From: jac54@cas.org ()
Subject: Sorting Out the Iraq-Gate Scandal
Organization: Chemical Abstracts Service, Columbus, Ohio
Date: Fri, 21 Aug 1992 17:15:20 GMT

In article <1992Aug20.202231.25239@nntp.hut.fi> jkp@cs.HUT.FI (Jyrki Kuoppala) writes:
>
>Via The NY Transfer News Service ^ All the News that Doesn't Fit
>
>
>               Sorting out the "Iraq-gate" scandal
>
>                          By Tony Murphy
>
>
>The juicy new scandal being hyped in the commercial media.

	True.

>Weapons sales to Iraq
>
>According to the Democrats, Bush built up Saddam Hussein by
>supporting him militarily with government-backed loans which were
>used to finance Iraq's weapons program. Congressional
>investigators say this means the Bush administration either
>knowingly financed Iraq's military, or ignored evidence that its
>aid was used for military purposes.

	I just checked the "World Defence Almanac for 1990-91"
	(last year of an intact Iraqi military).  The Iraqi military
	is remarkable for its lack of U.S. equipment.  Interesting.

>There is nothing earth-shattering about U.S. military aid to
>another country. It's done all the time, and always in order to
>enhance the interests of the U.S. global military-corporate
>complex. The Pentagon has found military aid very useful in
>penetrating other countries' defense structures and winning pliant
>collaborators. When weapons are sold to Third World countries, you
>can be sure they are inferior to those in the hands of the
>imperialists.

	The aid only helps the use military-industrial complex if
	they buy U.S., which the Iraqis didn't.  If we're talking
	about its use as an aspect of foreign policy, that isn't up
	to the Pentagon, they are told what to do by...............

	The President and Congress.
>
This country of 18 million people,
>whose social policies in health, education and separation of
>church and state are certainly among the more progressive in the
>Arab world, has been reduced to the personification of evil in the
>capitalist press.

	The Ba'athists (here goes MY visa to Iraq) also happen to
	be one of the most repressive regimes left.  How many
	Iraqis have emigrated to escape persecution, been murdered
	or imprisoned and tortured for disagreeing with the regime?
	Until you can answer these questions, don't give one-sided
	praise to their (overrated) social programmes.  As far as
	separation of church and state is concerned, I think you'll
	find that much of the separation is due to the Ba'athists
	attacking Islam to weaken its social basis.  We are not
	talking benign ignorance.  Southern Shi'tes revolted because
	of the persecution they had been suffering for many years.

>Kuwait, on the other hand, which once was described as "less a
>country than a family-owned oil corporation with a flag," suddenly
>was turned into a bastion of democracy through the magic of the
>media.

	Depends how gullible you are

>Iraq became `the enemy' before invasion
>
> Or the dire predictions
>of chemical, biological and even nuclear attacks by "the monster
>Saddam"? All were later proven untrue.

	The status of the nuclear and biological weapons
	programmes was not clear, but nobody said anything
	about nuclear attacks.  On the other hand the Iraqis HAD
	used chemicals aplenty.  The only thing stopping them
	was probably what the U.S. might do to retaliate.

>This campaign's most essential and enduring element has been the
>portrayal of Iraq as a military powerhouse, able to achieve
>nuclear capability at any moment. The media have focused their
>full attention on Iraq's nuclear weapons program--which UN
>officials recently stated is at least three years away from making
>one crude atomic bomb--all the while ignoring Israel's 300
>U.S.-financed nuclear warheads.

	You aren't implying that U.S. governments tend to
	be pro-Israeli are you (horror! shock! amazement!)?

>By this logic, Iraq became so powerful the U.S. had to go to war
>against it. Many claim that if the U.S. hadn't armed Iraq, the
>Gulf War would not have been necessary.

	American-made T-72s and Mig-29s?

>Who was looking for a war?
>
>The truth is that Washington wanted and sought a war with Iraq as
>a pretext for intervention in the Persian Gulf.
>Ever since the rise of liberation struggles...

	There are cheaper ways to obtain influence, they are also
	much less nasty.  War is the final argument (of kings).

>
>The attack on Iraq was a continuation of this policy of U.S.
>control over the Persian Gulf--not a policy blunder, as it is
>being portrayed.

	My God!  The man is suggesting that the State Dept.
	didn't screw up!
>
>The U.S. drive to crush Iraq began around 1988, when military
>strategists identified war-weary Iraq as a Persian Gulf threat.
>Bob Woodward's book "The Commanders" reports that in 1989, the
>Pentagon revised war plan 1002, renaming it 1002-90. In this plan,
>Iraq, worn down after eight years of war with Iran, replaced the
>USSR as the Persian Gulf threat. The Oct. 15, 1990, Wall St.
>Journal reported that the plan's overhaul, ordered by Joint Chiefs
>of Staff chair Gen. Colin Powell, allowed the Pentagon to "plop
>down a plan for the fastest large-scale deployment of U.S. forces
>since World War II" just after Kuwait was invaded.

	Damned unsporting! Planning ahead!

>According to the British journal New Statesman, the National
>Security Council presented a white paper to President Bush three
>months before Kuwait's invasion, describing Iraq and Saddam
>Hussein as "the optimum contenders to replace the Warsaw Pact."
>This was the rationale for continued Cold War-level military
>spending. So much for the peace dividend.

	You don't seem to understand the concept of threat
	assessment, neither have you done your homework on
	how much disarmament costs.

>New strategies and disinformation
>
>Iraq became the new target of U.S. intervention because it was no
>longer needed as an ally against Iran, where the revolutionary
>intervention of the masses had ebbed. Also, the rise of
>counter-revolution in the USSR meant the U.S. could now wage war
>against a Third World country unopposed; it even got the
>acquiescence of the new Soviet leaders in the UN Security Council.

	Yes, much less complex than a Third World dictator not
	having a clue about the world beyond his borders.

>After the Iran-Iraq war, while the U.S. provided Iraq with credits
>and dual-use equipment that helped maintain a facade of support
>and cooperation, it cynically spread disinformation to justify its
>war plans. This strategy was well understood in the Middle East:
>The Arab League Council issued a statement in April 1990 that it
>"viewed with extreme concern the political statements and the
>unjust, hostile and tendentious media campaign against Iraq."
>
>Most important, the U.S. colluded with Kuwait to wage economic war
>against Iraq. An internal Kuwaiti government memo in 1989 shows
>Kuwaiti and CIA intent to use "broad cooperation ... at a high
>level" to "take advantage of the deteriorating economic situation

	Hmm, where did this memo come from?

>in Iraq." Iraq's social successes were looked on with great
>nervousness by the Kuwaiti princes, who ruled dictatorially in a
>country where only a small minority could attain citizenship and
>the majority worked under slave-like conditions.

	Yes, the Ba'athists had really whipped their rebellious
	Shi'tes into shape.

>Kuwait deliberately overproduced oil and drove down the
>agreed-upon OPEC price, shattering Iraq's efforts to rebuild after
>the Iran-Iraq war. Kuwait also refused during this time to
>negotiate border disagreements with Iraq, adopting a hard-line
>stance toward a neighbor with whom it had traditionally been
>cautious.
>
>Deliberate enticement?

	Yes, they really wanted to have the country overrun and pillaged
	and use up all their assets rebuilding.
>
>In the meantime, the U.S. facade of support led Iraq to believe
>Washington would not intervene if the struggle with Kuwait
>escalated. This came to light with the publication of an interview
>between U.S. Ambassador to Iraq April Glaspie and Saddam Hussein.
>With Iraqi troops gathered on Kuwait's border, the U.S. diplomat
>had assured the Iraqi leader that the U.S. had "no opinion" on his
>"border disagreement" with Kuwait.

	There is a difference between "no opinion" and not caring.
	A diplomatic nicety perhaps, but something that Iraqi
	diplomats should have been aware of.
>
>A week later, after the invasion, the U.S. rushed troops, weapons
>and warships to the Persian Gulf, and the "border disagreement"
>became "naked aggression."

	How perceptive!

>The Iraq-gate approach ignores these facts entirely, buying
>President Bush's dishonest stance that his policy of cooperation
>with Iraq was intended to bring Saddam Hussein into the "family of
>nations."
>
	Sounds like his China policy, maybe Vietnam will be defended
	from China in time for the election.

>As the U.S. government once again plays "war games" in the Persian
>Gulf, the New York Times and Washington Post are claiming that
>Hussein is "stronger than ever." Once again, the public is being
>persuaded that overwhelming military force must be launched
>against Iraq.

>       We're talking about his personal political power here, not
	his military.  They have been rebuilt, but I'd reckon they're
	a touch gun shy right now.

>Democratic presidential candidate Bill Clinton has endorsed such
>force, showing that the Democrats pose no alternative to those who
>want to stop the brutal Pentagon military machine. Last time, the
>U.S. killed 250,000 Iraqis;

	Stuff and nonsense!  Don't go bandying about figures
	you can't support.  Most estimates lie well below
	this figure.

>and disease as a result of the murderous UN sanctions. How many
>will suffer this time for the protection of oil company profits?

	Maybe they should comply with the cease fire agreements.

>
>Tony Murphy is a researcher for the Commission of Inquiry and
>International War Crimes Tribunal that found the U.S. guilty of
>crimes against Iraq.

	Ah yes, objectivity!

	Alec Chambers.