Iran's troops in the
trenches during the Iran-Iraq War: After inaction in the
face of the gas-massacre
of Kurds in Halabja, and outright support for gas
strikes on Iranians by Saddam during
the Iran-Iraq War, does the U.S. have
the moral authority to decide on its own about who should be punished for
the
use of gas in war - civil or otherwise?
U.S. Targets Iran - this Time without Saddam's Sarin Gas (El Seminal,
Spain)
"I am old enough to remember when Iraq, then
an ally of the United States, employed gas against the Kurds in Hallabjah, no one attacked Bagdad. ... I also remember
that around 1988, the CIA had the nerve to propagate
the theory that it was Iran that had used chemical weapons. ... As is clear to see,
standards and norms are quite pliable. In fact, they are so pliable, one
suspects they are just shameful justifications for designs not mentioned, at
least to the public."
Our man in Baghdad: After arming Saddam and helping him launch sarin gas attacks on Iranians a mere 25 years ago, does the United States have the standing to act on its own to force Syria to stop its use?
When Iraq, then an
ally of the U.S., employed gas against the Kurds in Hallabja,
no one attacked Bagdad. Moreover, the CIA had the nerve to propagate the theory
that in 1988 it was Iran that had used chemical weapons.
It
seems we are on the verge of entering one of the most idiotic wars that the
West has ever waged - but is that really it? No, because the "Tomahawk"
missiles are really aimed at Iran, not Syria. Syria is Iran’s only ally in the
region and Iran is very much involved in the Syrian conflict in support of the
Syrian government; and it is a conflict Bashar al-Assad’s
army appears to be winning. Consequently, a victory for Assad would be a
victory for Iran - and that is intolerable.
No
question - the use of chemical weapons is repugnant to any normal sense of
conscience, but I am old enough to remember when Iraq, then an ally of the
United States, employed gas against the
Kurds in Hallabja, no one attacked Bagdad. That
attack would have to wait until 2003, when there was no gas nor any other so-called
“weapons of mass destruction.”
Posted By
Worldmeets.US
I also remember that around 1988, the CIA had
the nerve to propagate the theory that it was Iran that had used chemical weapons. In that regard, journalist Robert
Fisk has on many occasions recounted the journey he took on a Iranian military train
with soldiers who were victims of gas attack and who suffered terrible
injuries. At the time, Fisk says, and despite far more convincing evidence than
we have today which was provided by U.N. inspectors, Western reporters spoke
only of “alleged” gas victims. But of
course, Saddam was “our ally,” the ally of the West, which today is full throatedly opting for the shadowy path into an unpredictable
war.
Likewise,
when a war unleashed by Israel in 1982 caused 17,000 deaths in Lebanon, allegedly
due to a PLO assassination attempt on the Israeli ambassador to London, the
United States repeatedly called for "restraint" from both sides. No
one considered this a moral justification to make war “in search of peace.”
Ronald Reagan's special
envoy to Iraq, Donald Rumsfeld, arrives
to discuss U.S. aid to
Saddam during the Iran-Iraq War in 1983.
Neither
has anyone considered acting in the two years we've already seen of the Syrian
conflict, during which thousands have died. Now, because of a few hundred
deaths, the call to war is being heard. For what reason? As is clear to see,
standards and norms are quite pliable. In fact, they are so pliable, one
suspects they are just shameful justifications for designs not mentioned, at
least to the public.
