There were a lot of mines so it took ages to get there. They were handcuffed all night, with their eyes bandaged. There was no room for everyone in the shelter so some slept outside.

"They were given a bottle of water and a blanket, then herded in the morning on to a helicopter and taken to the base at Qaim for questioning."

(See a gallery of Sean Smith's Iraq pictures here.)
 

Bush informed in 2001 of lack of Iraq-Qaeda ties: "US President George W. Bush was informed 10 days after the September 11, 2001 attacks that US intelligence had no proof of links between Iraq and that act of terror, The National Journal reported.

"Citing government documents as well as past and present Bush administration officials, the magazine said the president was briefed on September 21, 2001 that evidence of cooperation between Iraq and the Al-Qaeda terror network was insufficient.

"Bush was also informed that there was some credible information about contacts between Saddam Hussein and Al-Qaeda that showed that the Iraqi dictator had tried to establish surveillance over the group, according to the report.

"Saddam Hussein believed the radical Islamic network represented a threat for his secular regime."
 

Kurt Nimmo, Torture Under the Philosophical Guidance of Cheney
 

an iraqi tear -

- Between the Zarqawi Hard Place and the American Rock!

- Saddam the "Value"! (Forcefully making the point that no matter what current barbarity, the new Iraqi regime & their masters can always point back to Saddam. Great comfort for Iraqis.)

- Death Squads!
 

toobad4us: "Is It Legal?" . . . (cont'd from here)
George Monbiot, Guardian, Behind the phosphorus clouds are war crimes within war crimes: ... A Pentagon spokesman told the BBC that white phosphorus "was used as an incendiary weapon against enemy combatants". He claimed "it is not a chemical weapon. They are not outlawed or illegal." This denial has been accepted by most of the mainstream media. UN conventions, the Times said, "ban its use on civilian but not military targets". But the word "civilian" does not occur in the chemical weapons convention. The use of the toxic properties of a chemical as a weapon is illegal, whoever the target is.

The Pentagon argues that white phosphorus burns people, rather than poisoning them, and is covered only by the protocol on incendiary weapons, which the US has not signed. But white phosphorus is both incendiary and toxic. The gas it produces attacks the mucous membranes, the eyes and the lungs. As Peter Kaiser of the Organisation for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons told the BBC last week: "If ... the toxic properties of white phosphorus, the caustic properties, are specifically intended to be used as a weapon, that of course is prohibited, because ... any chemicals used against humans or animals that cause harm or death through the toxic properties of the chemical are considered chemical weapons."

The US army knows that its use as a weapon is illegal. ...

[ . . . ]

But we shouldn't forget that the use of chemical weapons was a war crime within a war crime within a war crime. Both the invasion of Iraq and the assault on Falluja were illegal acts of aggression. Before attacking the city, the marines stopped men "of fighting age" from leaving. Many women and children stayed: the Guardian's correspondent estimated that between 30,000 and 50,000 civilians were left. The marines treated Falluja as if its only inhabitants were fighters. They levelled thousands of buildings, illegally denied access to the Iraqi Red Crescent and, according to the UN's special rapporteur, used "hunger and deprivation of water as a weapon of war against the civilian population".

I have been reading accounts of the assault published in the Marine Corps Gazette. The soldiers appear to have believed everything the US government told them. One article claims that "the absence of civilians meant the marines could employ blast weapons prior to entering houses that had become pillboxes, not homes". Another said that "there were less than 500 civilians remaining in the city". It continued: "The heroics [of the marines] will be the subject of many articles and books ... The real key to this tactical victory rested in the spirit of the warriors who courageously fought the battle. They deserve all of the credit for liberating Falluja."

But buried in this hogwash is a grave revelation. An assault weapon the marines were using had been armed with warheads containing "about 35% thermobaric novel explosive (NE) and 65% standard high explosive". They deployed it "to cause the roof to collapse and crush the insurgents fortified inside interior rooms". It was used repeatedly: "The expenditure of explosives clearing houses was enormous."

The marines can scarcely deny that they know what these weapons do. An article published in the Gazette in 2000 details the effects of their use by the Russians in Grozny. Thermobaric, or "fuel-air" weapons, it says, form a cloud of volatile gases or finely powdered explosives. "This cloud is then ignited and the subsequent fireball sears the surrounding area while consuming the oxygen in this area. The lack of oxygen creates an enormous overpressure ... Personnel under the cloud are literally crushed to death. Outside the cloud area, the blast wave travels at some 3,000 metres per second ... As a result, a fuel-air explosive can have the effect of a tactical nuclear weapon without residual radiation ... Those personnel caught directly under the aerosol cloud will die from the flame or overpressure. For those on the periphery of the strike, the injuries can be severe. Burns, broken bones, contusions from flying debris and blindness may result. Further, the crushing injuries from the overpressure can create air embolism within blood vessels, concussions, multiple internal haemorrhages in the liver and spleen, collapsed lungs, rupture of the eardrums and displacement of the eyes from their sockets." It is hard to see how you could use these weapons in Falluja without killing civilians.

This looks to me like a convincing explanation of the damage done to Falluja, a city in which between 30,000 and 50,000 civilians might have been taking refuge. It could also explain the civilian casualties shown in the film. So the question has now widened: is there any crime the coalition forces have not committed in Iraq?
 

Photos: The "Shock and Awe" Gallery (Bask in the photos, then continue the 'legality' discussion.)
 

Sleepwalking through slaughter: on the western media's concealment of crimes against humanity
 

Linda S. Heard, Counterpunch, UK Media Gagged Over Contents of Bombing Memo; Targeting Al Jazeera: On Tuesday, Britain's Daily Mirror published an explosive story riddled with implications concerning the character and intent of the US president when pursuing his so-called 'war on terror', and perhaps, shedding light on the bombing of Al Jazeera's offices in both Kabul and Baghdad.

Twenty-four [hours] later, the Mirror and all other British papers had been subjected to a "gag order" under Section 5 the Official Secrets Act at pain of prosecution.

"The Daily Mirror was yesterday told not to publish further details from a memo marked 'Top Secret', which revealed that President Bush wanted to bomb an Arab TV station," wrote Kevin Maguire in Tuesday's edition of the paper.
[ . . . ]

In his 2004 State of the Union address, Bush referred to Al Jazeera and other Arab networks as "hateful propaganda coming out of the Arab world".

Concerning the US 'pacification' of Fallujah when Al Jazeera reported US marines had killed hundreds of civilians which according to the leaked British memo triggered Bush's desire to finish off al Jazeera Rumsfeld said: "I can definitely say that what Al Jazeera is doing is vicious, inaccurate and inexcusable."
[ . . . ]

Imagine that the free world's top dog ostensibly out to promote democracy, freedom and 'our way of life' - whatever that is - wants to bomb an independent television station on the soil of one of its closest allies, owned by the ruler of that allied country.

Not only that the British lap dog of the top dog, who loves nothing more than to wag his fingers at "evil ideologies" is actively engaged in dowsing the story with help from erstwhile legal mandarins.

What are the implications for journalists that refuse to toe the coalition line? What about free speech and freedom of the press issues?

But the most worrying question is this: If the alleged bombing of Al Jazeera had gone ahead, with consequent deaths and injuries, wouldn't this equate the US administration with the terrorism it purports to hate?

Excuse the repetition but I would like to stress that Al Jazeera is owned by an ally of the US and staffed with respected editors and journalists from around the world, including many who formerly worked for the BBC.

These people are not terrorists or insurgents; they are not uniformed military or intelligence personnel. They are simply people trying to tell it like it is in an environment plagued by censorship, and judging by Al Jazeera's 50 million regular viewers and the ire they provoke from regional governments, they are doing something right.

I'll leave you with a hypothetical question based on Bush's alleged plan having been given the green light to proceed. Would the US have confessed to its role in the aftermath or would the mythical Abu Musab Al Zarqawi have been set up to take the fall? Think about it.
 

Malcom Lagauche, UNLIKELY BEDFELLOWS: Most people forgot about Iraq’s plight after March 1991. After all, the U.S. had just kicked the Iraqis out of Kuwait and there was an embargo affixed. Few realized just how severe the embargo would turn out and also that if Iraq, which it did, acquiesced to the terms of the embargo it would not be lifted as long as Saddam Hussein was in power. There was no document stating this, but it was well-known.

Many armchair leftists blame two Bushes for the illegal 2003 invasion of Iraq and consequently all the suffering the people endured during the embargo. The facts, however, show this is a fallacy.

In 1993, Warren Christopher, Bill Clinton’s first Secretary of State, said many times that the embargo would not be lifted with Saddam in power. Nobody listened, but he was accurate.

His successor, Madeleine Albright, was even more vocal. In a nationwide interview, she was asked if the deaths of three-quarters of a million children were worth keeping the embargo in place. She coldly answered, "Yes."

Bill Richardson, a U.S. Ambassador to the United Nations under Clinton, ordered his staff never to speak to any Iraqi at the U.N.

Today, Scott Ritter is in the forefront of putting facts in place during the inspection years. He has concluded that Iraq had done everything asked of it to lift the sanctions, but they would never be lifted under Saddam’s leadership.

Imagine, three million deaths because of the ethnocentric actions of various U.S. governments. It was evident that few, if any, U.S. politicos had any idea about the country of Iraq. They had never spoken to an Iraqi, except for Ahmed Chalabi, and this was a big game of oneupsmanship.

During the 1990s, even the peace groups in the U.S. opposed making an issue of the Iraqi embargo. When I called the San Diego ones to attend demonstrations, they let it immediately be known they would not touch the Iraq debacle. However, in late 2002 and early 2003, they came to the forefront and opposed the upcoming invasion. It was too late. They are hypocrites and only speak up when it is in vogue to do so. They are just as much to blame for Iraq’s plight today as the warmongers.

However, there were a few unlikely players in the 1990s who actually thought it was disgusting to keep the embargo in place. No, they were not the usual people, such as Ramsey Clark, who consistently tried to keep the message in the public arena. Two, in particular, were conservatives: the late Jude Wanniski (I wrote a column about him a few weeks ago) and the conservative Republican, Jack Kemp, former U.S. vice-presidential candidate.

Following are various articles written by Jude Wanniski about Iraq and Kemp’s ordeal of trying to end the embargo. They range in dates from 1997 to 2005. Wanniski had contacts at all levels of government and the press. He was far ahead of his time.

* * * * * * *

(Below, the final two paragraphs of the last of the above-mentioned reprinted articles)

November 19, 1997

Saddam, A Perfectly Reasonable Statesman?

Memo To: Norman Smith
From: Jude Wanniski
Re: Saint Saddam

[ . . . ]

Civilized behavior to me suggests the Golden Rule, that we do unto others as we would have them do unto us. When civilization breaks down in wartime, all is fair. But when we become triumphant in peacetime, the Golden Rule should apply. That means we must be prepared to hear the petitions of those who we like the least. It is easy to hear the petitions of those we love. On a scale of one to a hundred, with your wife being number one, I have no doubt that Saddam is number one hundred. As an individual, you can hope for the untimely death of Saddam and so might I, but as a nation, we must bind ourselves to standards of behavior that will be recognized as good, not evil, by the other people of the world. (emphasis added)

It has been my experience throughout my 61 years of life that political people are often sanctified for insufficient reason, and are then found by history to have been evil, while others are demonized, and found after their executions to have been innocent. It is a contrarian role I play, and I admit I am not always happy with those I choose to defend, but what has made us the greatest country in the history of the world is our willingness to submerge our individual passions and hatreds to a transparent system of justice, where the least of us is given his day in court, with a lawyer if need be, paid by the taxpayers.
 

The Independent, Iraq's oil: The spoils of war: Iraqis face the dire prospect of losing up to $200bn (£116bn) of the wealth of their country if an American-inspired plan to hand over development of its oil reserves to US and British multinationals comes into force next year. A report produced by American and British pressure groups warns Iraq will be caught in an "old colonial trap" if it allows foreign companies to take a share of its vast energy reserves. The report is certain to reawaken fears that the real purpose of the 2003 war on Iraq was to ensure its oil came under Western control.

The Iraqi government has announced plans to seek foreign investment to exploit its oil reserves after the general election, which will be held next month. Iraq has 115 billion barrels of proved oil reserves, the third largest in the world.

According to the report, from groups including War on Want and the New Economics Foundation (NEF), the new Iraqi constitution opened the way for greater foreign investment. Negotiations with oil companies are already under way ahead of next month's election and before legislation is passed, it said.

The groups said they had amassed details of high-level pressure from the US and UK governments on Iraq to look to foreign companies to rebuild its oil industry. ...

Earlier this year a BBC Newsnight report claimed to have uncovered documents showing the Bush administration made plans to secure Iraqi oil even before the 9/11 terrorist attacks on the US. Based on its analysis of PSAs in seven countries, it said multinationals would seek rates of return on their investment from 42 to 162 per cent, far in excess of typical 12 per cent rates.

Louise Richards, chief executive of War on Want, said: "People have increasingly come to realise the Iraq war was about oil, profits and plunder. Despite claims from politicians that this is a conspiracy theory, our report gives detailed evidence to show Iraq's oil profits are well within the sights of the oil multinationals."

Gregg Muttitt, of Platform, a campaign group that co-authored the report, said Iraq had an existing - albeit damaged - network of oil expertise and could use current revenues or new borrowings to fund investment. The report named several companies, including the Anglo-Dutch Shell group, as jockeying for position before a new government is elected. In 2003, Walter van de Vijver, then head of exploration and production, said investors would need "some assurance of future income and a supportive contractual arrangement". The group said yesterday that the involvement of foreign oil companies would be determined by the new Iraqi administration. "We aspire to establish a long-term presence in Iraq and a long-term relationship with the Iraqis, including the newly elected government."
 

Dear Imad,
I see you've reminded your readers of the tiger episode -- still leaves a bitter taste in my mouth.

In 1999 I wrote about the two remaining tigers in the Baghdad zoo. The chief vet gave me an interview about his animals on the grounds that I bring them some flu medicine when I next returned.

With help from the Regents Park Zoo vet in London, I was able to fulfil the promise.

A group of school children in Toronto were so shocked by the story of the deprived zoo animals that they scraped up about $300 for more medicine.

I got that to the vet on my subsequent trip.

In a typical Iraqi gesture, I was entered in a zoo record book as "honorary mother of tigers" -- the most amazing thing I've ever been called.

Incidentally, I managed to get into the museum just before the war, and saw its incredible treasures, as well as the sad imitations that replaced some that were already looted or carried off by foreign treasure hunters over the years.

When the museum was stripped, and the tiger shot, I was utterly depressed. It seemed the beginning of the end. And alas, I was right.
 

Annotated Life, Opposition, Continued: We must recognize the deaths of not only unarmed but also armed Iraqis who have been brutally murdered as working class casualties.

In order to do that we must recognize the so-called insurgency as a resistance to colonial occupation fought overwhelmingly by Iraqi citizens. If there are rights and duties in the anti-war movement, they find their most concentrated form in the right and duty of Iraqi fathers and sons to defend themselves, their families, and their homes from Imperialist aggression.
 

Dave Lindorff, Troop Cuts After 12/15? What a Line of Bull! It's Stealth Escalation: We've been through this before, because that's actually what happened last year at this time, when the troop levels were raised on the pretext of the interim government voting and constitution voting. Each escalation was presented as a temporary measure designed to help combat election-linked terror attacks, but each was actually a move to boost troop strength as the situation continues to deteriorate for the U.S. occupation.

Now they're at it again.

The truth: things keep getting worse in Iraq, not better, and the only way to get our troops out of there will be by giving up, admitting that it's a lost cause, and bringing them all home.
 

Car bomber kills 34 outside hospital near Baghdad
 

Keep you eye out for more killings.

Remember the British Special forces troopers captured, after shooting a Policeman?
They were held cpative by Iraqi police then later freed by British forces who launched an assault on the prison.

Then the reports of Security personnel opening fire on any vehicles on Baghdad streets, that come close to them.