Posted 11:36 AM by Steve
It’s not a new accusation that the United States “abetted Saddam’s rise to power” but repeating it doesn’t make it any more true. Here is some history:

After the assassination of Iraqi president Kassem in 1963 by army officers, Colonel 'Abd as-Salam Arif became president. He was killed in 1966 in a plane crash and the presidency passed to his brother. Serious economic crises and continual struggle with
Kurdish dissidents weakened the regime. On July 17, 1968, Baath party officers staged a bloodless coup, ushering in what is currently the Baathist regime in Iraq. The Baath party, rules two Arab countries overtly -- Syria and Iraq. In Iraq, the party has
both civilian and military wings and is dedicated to pan-Arabism, anti-colonialism, the destruction of Israel, and a socialist economy.

The Revolutionary Command Council, made up of military officers, ruled the country. In 1969, the Council was expanded to 15 members and included civilians. In 1971, an obscure civilian, Saddam Hussein al-Tikriti, became vice-chairman of the Council. By 1979, the civilian arm of the Baath party, led by Hussein, exerted predominance over the military arm and rivals by slandering the military members with accusations of treason, removing them from power and executing them. This cleared the way for Saddam
Hussein to become president when President Bakr stepped down for health reasons.

The U.S. actually supplied IRAN with weapons to a greater degree than Iraq. In fact, both superpowers, the United States and the Soviet Union, were caught off-guard by the start of the war. The United States, of course, had been attempting to solve the hostage crisis since before the war started and was not on friendly terms with Iran.

At the time, the U.S. had not had diplomatic relations with Soviet-backed Iraq since 1968. The Soviets had not been welcomed in Iran by the Shah, and were tied down in Afghanistan. Khomeini, a religious fanatic, was definitely not willing to deal with the
Soviets. When Iraq invaded, the Soviets immediately stopped supplying weapons since Iraq had not consulted them concerning the attack. The Soviet Union did, however, sign a treaty of “Peace and Friendship” with
IRAQ after the war began and supplied weaponry during the conflict


It would seem that neither superpower has any desire to see either side win the war. The balance of power in the region was at stake and a decision remained delicately poised. When the war started, both superpowers calculated that it would be over
quickly, at which time they could influence the winners and losers. A wait-and-see attitude prevailed, and, as the world waited, the war continued with less and less chance of superpower involvement.

Iran, under the Shah, HAD purchased U.S. weapons. Iraq, though beginning to diversify in 1979, had purchased mainly SOVIET weaponry. Admittedly, both countries relied on superpower assistance to provide spare parts and provide advisors for training and
operations.

The day the war started, the Soviet Union stopped further sales of arms to Iraq as a kind of retribution for not being informed of Iraqi plans to invade Iran. Iran, of course, had been cut off from U.S. assistance since the hostage crisis had begun.

As the war progressed, re-supply of weapons and spare parts became essential. Oil revenues could, of course, be used to purchase weapons. There were many countries throughout the world willing to act as suppliers since big money was involved.
Money is a powerful tool in third world countries. Advanced technology weapons are highly sought after and appear readily available, even though the arms suppliers operate beyond the bounds of "normal" international relations.

The Iraqis soon obtained weapons from Warsaw Pact nations, China, Egypt, North Korea, the Soviet Union and, most notably, France. As of 1985, France had reportedly supplied Iraq with over $9,000,000,000 of quality weaponry.

The U.N embargo after the first Gulf War did not include food or medicine, but somehow the millions of Iraqi people were malnourished and lacking in basic medical treatment while Iraq’s elite built palaces and stockpiled weapons. Iraq dragged their feet for five years on the UN’s Food-for-Oil program and caused the suffering of millions of Iraqi citizens. Isn't it time we stopped looking the other way in order to avoid action?

Posted 1:41 AM by Steve
Your happy thought of the day:

Iraq possesses 2,850 tons of mustard gas. It blisters the skin, eyes, and lungs. Bronchopneumonia, permanent pulmonary damage, and death can follow. Hussein unleashed mustard gas in Panjwin in October-November 1983, leaving 3,000 Iranian and Kurdish casualties. He likewise killed or injured another 2,500 Iranians on Majnoon Island in February-March 1984. An April 1987 mustard-gas attack left 5,000 Iranians dead or wounded in al-Basrah.

Hussein has 210 tons of tabun gas. According to the Army's Soldier and Biological Chemical Command, inhalation or tactile absorption prompts confusion, drooling, nausea, coma, cessation of breathing, and death. Hussein deployed tabun and mustard gas against some 3,000 Iranians at Hawizah Marsh in March 1985 and 5,000 more at al-Basrah in April 1987.

Originally developed as an insecticide in Nazi Germany in 1938, sarin gas is a highly lethal nerve agent, of which Iraq controls 795 tons. It produces headaches, anxiety, vomiting, convulsions, involuntary excretion and fatal respiratory arrest. Hussein reportedly used sarin and mustard gas against 3,000 Iranians in October 1987 at Sumar/Mehran. Several hundred Iranians and Kurds similarly were exterminated in Halabjah in March 1988.

Hussein also owns six grams of plutonium and 400 tons of uranium — perfect for radiological "dirty" bombs or thermonuclear weapons.

France, Germany Russia, the Arab-League and millions of intellectually-challenged protesters think that this is all just peachy and that we shouldn't remove Saddam and his totalitarian regime from power. Hmmmmmmm.

Posted 2:57 PM by Steve
These are the times that try men's souls. September 11th 2001. A day we will never forget. With the flaming debris and the choking dust still lingering in the air it was revealed to many Americans that the utopia we enjoy is the exception to the rule in the world. There are those outside (and inside) our borders that hate America and free and democratic ideals we stand for. President Bush and the Congress of the United States echoed the sentiment of the American people in calling for a "War on Terrorism". The word "war" has been abused during the years of peace and prosperity we have all enjoyed. "War" has been used inappropriately. We've had "wars" on drugs, poverty, homelessness, breast cancer, etc.and nearly rendered the word meaningless.

War is the act of individuals fighting and killing other enemy combatants. Anyone who has every been in a physical fight knows that it is frightening, painful and traumatic. We like to think of tanks, planes, missiles and even bullets doing all the dirty work, but in the end, it's individuals who have to drive the tanks, fly the planes, fire the missiles and shoot the bullets. After 9/11, when President Bush talked about a war, let's not kid ourselves; We knew what he meant. Our understanding was best shown by the somber and depressed mood of the nation. It wasn't that we were mourning the deaths of innocent people, our countrymen, who perished in the Trade Centers, the Pentagon, and on the planes. We were mourning the death of our innocence. We were disturbed and upset that we were going to have to act in order to maintain our level of peace, security and freedom. Americans have opulent and wonderful lives by world standards and we have a tendency to get lazy. We harbor the false hope that we can do nothing and continue post 9/11 as we did pre 9/11. Then reality sets in, we understand the sacrifices of the generations before us and our responsibility to the generations who will follow us. The immature individual thinks to himself: "Gee, I have a pretty good life. Maybe I can just coast and co-exist with everyone and not rock the boat. We'll be O.K. I mean, heck, it wasn't me or my family that died in the attacks of 9/11." This fear causes us to grasp for security. But for every fear there is the other side of the coin: Hope.

We Americans, maybe because of our great lives, are a very much a "glass-half-full" nation. We have the hope that all people have the dream and basic human spirit to desire freedom and prosperity. We enjoy what we have and love nothing more than stories about other people enjoying what they have. We have the hope that we can defeat global terrorism. We have a certain optimism that if only people knew what we know, just how great our country is and how full our lives are, they would want to be just like us.

Our dream for the world is a truly righteous vision of freedom and democracy. In other words, the generous America spirit wants for others no less that what we have. In contrast, totalitarian regimes envy freedom and democracy. They wish to enforce their will on other nations. They wish to make other nations more like them, not so any nation can enjoy prosperity but so all nations will equally share misery.

By now you're asking how does this relate to the war in Iraq? First of all, events like 9/11 and Islamic terrorism in general, cannot occur without some level of state-sponsorship. History has shown that without state-sponsorship, terrorist cells are small, ineffective and disorganized. Training, logistical support, weapons and safe harbor can be provided by countries like Iraq, Iran, North Korea, Syria, Libya or even supposed allies like Saudi Arabia or Pakistan.

So, the first simple basic reason to dissarm Iraq and Saddam Hussein is to make it harder for terrorists to receive training, logistical support, weapons and safe harbor. The fact that other nations provide the same benefits for terrorists is NOT a valid argument for NOT liberating Iraq.

The second basic reason to dissarm Iraq and Saddam Hussein is because of the extensive human rights violations in Iraq. Not only has Hussein used civilians as shields to protect military installations, he has systematically abused, tortured, kidnapped and raped his own civilians. Under Saddam Hussein, ethnic minorities in Iraq have been murdered by the thousands and one village, Halabja, was mustard and nerve gassed in the largest single "hate" crime in human history. The U.N. sanctions do not include food or medical supplies, but somehow thousands of Iraqi's are malnourished and lacking medical supplies while the current corrupt regime builds palaces and stockpiles weapons.

The third basic reason to dissarm Saddam Hussein and liberate Iraq is because he has violated interational laws (the Geneva convention) and 12 U.N. resolutions. If the U.N. is to have any legitimacy, it must not prove ineffectual. The UN cannot become simply a political tool for various nations to leverage power against the United States. An example of true UN success was South Africa. South Africa was pro-active and cooperative in the dismantling of it's nuclear weapons in order to regain legitimacy in the eyes of the world. Iraq has been anything but cooperative.

Looking at the arguments against dissarming Saddam Hussein and liberating Iraq, one reason we can throw out the window is the "world will hate us" argument. Some people in the world hate us because we can even debate whether to act to liberate Iraq. They don't like living in a world where a single "super-power", the United States, can dictate the course of history. To that argument I say this: "Tough." The United States, by our industry and military strength can and should "throw it's weight" around for the good of the world. It's not as if the U.S. is considering liberating Europe from the economic oppression called "socialism" that many across the pond suffer under. We are mobilizing our military to remove from power a war criminal who controls his nation with a totalitarian fascist regime, who terrorizes his own people in a country with terror ties and weapons of mass desruction. From that perspective it makes sense, doesn't it?

Another argument is the "let the inspections work" or "containment" tactic. This is even more preposterous. President Bill Clinton said WAY back in 1998 that "even if (the inspectors) were allowed to stay, their work would be a sham. Instead of the inspectors dissarming Saddam Hussein, he would in effect, be dissarming them." You see even perfect "inspections" don't actually solve the problem. They merely report findings. Do you hire an "inspector" or an exterminator to rid your house of pests? The inspector can only tell you if they you have a problem. The exterminator actually fixes the problem.