Inside the 'Axis of Evil'
All Posts post a reply | post a new topic

AuthorTopic: Inside the 'Axis of Evil'
topic by
real watcher
6/16/2002 (14:21)
 reply top
June 7, 2002
INSIDE THE AXIS OF EVIL
Iraq waits and worries about a U.S. attack.
By Jeremy Scahill

Baghdad—After 12 years of devastating
economic sanctions and regular U.S. bombings,
Iraqis have become accustomed to history
repeating itself through successive U.S.
administrations. With “little Bush,” as Iraqis
call the current U.S. president, threatening to
change the regime in Baghdad, people are again
bracing themselves for war.

Baghdad TV has been broadcasting
videos of Iraqi special forces training for
a U.S. invasion, and the chant “Down,
down Bush” (originally aimed at Bush’s
father during the Gulf War) is making a
comeback in Iraqi cities and villages.

For many here, the question isn’t
whether Bush will attack, but rather
when and under what pretext. Late last
month, the United Nations announced
that a new round of talks with Iraqi
officials, aimed at returning U.N.
weapons inspectors to Iraq, will be held
in Vienna in early July. As with the
U.S. bombing in December 1998, all
signals point to the inspections issue as a
possible breaking point for war.

In an interview at his office in Baghdad,
Tariq Aziz, deputy prime minister and a member of the Revolutionary Command Council,
Iraq’s central decision-making body, told In These Times that the Bush administration
may seek to use the inspectors “to prepare the ground for a military attack.”

“Iraq is not producing any weapons of mass destruction,” Aziz insists. “All the pretexts
which are being used against Iraq and its leadership are false pretexts. The issue is oil; the
issue is to impose American imperialistic control over Iraq.”

Aziz says the Vienna talks will not be helpful unless weapons inspectors return as part of a
comprehensive U.N. plan to end Iraq’s isolation. “The inspectors stayed in Iraq for around
eight years,” he says, “and they did not report honestly to the Security Council that their
mission had been accomplished. If they return and go back to the previous vicious circle,
that’s not going to solve any problems for the people of Iraq.”

Officials in Baghdad want a clear timeline for U.N. inspectors to verify that Iraq is
complying with Security Council resolutions. They say inspectors will be permitted to
enter the country only if the process produces a specific road map for lifting economic
sanctions. But the Bush administration, like Clinton’s before it, says bluntly that this will
not happen as long as Saddam Hussein is in power. Asked if he believed sanctions would
ever be lifted with Saddam in power, Aziz says, “I don’t have illusions about the policies of
the United States.”

The sanctions were first imposed in 1990 to force Iraq’s withdrawal from Kuwait.
Following the Gulf War, they were amended to require certified destruction of Iraq’s
non-conventional weapons. After repeated crises over the issue of weapons inspections, key
officials during the Clinton administration, including the president himself, consistently
undermined U.N. negotiations with Iraq by insisting on “regime change” as another
precondition for lifting sanctions. This policy has been codified under the current Bush
administration.

But despite the hostilities emanating from Washington, Iraq’s actions are giving ordinary
people here some hope that war could be averted. In recent months, when U.S. officials like
Vice President Dick Cheney toured the region to drum up support for attacks against Iraq,
Baghdad dispatched its own diplomats to each capital in advance to shore up opposition.

The stepped-up diplomacy occurs at the same time that Iraq has resumed trade with
several countries in the region, including Saudi Arabia, Syria, Turkey, Jordan and
Lebanon. At least publicly, there is almost no support in the region for a new U.S. war
against Iraq.

Meanwhile, veteran Iraqi diplomats are doing their best to sound upbeat. “We are ready to
cooperate, we are ready for dialogue. We are keeping the ends open,” says Nizar Hamdoun,
who served as Iraq’s ambassador to the U.N. from 1992 to 1998. “Let’s not panic. I don’t
think war is inevitable. There are always ways of short-cutting such plans.”

For the past 12 years, most ordinary Iraqis have subsisted in utter misery, trapped
between a repressive regime and devastating sanctions. Many Iraqis live in fear of the
government. Saddam’s name is almost never uttered in any context on the streets, or in
the souks and taxis.

Still, people here universally view Washington as their main oppressor. They live with the
stark reality that the source of their misery—the sanctions—feeds and nurtures the power
of a repressive government over which they have no control. Conservative estimates,
drawn from U.N. data, conclude that more than a quarter of a million children under the
age of five have died as a direct result of the sanctions. Other estimates put the number
much higher.

More than a decade after Washington’s “triumph” in the Gulf War, “little” Bush is
resurrecting his father’s unfulfilled promise to bring down Saddam. Iraqis are not alone in
the Arab world when they ask, at what cost? “Has [Bush] thought of how many innocent
Iraqis will have to die, how many cities will have to be razed to the ground, how many
American troops will lose their lives?” asks Baghdad political scientist Jasim Z’boon. “Will
he think of this before he sets off to ‘save’ us?”
reply by
Lynette
6/16/2002 (14:33)
 reply top
Stormin` Normin and Powell wanted to go all the way to Bagdad back in 91 and get that bastard by the throat for good......but the snivelling politicans wouldn't do it! Instead they have allowed a monsterous dictactor make life a living hell for the Iraqi people and it's minorities. The US and Britain opted for sanctions, installing no fly zones and giving money to opposition forces outside Iraq. Some of the stories I hear from Iraqi refugees in Oz would make your blood curdle. In Iraq you don't mess with El Presidente` Saddam or your family will disappear. Leaving this guy in power was one of America's biggest foreign policy blunders since Vietnam.
reply by
McNiels
6/16/2002 (16:01)
 reply top
Lynette,
I do not believe in all the political ideologies of all times. Communism, Riligionisms, Secularism, Patriotism, Globalism, Capitalism, Liberalism, Fundamentalism, Nationalism, Democratisationalism, Help-the-poor-ism, Warmongerism...etc, etc.
We, the Global human race, have a punch of people each one owns more than a hundred billion $, and growing daily. At the background we have one billion human being dying of poverty every day; falling down and down like autumn leaves. If we take a hundred billion $ every year out of the wealthy punch of people and grant every poverty stricken soul one hundred $ per year, the world will be a little bit happier. We do not need non of the above mentioned ideologies to do that..!! We need only a little bit of common sense.
reply by
Alan
6/16/2002 (17:23)
 reply top
But Lynette when has America given a shit about human rights?
That biggest foreign policy blunders since Vietnam, caused utter devastation from indescriminate bombing,napalm,agent orange and blatant massacres. 3 million casualties wasn't it?

That gas old Saddam used wasn't that supplied by America when they were backing Saddam before they decided to jump ship?

At this very moment America has been up to blatant atrocities in Afghanistan.America is responsible for more deaths than every other country put together, in the last forty years.America backs hundreds of sordid regimes supplies more weapons than anyone else.
What about all the American servicemen dropping like flies from 'Gulf War Syndrome'after being used as Guinea Pigs?

You don't think it is because Saddam poses a threat to Bush's little baby Sharon do you? Or should that be Sharon's little baby Bush.

'Gulf War' don't you mean stage managed 'scrap in the sandpit'?

And as for so-called Stormin Norman, what a tosser. One day you might be able to call him a soldier, if he finds someone to pick on who is capable of firing back.
The bravery of being out of range!

So cut out your human rights sob stories because you know that human rights are the last things on America/Yidland's mind.
reply by
Lynette
6/17/2002 (9:07)
 reply top
'Gulf War' don't you mean stage managed 'scrap in the sandpit'?

And as for so-called Stormin Norman, what a tosser. One day you might be able to call him a soldier, if he finds someone to pick on who is capable of firing back.
The bravery of being out of range!

So cut out your human rights sob stories because you know that human rights are the last things on America/Yidland's mind.



True- it's all about:

STRATEGIC CONTROL-OIL-MANIPULATING ECONOMIES-ARMS SALES-STRATEGIC CONTROL-OIL-MANIPULATING ECONOMIES-ARMS SALES.......round and around and around.

In an ideal world it would be nice to have some political and social justice out there for a change.....who knows it may even lead to world peace! Shucks, we couldn't have that now, could we...?

Did anybody watch the Iraqi retreat on their TV sreens? Most of those soldiers were young inexperienced conscripts that only had a few weeks basic training......Saddam had his best (The Republican Guard)troops well hidden. The Americans virtually massacred those retreating soldiers and their pilots fired on them like they were killing people in a mindless video game. That's the part I found sickening. They even killed members of the coalition (British forces) through been too gun-ho. Is killing troops in full retreat permissable under the articles of warfare?
Someone?
reply by
TheAZCowBoy
6/17/2002 (24:02)
 reply top
Personally, I don't think the American and Iraqi people have any quarrel's to settle.

Conversely, I would put DIM BULB and Saddam in a 15' ring and let them duke it out....

I would put my money on ole Saddam, he has balls, something DIM BULB lost to the tooth fairy long ago or was born without!

PS: If Saddam wasn't sitting on one of the biggest pools of oil in the world--he would have no problem's Re: America's SUV gas guzzlers.

TheAZCowBoy,