Article: Dick Cheney - War Profiteer

[jojo22]

The Kurds live in a region called Kurdistan, which covers parts of Iraq, Turkey and Iran.

The Kurds have long desired to create an independent nation in Kurdistan.

Militant Kurdish separatists have been fighting for decades with the aforesaid governments further to their goal of nationhood.

So have these militant separatists being striking out with terror attacks on those Governments?

[Guest]

The Kurds live in a region called Kurdistan, which covers parts of Iraq, Turkey and Iran.

The Kurds have long desired to create an independent nation in Kurdistan.

Militant Kurdish separatists have been fighting for decades with the aforesaid governments further to their goal of nationhood.

So have these militant separatists being striking out with terror attacks on those Governments?

Big time.

Any time you read about a terrorist bombing in Turkey -- and there have been many over decades now (the most recent was a couple months ago) -- the perpetrators are a Kurdish separatist group called PKK. Although to a lesser extent than Saddam, the Turks have massacred Kurds and razed hundreds of Kurdish villages in Turkish Kurdistan. The approximate number of Kurds killed (including women, children and the elderly who all die when a village is burned to the ground) is in excess of 30,000. Other than its illegal occupation of Cyprus, Turkey's human rights violations against the Kurds are a major reason it is being kept out of the EU.

The Kurdish separatists in Iraq and Turkey (and to a lesser extent in Iran) are not only relentless in their terrorism, but also naturally adept guerilla warriors who have mastered the topography of their region. It must be frustrating for a government to have such an incessant destabilizing element within its borders.

Save for three military coups since the founding of modern Turkey in the 1920's, Turkey has been a democracy. Turkey is the most secular and cosmopolitan Muslim country. Not blessed with massive reserves of a valuable commodity such as oil, Turkey's economy is dependent on international trade. Consequently, Turkey is necessarily sensitive to world opinion. As a result, even with the human rights violations, Turkey has been relatively restrained in dealing with Kurdish separatists -- and I mean relatively.

Saddam was a different story. As a dictator of a major oil-producing country who didn't care about world opinion, Saddam was not subject to any constraints in dealing with Iraq's Kurdish separatists. Saddam's solution to Iraq's Kurdish problem was to wipe out all the Kurds within Iraq. Figuring he could kill two birds with one stone, Saddam decided to use Kurdish villages as testing grounds for Iraqi chemical weapons. The “tests” were successful – the chemical weapons worked.

The following excerpt from a March 14, 2003 U.S. State Department report that I posted previously describes what happened:

Saddam Hussein is the first world leader in modern times to have brutally used chemical weapons against his own people. His goals were to systematically terrorize and exterminate the Kurdish population in northern Iraq, to silence his critics, and to test the effectiveness of his chemical and biological weapons. Hussein launched chemical attacks against 40 Kurdish villages and thousands of innocent civilians in 1987-88, using them as testing grounds. The worst of these attacks devastated the city of Halabja on March 16, 1988.

5,000 civilians, many of them women, children, and the elderly, died within hours of the attack. 10,000 more were blinded, maimed, disfigured, or otherwise severely and irreversibly debilitated.

Link: http://www.state.gov/r/pa/ei/rls/18714.htm

The actions of Kurdish separatists do not excuse or justify Saddam's butchery and barbarity, but they do explain what was afoot.

[Guest]

The Kurds live in a region called Kurdistan, which covers parts of Iraq, Turkey and Iran.

The Kurds have long desired to create an independent nation in Kurdistan.

Militant Kurdish separatists have been fighting for decades with the aforesaid governments further to their goal of nationhood.

So have these militant separatists being striking out with terror attacks on those Governments?

Big time.

Any time you read about a terrorist bombing in Turkey -- and there have been many over decades now (the most recent was a couple months ago) -- the perpetrators are a Kurdish separatist group called PKK. Although to a lesser extent than Saddam, the Turks have massacred Kurds and razed hundreds of Kurdish villages in Turkish Kurdistan. The approximate number of Kurds killed (including women, children and the elderly who all die when a village is burned to the ground) is in excess of 30,000. Other than its illegal occupation of Cyprus, Turkey's human rights violations against the Kurds are a major reason it is being kept out of the EU.

The Kurdish separatists in Iraq and Turkey (and to a lesser extent in Iran) are not only relentless in their terrorism, but also naturally adept guerilla warriors who have mastered the topography of their region. It must be frustrating for a government to have such an incessant destabilizing element within its borders.

Save for three military coups since the founding of modern Turkey in the 1920's, Turkey has been a democracy. Turkey is the most secular and cosmopolitan Muslim country. Not blessed with massive reserves of a valuable commodity such as oil, Turkey's economy is dependent on international trade. Consequently, Turkey is necessarily sensitive to world opinion. As a result, even with the human rights violations, Turkey has been relatively restrained in dealing with Kurdish separatists -- and I mean relatively.

Saddam was a different story. As a dictator of a major oil-producing country who didn't care about world opinion, Saddam was not subject to any constraints in dealing with Iraq's Kurdish separatists. Saddam's solution to Iraq's Kurdish problem was to wipe out all the Kurds within Iraq. Figuring he could kill two birds with one stone, Saddam decided to use Kurdish villages as testing grounds for Iraqi chemical weapons. The “tests” were successful – the chemical weapons worked.

The following excerpt from a March 14, 2003 U.S. State Department report that I posted previously describes what happened:

Saddam Hussein is the first world leader in modern times to have brutally used chemical weapons against his own people. His goals were to systematically terrorize and exterminate the Kurdish population in northern Iraq, to silence his critics, and to test the effectiveness of his chemical and biological weapons. Hussein launched chemical attacks against 40 Kurdish villages and thousands of innocent civilians in 1987-88, using them as testing grounds. The worst of these attacks devastated the city of Halabja on March 16, 1988.

5,000 civilians, many of them women, children, and the elderly, died within hours of the attack. 10,000 more were blinded, maimed, disfigured, or otherwise severely and irreversibly debilitated.

Link: http://www.state.gov/r/pa/ei/rls/18714.htm

The actions of Kurdish separatists do not excuse or justify Saddam's butchery and barbarity, but they do explain what was afoot.

I overlooked one fact: Kurdistan also includes part of Syria.

Here's a map: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Kurdish_lands_92_cropped.jpg

Turkey has the largest Kurdish population, about 15 million.

Iraq has about 5.5 million Kurds

Iran has about 4 million Kurds.

Syria has about 2 million Kurds.

[jojo22]

Thanks for the info

[Guest]

Valid points that you raise, although to be held in weight with your later comment about the likelihood of Iraq retaining it's current boundaries and achieving democracy.

Two different people posting, but to answer your question, every country has to deal with diversity. It requires leaders able to understand their consitutancy as well as the issues facing their country to resolve the problems.

[jojo22]

Valid points that you raise, although to be held in weight with your later comment about the likelihood of Iraq retaining it's current boundaries and achieving democracy.

Two different people posting, but to answer your question, every country has to deal with diversity. It requires leaders able to understand their consitutancy as well as the issues facing their country to resolve the problems.

I wonder how Iraq would respond to a leader who was not religiously affiliated in any way - I think it would be difficult for them to find and agree on such an impartial person though.

[Guest]

Valid points that you raise, although to be held in weight with your later comment about the likelihood of Iraq retaining it's current boundaries and achieving democracy.

Two different people posting, but to answer your question, every country has to deal with diversity. It requires leaders able to understand their consitutancy as well as the issues facing their country to resolve the problems.

I wonder how Iraq would respond to a leader who was not religiously affiliated in any way - I think it would be difficult for them to find and agree on such an impartial person though.

Saddam was not religiously affiliated during all but the last months of his regime when he invoked Islam to spin the impending American invasion of Iraq as a war by infidels against a Muslim country in hopes of turning it into a jihad (holy war).

The Baath Party is a secular, Arab nationalist party.

[jojo22]

Valid points that you raise, although to be held in weight with your later comment about the likelihood of Iraq retaining it's current boundaries and achieving democracy.

Two different people posting, but to answer your question, every country has to deal with diversity. It requires leaders able to understand their consitutancy as well as the issues facing their country to resolve the problems.

I wonder how Iraq would respond to a leader who was not religiously affiliated in any way - I think it would be difficult for them to find and agree on such an impartial person though.

Saddam was not religiously affiliated during all but the last months of his regime when he invoked Islam to spin the impending American invasion of Iraq as a war by infidels against a Muslim country in hopes of turning it into a jihad (holy war).

The Baath Party is a secular, Arab nationalist party.

Yes, that was my take on it too - but others argue that because he was raised in a Sunni village and he supressed the Shia, then he must have still had Sunni sympathies so was not impartial. I think that is a valid point.

[Guest]

It was his base of power. He had to dole out power to keep his base. He didn't seem to be very religious however. Not very religious at all.

[jojo22]

So the Sunni were just a strategic affiliation.

[Guest]

So the Sunni were just a strategic affiliation.

Saddam was Sunni by birth but secular in practice.

His primary allegiance has always been to those from his native village, Tikrit. Many of his closest advisers up until he was deposed were Tikritis.

Although Saddam was not part of Iraq's intelligentsia, the Iraqi Sunni elite were and are in large part secular in practice.

As a young member of the revolutionary pan-Arab Ba'ath Party, Saddam embraced the populist pan-Arab nationalist political philosophy of Egyptian leader Gamal Abdel Nasser.

Recognizing how divisive religion was in Iraq, Saddam never emphasized his religious affiliation until just before the 2003 U.S. invasion of Iraq, when he resorted to invoking Islam out of desperation.

[jojo22]

So the Sunni were just a strategic affiliation.

Saddam was Sunni by birth but secular in practice.

His primary allegiance has always been to those from his native village, Tikrit. Many of his closest advisers up until he was deposed were Tikritis.

Although Saddam was not part of Iraq's intelligentsia, the Iraqi Sunni elite were and are in large part secular in practice.

As a young member of the revolutionary pan-Arab Ba'ath Party, Saddam embraced the populist pan-Arab nationalist political philosophy of Egyptian leader Gamal Abdel Nasser.

Recognizing how divisive religion was in Iraq, Saddam never emphasized his religious affiliation until just before the 2003 U.S. invasion of Iraq, when he resorted to invoking Islam out of desperation.

What do you think he hoped to achieve by invoking Islam? Was it to try and unify his Sunni and Shiite peoples against a common outside threat? Was it to try and get support from the wider Middle East community? I think instead it played into western assumptions (and propaganda to support such) that leaders in the Middle East countries are religious irrational zealots. Though note that Osama didn't want a bar of it, labelling Saddam an 'infidel'.

Although both of them were raised in the Sunni branch of Islam, Osama must have thought Saddam an infidel for his secularist approach. Interesting word 'infidel' - sounds such a harsh denounciation - maybe it's the way it's emphasized. Still, could be worse - you could be called an 'in-fiddle' - in which case, to avoid this, be careful not to play pocket pool in public.