WORLD  
comments_imageCOMMENTS: 142

Why the Dark Secrets of the First Gulf War Are Still Haunting Us

Americans, and our leaders, would do well to take a hard look at the war that we continue to love only because we never got to see it.
February 27, 2009  |  
 
 
LIKE THIS ARTICLE ?
Join our mailing list:

Sign up to stay up to date on the latest World headlines via email.

 
 
Advertisement
 

With rare exceptions, American politicians seem incapable of opposing an American war without befriending another in a different place or time.

Barack Obama, an early and ardent enemy of the Iraq War, quickly declared his affinity for a war in Afghanistan and/or Pakistan. And like so many Democratic leaders, he has commended Bush 41's Gulf War over Bush 43's, for its justifiable cause, clear goals, quick execution and admirable leadership.

It's difficult to determine the proportion of expedience to ignorance that allows politicians and pundits to advance the theory of the good and trouble-free Gulf War. What's clear, though, is that for close to 20 years, the 42-day war, in which we dropped more bombs than were dropped in all wars combined in the history of the world, maintains a special place in American hearts.

But as John R. MacArthur amply demonstrates in The Second Front: Censorship and Propaganda in the Gulf War, the real 1991 war was kept from the American public. This week, as we commemorate the 18th anniversary of the Gulf War's end, and opportunities for new hostilities beckon, Americans, and our leaders, would do well to take a hard look at the war that we continue to love only because we never got to see it.

Despite our inability to detect it at the time, U.S. prosecution of the 1991 war with Iraq relied on all the now-familiar and discredited strategies used to promote the present war -- with equally disastrous and far-reaching results.

Bogus Justification

When Saddam Hussein summoned April Glaspie, the U.S. ambassador to Iraq, to his office on July 25, 1990, it was to determine what the U.S. response would be should he invade Kuwait with the 30,000 troops he had amassed on its border. According to the Iraqi transcript published in the New York Times two months later, he told the seasoned diplomat that Iraq had defended the region against the Iranian fundamentalist regime, and that the Kuwaitis were paying them back by encroaching on their border, siphoning their oil, increasing oil production and driving down prices. His people were suffering, and his "patience was running out."

Glaspie commiserated: "I admire your extraordinary efforts to rebuild your country. I know you need funds. We understand that, and our opinion is that you should have the opportunity to rebuild your country. But we have no opinion on the Arab-Arab conflicts, like your border disagreement with Kuwait. … I was in the American Embassy in Kuwait during the late '60s. The instruction we had during this period was that … the issue is not associated with America. James Baker has directed our official spokesmen to emphasize this instruction."

Glaspie later claimed that Iraq transcripts contained "distortions," which may be so. But her own recently declassified cable to Washington closely resembles the Iraqi transcripts: She wrote that she asked Saddam, "in the spirit of friendship, not confrontation" about his intentions with Kuwait. She reports telling him that "she had served in Kuwait 20 years before; then as now we took no position on these Arab affairs." She wrote that "Saddam's emphasis that he wants peaceful settlement is surely sincere … but the terms might be difficult to achieve."

Glaspie was not the only official to deliver this laissez-faire message. The next day, at a Washington press conference, State Department spokeswoman Margaret Tutweiler was asked by a journalist if the U.S. had sent any diplomatic protest to Iraq for putting 30,000 troops on the border with Kuwait. "I'm entirely unaware of any such protest," Tutweiler replied.

Five days later, on July 31, Assistant Secretary of State for Near Eastern Affairs John Kelly testified to Congress that the "United States has no commitment to defend Kuwait, and the U.S. has no intention of defending Kuwait if it is attacked by Iraq."

Two days later, when Saddam entered Kuwait, he had no reason to believe that the U.S. would come to Kuwait's defense with a half-million troops. Or that when he tried to negotiate a retreat though Arab leaders, the U.S. would refuse to talk. In 1990 as in 2002, a Bush president had his mind set on war.

Disinformation

If the White House and Pentagon were fixed on a war with Iraq, during the summer and early fall of 1990, the American public and Congress were not. To change that, the week after Iraq invaded Kuwait, the Kuwaiti government, disguising itself as "Citizens for a Free Kuwait," hired the global PR firm of Hill & Knowlton to win Americans' hearts and minds.


Nora Eisenberg is the director of the City University of New York's Faculty Fellowship Publication Program. Her short stories, essays and reviews have appeared in such places as the Partisan Review, the Village Voice, the Los Angeles Times, Tikkun, and the Guardian UK. Her third novel, When You Come Home, which explores the 1991 Gulf War and Gulf War illness, was published last month by Curbstone Press.
Email
Print
Share
Post on reddit
Post on stumbleupon
Post on facebook
Post on digg
Post on twitter
Post on delicious
LIKED THIS ARTICLE? JOIN OUR EMAIL LIST
Stay up to date with the latest World headlines via email


Comments are closed-

Like Father, Like Son
Posted by: DrBrian on Feb 27, 2009 1:41 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Had the media done their job in the first Gulf War, there would never have been a second. There would never have been another George Bush in the White House.

The corporate media are the dutiful courtesans of the power elite, and combined with our campaign finance system explain why we keep electing people who take our money and screw us.

If not for al Jazeera we still wouldn't know the truth of the recent Palestine war. Free media are the lifeblood of democracy, and we're suffering from a severe case of anemia

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: Like Father, Like Son Posted by: dragonlady620
» RE: Like Father, Like Son Posted by: Crazy H

Comments are closed-

The greatest WMDistraction
Posted by: weathered on Feb 27, 2009 1:54 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
MSM/PBS/NPR


They no longer report, they choreograph.

'by deceit, we wage war'
'if its not on TV, it never happened'

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]


Comments are closed-

So Alternet wants to go way back to look at this war, but WILL NOT look at 9/11?
Posted by: pfgetty on Feb 27, 2009 3:24 AM   
Current rating: 4    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Amazing.
Alternet wants us to rethink and relook at the first Gulf War, at the lies and fabrications that brought so much bombing and hunger and misery, but will not under any circumstances look at the real facts of 9/11. Interesting. It seems alternet will look at EVERYTHING BUT 9/11. Is that the length of leash alternet is allowed? It can delve into the truth of Israel/Palestine, WMD, the first Gulf War lies, wire tapping, the sleaze of t Patriot Act, the tortures and rendition...................but it cannot mention once in seven years the lies and fabrications and contradictions of 9/11, the biggest story of all time.

What the hell is going on? Who put the leash on? We have got to know, because we have got to get the truth out about 9/11, first in the alternative press, and finally, maybe, in the msm.

It is treason, I feel, to withhold vital information from the American people, information that could quickly end the bleeding of our troops and our treasury, end the crushing of our Constitution, and keep us impossibly subservient to a monstrous leadership of tyrrany.
We will suffer, and our kids will suffer, if alternet and the rest of the alternative media maintain this conspiracy to keep 9/11 truth off of its pages.

What do you say, alternet? Are there ANY journalists that finally, after seven years, would like to see the facts about 9/11 revealed to the American public, in your name? There must be ONE journalist honest and brave and patriotic enough to break the silence and come forward and tell us why the self censorship of the alternative media.

Tell us right here. Or email me at pfgetty@embarqmail.com

Our future depends on you.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» Amen! Posted by: bizeeb
» RE: Amen! Posted by: sunnywater
» RE: Amen! Posted by: EncinoM
» RE: Amen! Posted by: sunnywater

Comments are closed-

Good Story to a Point
Posted by: Rhotel1 on Feb 27, 2009 3:55 AM   
Current rating: 2    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Since the author is preparing a book of fiction, I rather wonder whether all of this is fact. For example, when and where were 100,000 civilians killed and how was that verified? I also favorably note that 1000 Iraqi soldiers were allegedly buried by the plow equipped tanks of the first wave - that is far cry from the first claims of far larger magnitude, but I wonder if even that number has any actual basis in fact. Then there is the "Highway of Death" - while there is terrible carnage from wrecked and burned vehicles; people who have been to the site noted that there were very few bodies and that most likely the drivers and passengers of most of these vehicles escaped into the desert and were not killed that night so the claim of 10,000 deaths is far larger than actuality. Again, where is the verification. I am not entirely willing to take what the author says on the strength of her say so any more than I was to accept much of what the last Administration said based on the fact that they had said it. An old auditor adage is "trust but verify". Where is the verification?

Roger
DUStory-owner@yahoogroups.com

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: Good Story to a Point Posted by: melissarossi199
» RE: Good Story to a Point Posted by: Brb007

Comments are closed-

Omits DU poisoning
Posted by: Jim on Feb 27, 2009 4:07 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Thanks for an excellent article, but I agree with the poster asking for verification. Documentation would make it much stronger.

The article omits mentioning the huge amounts of "depleted uranium" that has poisoned the country for the next few hundred thousand years.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: Omits DU poisoning Posted by: Sister_Lauren
» RE: Omits DU poisoning Posted by: baldhawk

Comments are closed-

Other Fallout from the First Gulf War
Posted by: Yellow Kid on Feb 27, 2009 4:39 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Nora Eisenberg neglected to mention Timothy McVeigh, who, word around the Campfire has it, participated in the Highway of Death when he was deplyoed in Iraq, which helped shape his dim view of the government and gave him the callous attitude towards killing the innocent in Oklahoma City.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: Word from where? Posted by: Ghoulman
» RE: Word from where? Posted by: Yellow Kid

Comments are closed-

Thank You for explaining some of the first 'Blood for Oil' War
Posted by: Purple Girl on Feb 27, 2009 5:05 AM   
Current rating: 4    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
But certainly not the only 'blood for Oil' Military & covert Action our country has been involved with.
Being one of those Handful of Protesters on a street Corner in CA, so long ago, it begins to help that truths are finally coming to print.
We didn't have the vast internet then- Just our gut feeling and our innate distrust of Gov't Hype. Remember we had just lived through an 8 yr Presidency that was achieved by Undermining his Precedcessor through back room Deals (Iran contra).This is why I always refer to the Repug Crimes as 30 yrs- really 40, but Nixon at least was exposed for one of his Crimes.Reagan still holds th hearts and minds of the UnCurious and Spoon fed ignorant.What a Travesty.
Will people begin to realize these Wars had nothing to do with'American security' and were Not in Our interest, but that of the UAE, the Oil Royals who Own our Politcal leaders?
We have yet to hear more about the Anthrax Ronny 'gave' Saddam which he allegedly used on the Kurds. Considering the Bait & Switch the US gov't played on Saddam during 'Blood for Oil part 1' along with the recent revelation that the Anthrax found in those '01 attacks did not match the 'mad scientists', should we take on Faith that it was Saddam who Anthraxed the Kurds, since it appears it was also NOT this scientist who sent the Anthrax to Dachcle, Leahy or the'Liberal' media.Funny how Mr.McCain KNEW within three days and was willing to announce on late night TV that the Anthrax 'came from Saddam'..How did he 'KNOW' that?
as you've guessed I still have many unanswered question about the last 30 yrs, the REAL precipitating factors leading to 9/11.
I realize that Pres Obama may know what our real Gov't History is, What crimes have been committed under the guise of our flag, but believe such siring of this knowledge would change nothing. But I whole heartedly disagree, through Truth comes Clarity - not just about our past, but for our future.Since these things have been done under Our Name we must not only face the Truths, but own up to them..so that we may begin to heal some hidden, insideous wounds- domestically & Internationally.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]


Comments are closed-

Thanks for the awesome link, pfgetty
Posted by: AngryWhiteFemale on Feb 27, 2009 6:00 AM   
Current rating: 4    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
That's a very interesting website. There is a lot to explore and I hope someone keeps it going. I agree with you 100% about how disappointing it is that Amy Goodman and Alternet are participating in the Big Lie. So that 10 years from now, we can read an article like this one on how we were lied to about 9/11 and the press participated. What a sad, shocking article about Gulf War I. The Bushes have the blood of over a million Iraqi's on their hands, not to mention the soldiers who fought under their false pretenses. They are evil incarnate.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]


Comments are closed-

I had friends there. It was not that bad...
Posted by: eyespy on Feb 27, 2009 6:09 AM   
Current rating: 4    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
...it was worse.

Way worse.

Like slaughtering turkeys, except that they were people.

People fleeing in terror, cut down by all manner of explosive ordnance, all facing Baghdad with their mortal wounds in their backs.

One of my best friends from high school went, came back, drank himself into oblivion and then hung himself from a tree in his backyard.

He couldn't live with what he had seen on the Highway Of Death as a part of a helicopter crew that committed some small part of the catastrophic destruction of tens of thousands of innocent civilians and Iraqi troops that had done nothing more than given up a fight they could not possibly win.

The Bush Family are the worst criminals in the history of the United States and we will not be truly free until they are brought to justice and eliminated, root and branch.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]


Comments are closed-

These recaps never appear when we need them, sadly ...
Posted by: artifax on Feb 27, 2009 6:23 AM   
Current rating: 3    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
This article was great. I knew, thanks to WBAI-FM at the time, a lot of this was going, but it's too bad this sort of summary wasn't publicly available in the lead-up to Iraq II.

Regarding pfgetty's complaint that 9/11 lies aren't covered here, as though it's some kind of conspiracy, I'll ask him to consider the difficulty in determining truly hard facts (backed up by science and factual records) and the kind of claims being made about 9/11. I'll be glad to indict the US where appropriate – our foreign policy as a cause, for example – but we need real facts to back things up.

Unfortunately, much of the claims around 9/11 show the left at our most embarassing worst. So much is emotional, innuendo, unscientific, hysterical, assumptive and downright stupid. Real evidence based on facts, speaks volumes. We don't have much to go on and neither do "our" experts.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]


Comments are closed-

The Highway of Death, DU, Aerial Slaughter
Posted by: shanaza on Feb 27, 2009 6:30 AM   
Current rating: 4    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
and the turkey shoot, cheerleading, mentality where iraqi's were dehumanized woke me up to the dangers of the American Empire. I have not looked at this country the same since.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]


Comments are closed-

Wrong war for progressives to argue against
Posted by: brunowe on Feb 27, 2009 6:45 AM   
Current rating: 2    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
From a legal standpoint, it was a slam-dunk. Hussein's occupation and annexation of Kuwait was as clear a casus belli as you could get. The legality was reinforced by UN Security Council Resolution 678 and a Congressional authorization to use force. Incidents such as the lie about the incubators don't change that. Likewise, there is no indication that Glaspie was, in her answer, contemplating a full invasion of Kuwait as opposed to an Iraqi seizure of the border-straddling Rumalia oil field. This is reinforced by her reference to Iraq having a "border disagreement" with Kuwait.

"Or that when he tried to negotiate a retreat though Arab leaders, the U.S. would refuse to talk. In 1990 as in 2002, a Bush president had his mind set on war."

He wasn't trying to negotiate a retreat, he was stalling for time. His first "offer" consisted of linking withdrawal of Kuwait to Israeli withdrawal from the Occupied Territories and Syrian withdrawal from Lebanon. Without holding any brief for Israeli or Syrian policies, such a linkage was a clear attempt to stall as there was no legal or policy basis for such a link. Likewise, the Soviet-mediated agreement for Iraqi withdrawal (reached once war had been underway for about five weeks) giving Iraq six weeks essentially gave Iraq time to wait until worsening weather would severely hamper US military operations.

Another poster has already commented on the body count on the "Highway of Death". Further, these were enemy forces, still under arms, who had not surrendered. I know of know maxim of tactics or international law that doesn't permit pursuing retreating enemy forces as long as hostilities are underway.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» I read all of it Posted by: brunowe
» No you haven't. Posted by: brunowe
» You were saying...? Posted by: eyespy
» Logic is beyond you as well Posted by: brunowe
» Show me the arguments. Posted by: eyespy
» RE: No you haven't. Posted by: DaBear
» No they weren't. Posted by: brunowe
» RE: No they weren't. Posted by: DaBear
» RE: No they weren't. Posted by: brunowe

Comments are closed-

CNN
Posted by: jstuv on Feb 27, 2009 6:53 AM   
Current rating: 4    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Are you trying to imply that CNN’s coverage of the Gulf War, by placing a video camera on a hotel windowsill, was inadequate?

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: lol! :D Posted by: Ghoulman

Comments are closed-

DARK SECRETS
Posted by: pfm on Feb 27, 2009 8:31 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Dark secrets, betrayal, denial are forms of "communication" which government's whether under the leadership of a Democrat or Republican have employed since the infancy of our representative democracy. Might it be that after more than 200 years of this form of leadership that is what "we" have come to expect and as a result accept as "normal." What does it take to "awaken" individuals finding that certain something which resonates within them causing them to want to ask questions and not meekly accept as true what TV talking heads purport...? Until "we" find those words dark secrets, betrayal and denial is our form of government.

Respectfully,

Paul F. Miller
striving to promote sustainable awareness

BLOG SITE NAME ... AUTHENTICALLY WIRED

BLOG SITE ADDRESS ... http://waterman99.wordpress.com/2009

... everyone has the right to clean & accessible water, adequate for the health & well being of the individual & family, and no one shall be deprived of such acess or quality of water due to individual economic circumstances ... Article # 31 - United Nations

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]


Comments are closed-

I have medals from Desert Storm
Posted by: praedor on Feb 27, 2009 10:33 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I 'earned' them for bombing the shit out of Iraq from a B-52 again and again. I took part in the incidents that lead to the naming of the "Highway of Death" (we were told we were bombing military convoys, artillery, etc...without the stipulation that they were RETREATING as per the agreement).

I do not display those medals. I feel saddened and ashamed of them instead. I feel sorry and guilty for every Iraqi I helped kill.

Through the entire war, I kept repeating to myself, "This is not a war for oil this is not a war for oil PLEASE don't let this be a war for oil".

It was a war for oil.

I learned AFTER it was all over (a couple years later) about the diplomatic "go ahead" we gave Saddam for whatever he wanted to do with Kuwait. I learned later about what it was, exactly, Kuwait (with the aid of the UAE) was doing to screw a devastated Iraq (after the long war with Iran).

It was a war for oil. It was a war based on lies. It was NO different than the current debacle, only on a lessor scale. Practice makes perfect.

I no longer feel pride in the uniform (I still wear). I no longer feel any surge of pride or patriotism for the flag. I only give a fuck for the Constitution...but it is being ripped to shreds or used as toilet paper left and right (particularly under the former Bush regime, but carried forward by Obama now that he is refusing to disavow a LOT of what Bush/Cheney claimed as kingly powers for themselves).

Two more years and I can retire with my 20. It can't come fast enough. In the meantime, I can steadfastly avoid serving in any capacity to aid or abet the illegal war in Iraq (I am ambivalent about Afghanistan).

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]


Comments are closed-

Obama to pull most troops out of Iraq -----
Posted by: symcokid on Feb 27, 2009 12:17 PM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
but 30,000 - 50,000 will stay to train Iraqi soldiers and to protect 'our interests'. I can only assume they are talking about Iraq's oil that we have made ours? The only reason I can think otherwise would be to use Iraq as a base of operations in order to wage a bigger war in tyhe Middle East.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]


Comments are closed-

Senator feinstein is part of the problem
Posted by: Sister_Lauren on Feb 27, 2009 12:42 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
DiFi’s Whitewash

It is the fox in charge of the hen house again, she should NOT have this responsibility, she should be under investigation. It is a cover-up.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]


Comments are closed-

SAd
Posted by: rankfive on Feb 27, 2009 1:03 PM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I have a sinking feeling that things will only get worse before they get better.

RT
Privacy Center

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]


Comments are closed-

Saddam & April Glaspie
Posted by: kogwonton on Feb 27, 2009 4:05 PM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I was very young when the U.S. loosed operation 'Desert Storm'. In fact I was trying to be as devout a christian as I could be. I was surrounded by right wing christians, and I heard nothing but 'support the troops' and nearly got sick from being surrounded all those yellow ribbons. As ignorant as I was, and as much as I was surrounded by right wing propaganda, I still didn't have the ability to consume bullshit. At the moment of the invasion, all I knew was that the real truth could be found by following the money.

Years later the internet became accessible to most Americans, and I decided to take a look at the origins of Desert Storm. I found the minutes of the discussions between Saddam Hussein and April Glaspie. In those minutes it became completely obvious that Saddam had made the effort to ASK PERMISSION from the U.S. government to obtain redress for grievances from the nation of Kuwait - who was conducting economic warfare against Iraq (something the U.S. considers a valid act of war - and something which the U.S. also reserves the right to use force to resist against). Kuwait was slant drilling into Iraq oilfields as well as driving the price of oil down to just over half of what it should have been - destroying the Iraqi economy. I also recall Saddam explaining to April Glaspie the fact that Iraq and Kuwait were engaged in a years long dispute over some beachfront lands which was possessed by Kuwait. Iraq claimed to be the actual owners of this land, and that the lack of access to the Persian Gulf was very costly to them. Saddam made it clear to April that, should Kuwait refuse to cease their economic warfare, and should he get the green light from the U.S. to use force, that he would not simply go after the slanted oil drills, and end Kuwait's economic warfare campaign, but that he would take back that beach front property - and just maybe take Kuwait back altogether, since it was once part of Iraq in the first place.

April Glaspie came back with word from on-high saying that the U.S. had no interest in the matter, and that Saddam was free to do whatever he needed to do.

After I read that I knew I was correct to use the old police detective stand-by - "Follow the Money".

Iraq was the biggest 'commercial' for new-improved military technology in history at the time. Post-cold war military/industrial contracts were renewed and expanded beyond comprehension, and new contracts were formed. U.S. military interests succeeded in getting permanent military bases built in Saudi Arabia (angering a few of our 'assets' in the cold war struggle against the Soviets in Afghanistan). The surge in the price of oil and the following blockade against Iraq proved profitable to U.S. energy companies and military contractors in many ways - both for the containment of Iraq and the arming of Saddam against insurrection for the next ten years. The money most certainly flowed westward.

In the same fashion, looking at the justification for the wars of the 21st century is just as enlightening. The war against terror is a war for profit and control of regional resources just as it was in 1990. Common practice by police detectives is to find motive - the most common of which is profit. You don't have to be a 'conspiracy theorist' to see the wisdom in that. There hasn't been an honest or 'good' war in my lifetime. Nothing big happens in politics that isn't planned that way. One only needs to look at the remaining unanswered questions by the families of victims of the attacks of 9/11 to understand that the official story holds absolutely no water whatsoever. Scrutiny would most certainly have the effect of forcing a global majority to question their whole paradigm. Imagine that?

http://www.911independentcommission.org/questions.html

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]


Comments are closed-

Check out this from NPR reference the Iraquis killed
Posted by: GMay on Feb 28, 2009 12:29 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Peter Turnley's 'Unseen Gulf War'
Online Photo Gallery Captures Stark Nature of Gulf Conflict
by Steve Inskeep

Listen Now: [4 min 49 sec]

Real Media|Windows MediaExplain these links


Peter TurnleyImage from the online exhibit, "The Unseen Gulf War."


All Things Considered, January 12, 2003 · Photojournalist Peter Turnley was working outside of the journalists' pool during the Gulf War, when on the morning of the last day of the conflict he arrived at what he calls the "mile of death." It was a stretch of desert road back to Baghdad from Kuwait where retreating Iraqis were bombed by Allied forces.

His pictures from that day are gathered together in an online exhibit called The Unseen Gulf War. NPR's Steve Inskeep talks with Turnley about his photos, his work as a photojournalist and about the cost in human lives of war.

In the text that accompanies his exhibit Turnley notes that the images do not represent his judgment on the Gulf War. He writes, "What they do represent is a part of a more accurate picture of what really does happen in war."



















Discussions for this story are now closed

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]


Comments are closed-

The start of the troop deployment
Posted by: Baenz on Feb 28, 2009 4:17 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
It's nice to read such a good article which is to the point. I would just like to ad one more (missing) piece of info:

At the time of the 1st Gulf War we lived in Abu Dhabi (UAE). Just a bit outside Abu Dhabi, on the main land, there was (maybe still is?) a nice Hotel Resort called Beach Hotel (nearby were/are the Military HQs). Newly renovated it opened its doors again sometime in March/April. In June it was suddenly off limits for everyone. Word of mouth spread fast nonetheless and we got to know, that a large number of US Military was put up in the Beach Hotel and, therefore, everything was closed down for the comoners including the Club's facilities.

Now ... how does this tally with the "surprise" invasion of Saddam Hussein into Irak and the "reaction" to it by the US?

I assume that the US Military was on a holiday ... and stayed on in case they might be needed???

Later that year at Christmas time most of us expats who had Christmas parties invited each a few soldiers as we imagined it to be hard to be away on such an occasion. Their stories where quite interesting.

But hey! Everything was a surprise ... a bitter LOL.

Much later, when the so called war was over and we could go back to the Gulf Hotel we found a large picture gallery in the corridors showing the proud management staff with the US Officers.

Interestingly, this gallery suddenly disappeared after approx. 6 weeks. Wonder why - did it have to do with the dates on the pictures ...?

B.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]


Comments are closed-

The effect of DU Munition
Posted by: Baenz on Feb 28, 2009 5:15 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Further up in the thread the mention of the effects of DU Munition came up. Those interested in reading a comprehensive article may go to:

Low Intensity Nuclear War by Prof. Chossudovsky. He describes the effects in the Balkans, Iraq and Afghanistan.

For those with strong nerves - there is a link at the end of the article which leads to a photo gallery. I think it's a must to see in order to understand the full implications of the use of DU Munition.

B.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]


Comments are closed-

from Nora Eisenberg: thanks for the comments
Posted by: eisgirl on Feb 28, 2009 8:27 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I'm so pleased that my article has sparked so many spirited comments. A few responses:

Thanks for mentioning the absence of Timothy McVeigh in the article. I was surely thinking of him when I wrote about the "trauma, addiction and/or brain damage that caused veterans to kill their wives, family, fellow citizens, and/or themselves." I agree that McVeigh's transformation can be traced to Desert Storm (as he himself made clear), and there's a character in my new novel based on McVeigh. John Mohammed, the Beltway Sniper, was also a GW vet. Louis Jones, a decorated career soldier, was executed for a rape crime though a major scientist involved with GW illness showed images of his brain, deformed by neurotoxins, which we now know we exposed troops to. It's hard to determine now, for other cases, the organic vs the psychological.

Thanks for mentiong DU. The recent Research Advisory Committee's report on Gulf War Illness points to neurotoxins as the clear-cut cause of the disease. But the report does not rule out depleted uranium as a contributor. Very encouraging is the work of Department of Army [sic] radiobiologist Dr. Alexandra Miller; her 2006 volume, Depleted Uranium: Properties, Uses, and Health Consequences, brings together a lot of serious research.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]


Comments are closed-

Civilian Deaths
Posted by: eisgirl on Mar 1, 2009 10:27 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Some of you wanted to know more about my figure of 100,000 civilian deaths: Dr. Eric Hoskins in the edited volume War and Public Health (Oxford 2007) puts the civilian death toll at 111,000, including death from war-related illness. Beth DaPonte, a demographer at Carnegie Mellon, puts the Iraqi death count at 205,000,56,000 of whom were Iraqi soldiers, the remaining civilian fatalities from the bombings, crushed rebellions, and war-related illness. Professor Judith Yaphe, of the National Defense University puts the number killed in the Kurdith and Shiite rebellions alone at minimally 60,000 and much as 100,000.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]


Comments are closed-

Change, What Change
Posted by: NeoRevolutions on Mar 1, 2009 11:21 AM   
Current rating: 1    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
While all hoped that Obama and a Democratic majority would end the carnage, it appears that was a pipe dream. The new administration, while continuing the destruction of the dollar, is contemplating widening the middle east quagmire by going into Pakistan, beefing up Afghanistan, and rattling the sabre at Iran, once again. Heck, in his first week in office, Obama authorized a UAV strike that killed women and children in Pakistan. Some change.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: Change, What Change Posted by: Brb007
Alternet Comments:

Comments are closed-

Like Father, Like Son
Posted by: DrBrian on Feb 27, 2009 1:41 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Had the media done their job in the first Gulf War, there would never have been a second. There would never have been another George Bush in the White House.

The corporate media are the dutiful courtesans of the power elite, and combined with our campaign finance system explain why we keep electing people who take our money and screw us.

If not for al Jazeera we still wouldn't know the truth of the recent Palestine war. Free media are the lifeblood of democracy, and we're suffering from a severe case of anemia

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: Like Father, Like Son Posted by: dragonlady620
» RE: Like Father, Like Son Posted by: Crazy H

Comments are closed-

The greatest WMDistraction
Posted by: weathered on Feb 27, 2009 1:54 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
MSM/PBS/NPR


They no longer report, they choreograph.

'by deceit, we wage war'
'if its not on TV, it never happened'

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]


Comments are closed-

So Alternet wants to go way back to look at this war, but WILL NOT look at 9/11?
Posted by: pfgetty on Feb 27, 2009 3:24 AM   
Current rating: 4    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Amazing.
Alternet wants us to rethink and relook at the first Gulf War, at the lies and fabrications that brought so much bombing and hunger and misery, but will not under any circumstances look at the real facts of 9/11. Interesting. It seems alternet will look at EVERYTHING BUT 9/11. Is that the length of leash alternet is allowed? It can delve into the truth of Israel/Palestine, WMD, the first Gulf War lies, wire tapping, the sleaze of t Patriot Act, the tortures and rendition...................but it cannot mention once in seven years the lies and fabrications and contradictions of 9/11, the biggest story of all time.

What the hell is going on? Who put the leash on? We have got to know, because we have got to get the truth out about 9/11, first in the alternative press, and finally, maybe, in the msm.

It is treason, I feel, to withhold vital information from the American people, information that could quickly end the bleeding of our troops and our treasury, end the crushing of our Constitution, and keep us impossibly subservient to a monstrous leadership of tyrrany.
We will suffer, and our kids will suffer, if alternet and the rest of the alternative media maintain this conspiracy to keep 9/11 truth off of its pages.

What do you say, alternet? Are there ANY journalists that finally, after seven years, would like to see the facts about 9/11 revealed to the American public, in your name? There must be ONE journalist honest and brave and patriotic enough to break the silence and come forward and tell us why the self censorship of the alternative media.

Tell us right here. Or email me at pfgetty@embarqmail.com

Our future depends on you.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» Amen! Posted by: bizeeb
» RE: Amen! Posted by: sunnywater
» RE: Amen! Posted by: EncinoM
» RE: Amen! Posted by: sunnywater

Comments are closed-

Good Story to a Point
Posted by: Rhotel1 on Feb 27, 2009 3:55 AM   
Current rating: 2    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Since the author is preparing a book of fiction, I rather wonder whether all of this is fact. For example, when and where were 100,000 civilians killed and how was that verified? I also favorably note that 1000 Iraqi soldiers were allegedly buried by the plow equipped tanks of the first wave - that is far cry from the first claims of far larger magnitude, but I wonder if even that number has any actual basis in fact. Then there is the "Highway of Death" - while there is terrible carnage from wrecked and burned vehicles; people who have been to the site noted that there were very few bodies and that most likely the drivers and passengers of most of these vehicles escaped into the desert and were not killed that night so the claim of 10,000 deaths is far larger than actuality. Again, where is the verification. I am not entirely willing to take what the author says on the strength of her say so any more than I was to accept much of what the last Administration said based on the fact that they had said it. An old auditor adage is "trust but verify". Where is the verification?

Roger
DUStory-owner@yahoogroups.com

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: Good Story to a Point Posted by: melissarossi199
» RE: Good Story to a Point Posted by: Brb007

Comments are closed-

Omits DU poisoning
Posted by: Jim on Feb 27, 2009 4:07 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Thanks for an excellent article, but I agree with the poster asking for verification. Documentation would make it much stronger.

The article omits mentioning the huge amounts of "depleted uranium" that has poisoned the country for the next few hundred thousand years.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: Omits DU poisoning Posted by: Sister_Lauren
» RE: Omits DU poisoning Posted by: baldhawk

Comments are closed-

Other Fallout from the First Gulf War
Posted by: Yellow Kid on Feb 27, 2009 4:39 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Nora Eisenberg neglected to mention Timothy McVeigh, who, word around the Campfire has it, participated in the Highway of Death when he was deplyoed in Iraq, which helped shape his dim view of the government and gave him the callous attitude towards killing the innocent in Oklahoma City.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: Word from where? Posted by: Ghoulman
» RE: Word from where? Posted by: Yellow Kid

Comments are closed-

Thank You for explaining some of the first 'Blood for Oil' War
Posted by: Purple Girl on Feb 27, 2009 5:05 AM   
Current rating: 4    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
But certainly not the only 'blood for Oil' Military & covert Action our country has been involved with.
Being one of those Handful of Protesters on a street Corner in CA, so long ago, it begins to help that truths are finally coming to print.
We didn't have the vast internet then- Just our gut feeling and our innate distrust of Gov't Hype. Remember we had just lived through an 8 yr Presidency that was achieved by Undermining his Precedcessor through back room Deals (Iran contra).This is why I always refer to the Repug Crimes as 30 yrs- really 40, but Nixon at least was exposed for one of his Crimes.Reagan still holds th hearts and minds of the UnCurious and Spoon fed ignorant.What a Travesty.
Will people begin to realize these Wars had nothing to do with'American security' and were Not in Our interest, but that of the UAE, the Oil Royals who Own our Politcal leaders?
We have yet to hear more about the Anthrax Ronny 'gave' Saddam which he allegedly used on the Kurds. Considering the Bait & Switch the US gov't played on Saddam during 'Blood for Oil part 1' along with the recent revelation that the Anthrax found in those '01 attacks did not match the 'mad scientists', should we take on Faith that it was Saddam who Anthraxed the Kurds, since it appears it was also NOT this scientist who sent the Anthrax to Dachcle, Leahy or the'Liberal' media.Funny how Mr.McCain KNEW within three days and was willing to announce on late night TV that the Anthrax 'came from Saddam'..How did he 'KNOW' that?
as you've guessed I still have many unanswered question about the last 30 yrs, the REAL precipitating factors leading to 9/11.
I realize that Pres Obama may know what our real Gov't History is, What crimes have been committed under the guise of our flag, but believe such siring of this knowledge would change nothing. But I whole heartedly disagree, through Truth comes Clarity - not just about our past, but for our future.Since these things have been done under Our Name we must not only face the Truths, but own up to them..so that we may begin to heal some hidden, insideous wounds- domestically & Internationally.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]


Comments are closed-

Thanks for the awesome link, pfgetty
Posted by: AngryWhiteFemale on Feb 27, 2009 6:00 AM   
Current rating: 4    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
That's a very interesting website. There is a lot to explore and I hope someone keeps it going. I agree with you 100% about how disappointing it is that Amy Goodman and Alternet are participating in the Big Lie. So that 10 years from now, we can read an article like this one on how we were lied to about 9/11 and the press participated. What a sad, shocking article about Gulf War I. The Bushes have the blood of over a million Iraqi's on their hands, not to mention the soldiers who fought under their false pretenses. They are evil incarnate.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]


Comments are closed-

I had friends there. It was not that bad...
Posted by: eyespy on Feb 27, 2009 6:09 AM   
Current rating: 4    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
...it was worse.

Way worse.

Like slaughtering turkeys, except that they were people.

People fleeing in terror, cut down by all manner of explosive ordnance, all facing Baghdad with their mortal wounds in their backs.

One of my best friends from high school went, came back, drank himself into oblivion and then hung himself from a tree in his backyard.

He couldn't live with what he had seen on the Highway Of Death as a part of a helicopter crew that committed some small part of the catastrophic destruction of tens of thousands of innocent civilians and Iraqi troops that had done nothing more than given up a fight they could not possibly win.

The Bush Family are the worst criminals in the history of the United States and we will not be truly free until they are brought to justice and eliminated, root and branch.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]


Comments are closed-

These recaps never appear when we need them, sadly ...
Posted by: artifax on Feb 27, 2009 6:23 AM   
Current rating: 3    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
This article was great. I knew, thanks to WBAI-FM at the time, a lot of this was going, but it's too bad this sort of summary wasn't publicly available in the lead-up to Iraq II.

Regarding pfgetty's complaint that 9/11 lies aren't covered here, as though it's some kind of conspiracy, I'll ask him to consider the difficulty in determining truly hard facts (backed up by science and factual records) and the kind of claims being made about 9/11. I'll be glad to indict the US where appropriate – our foreign policy as a cause, for example – but we need real facts to back things up.

Unfortunately, much of the claims around 9/11 show the left at our most embarassing worst. So much is emotional, innuendo, unscientific, hysterical, assumptive and downright stupid. Real evidence based on facts, speaks volumes. We don't have much to go on and neither do "our" experts.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]


Comments are closed-

The Highway of Death, DU, Aerial Slaughter
Posted by: shanaza on Feb 27, 2009 6:30 AM   
Current rating: 4    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
and the turkey shoot, cheerleading, mentality where iraqi's were dehumanized woke me up to the dangers of the American Empire. I have not looked at this country the same since.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]


Comments are closed-

Wrong war for progressives to argue against
Posted by: brunowe on Feb 27, 2009 6:45 AM   
Current rating: 2    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
From a legal standpoint, it was a slam-dunk. Hussein's occupation and annexation of Kuwait was as clear a casus belli as you could get. The legality was reinforced by UN Security Council Resolution 678 and a Congressional authorization to use force. Incidents such as the lie about the incubators don't change that. Likewise, there is no indication that Glaspie was, in her answer, contemplating a full invasion of Kuwait as opposed to an Iraqi seizure of the border-straddling Rumalia oil field. This is reinforced by her reference to Iraq having a "border disagreement" with Kuwait.

"Or that when he tried to negotiate a retreat though Arab leaders, the U.S. would refuse to talk. In 1990 as in 2002, a Bush president had his mind set on war."

He wasn't trying to negotiate a retreat, he was stalling for time. His first "offer" consisted of linking withdrawal of Kuwait to Israeli withdrawal from the Occupied Territories and Syrian withdrawal from Lebanon. Without holding any brief for Israeli or Syrian policies, such a linkage was a clear attempt to stall as there was no legal or policy basis for such a link. Likewise, the Soviet-mediated agreement for Iraqi withdrawal (reached once war had been underway for about five weeks) giving Iraq six weeks essentially gave Iraq time to wait until worsening weather would severely hamper US military operations.

Another poster has already commented on the body count on the "Highway of Death". Further, these were enemy forces, still under arms, who had not surrendered. I know of know maxim of tactics or international law that doesn't permit pursuing retreating enemy forces as long as hostilities are underway.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» I read all of it Posted by: brunowe
» No you haven't. Posted by: brunowe
» You were saying...? Posted by: eyespy
» Logic is beyond you as well Posted by: brunowe
» Show me the arguments. Posted by: eyespy
» RE: No you haven't. Posted by: DaBear
» No they weren't. Posted by: brunowe
» RE: No they weren't. Posted by: DaBear
» RE: No they weren't. Posted by: brunowe

Comments are closed-

CNN
Posted by: jstuv on Feb 27, 2009 6:53 AM   
Current rating: 4    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Are you trying to imply that CNN’s coverage of the Gulf War, by placing a video camera on a hotel windowsill, was inadequate?

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: lol! :D Posted by: Ghoulman

Comments are closed-

DARK SECRETS
Posted by: pfm on Feb 27, 2009 8:31 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Dark secrets, betrayal, denial are forms of "communication" which government's whether under the leadership of a Democrat or Republican have employed since the infancy of our representative democracy. Might it be that after more than 200 years of this form of leadership that is what "we" have come to expect and as a result accept as "normal." What does it take to "awaken" individuals finding that certain something which resonates within them causing them to want to ask questions and not meekly accept as true what TV talking heads purport...? Until "we" find those words dark secrets, betrayal and denial is our form of government.

Respectfully,

Paul F. Miller
striving to promote sustainable awareness

BLOG SITE NAME ... AUTHENTICALLY WIRED

BLOG SITE ADDRESS ... http://waterman99.wordpress.com/2009

... everyone has the right to clean & accessible water, adequate for the health & well being of the individual & family, and no one shall be deprived of such acess or quality of water due to individual economic circumstances ... Article # 31 - United Nations

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]


Comments are closed-

I have medals from Desert Storm
Posted by: praedor on Feb 27, 2009 10:33 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I 'earned' them for bombing the shit out of Iraq from a B-52 again and again. I took part in the incidents that lead to the naming of the "Highway of Death" (we were told we were bombing military convoys, artillery, etc...without the stipulation that they were RETREATING as per the agreement).

I do not display those medals. I feel saddened and ashamed of them instead. I feel sorry and guilty for every Iraqi I helped kill.

Through the entire war, I kept repeating to myself, "This is not a war for oil this is not a war for oil PLEASE don't let this be a war for oil".

It was a war for oil.

I learned AFTER it was all over (a couple years later) about the diplomatic "go ahead" we gave Saddam for whatever he wanted to do with Kuwait. I learned later about what it was, exactly, Kuwait (with the aid of the UAE) was doing to screw a devastated Iraq (after the long war with Iran).

It was a war for oil. It was a war based on lies. It was NO different than the current debacle, only on a lessor scale. Practice makes perfect.

I no longer feel pride in the uniform (I still wear). I no longer feel any surge of pride or patriotism for the flag. I only give a fuck for the Constitution...but it is being ripped to shreds or used as toilet paper left and right (particularly under the former Bush regime, but carried forward by Obama now that he is refusing to disavow a LOT of what Bush/Cheney claimed as kingly powers for themselves).

Two more years and I can retire with my 20. It can't come fast enough. In the meantime, I can steadfastly avoid serving in any capacity to aid or abet the illegal war in Iraq (I am ambivalent about Afghanistan).

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]


Comments are closed-

Obama to pull most troops out of Iraq -----
Posted by: symcokid on Feb 27, 2009 12:17 PM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
but 30,000 - 50,000 will stay to train Iraqi soldiers and to protect 'our interests'. I can only assume they are talking about Iraq's oil that we have made ours? The only reason I can think otherwise would be to use Iraq as a base of operations in order to wage a bigger war in tyhe Middle East.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]


Comments are closed-

Senator feinstein is part of the problem
Posted by: Sister_Lauren on Feb 27, 2009 12:42 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
DiFi’s Whitewash

It is the fox in charge of the hen house again, she should NOT have this responsibility, she should be under investigation. It is a cover-up.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]


Comments are closed-

SAd
Posted by: rankfive on Feb 27, 2009 1:03 PM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I have a sinking feeling that things will only get worse before they get better.

RT
Privacy Center

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]


Comments are closed-

Saddam & April Glaspie
Posted by: kogwonton on Feb 27, 2009 4:05 PM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I was very young when the U.S. loosed operation 'Desert Storm'. In fact I was trying to be as devout a christian as I could be. I was surrounded by right wing christians, and I heard nothing but 'support the troops' and nearly got sick from being surrounded all those yellow ribbons. As ignorant as I was, and as much as I was surrounded by right wing propaganda, I still didn't have the ability to consume bullshit. At the moment of the invasion, all I knew was that the real truth could be found by following the money.

Years later the internet became accessible to most Americans, and I decided to take a look at the origins of Desert Storm. I found the minutes of the discussions between Saddam Hussein and April Glaspie. In those minutes it became completely obvious that Saddam had made the effort to ASK PERMISSION from the U.S. government to obtain redress for grievances from the nation of Kuwait - who was conducting economic warfare against Iraq (something the U.S. considers a valid act of war - and something which the U.S. also reserves the right to use force to resist against). Kuwait was slant drilling into Iraq oilfields as well as driving the price of oil down to just over half of what it should have been - destroying the Iraqi economy. I also recall Saddam explaining to April Glaspie the fact that Iraq and Kuwait were engaged in a years long dispute over some beachfront lands which was possessed by Kuwait. Iraq claimed to be the actual owners of this land, and that the lack of access to the Persian Gulf was very costly to them. Saddam made it clear to April that, should Kuwait refuse to cease their economic warfare, and should he get the green light from the U.S. to use force, that he would not simply go after the slanted oil drills, and end Kuwait's economic warfare campaign, but that he would take back that beach front property - and just maybe take Kuwait back altogether, since it was once part of Iraq in the first place.

April Glaspie came back with word from on-high saying that the U.S. had no interest in the matter, and that Saddam was free to do whatever he needed to do.

After I read that I knew I was correct to use the old police detective stand-by - "Follow the Money".

Iraq was the biggest 'commercial' for new-improved military technology in history at the time. Post-cold war military/industrial contracts were renewed and expanded beyond comprehension, and new contracts were formed. U.S. military interests succeeded in getting permanent military bases built in Saudi Arabia (angering a few of our 'assets' in the cold war struggle against the Soviets in Afghanistan). The surge in the price of oil and the following blockade against Iraq proved profitable to U.S. energy companies and military contractors in many ways - both for the containment of Iraq and the arming of Saddam against insurrection for the next ten years. The money most certainly flowed westward.

In the same fashion, looking at the justification for the wars of the 21st century is just as enlightening. The war against terror is a war for profit and control of regional resources just as it was in 1990. Common practice by police detectives is to find motive - the most common of which is profit. You don't have to be a 'conspiracy theorist' to see the wisdom in that. There hasn't been an honest or 'good' war in my lifetime. Nothing big happens in politics that isn't planned that way. One only needs to look at the remaining unanswered questions by the families of victims of the attacks of 9/11 to understand that the official story holds absolutely no water whatsoever. Scrutiny would most certainly have the effect of forcing a global majority to question their whole paradigm. Imagine that?

http://www.911independentcommission.org/questions.html

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]


Comments are closed-

Check out this from NPR reference the Iraquis killed
Posted by: GMay on Feb 28, 2009 12:29 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Peter Turnley's 'Unseen Gulf War'
Online Photo Gallery Captures Stark Nature of Gulf Conflict
by Steve Inskeep

Listen Now: [4 min 49 sec]

Real Media|Windows MediaExplain these links


Peter TurnleyImage from the online exhibit, "The Unseen Gulf War."


All Things Considered, January 12, 2003 · Photojournalist Peter Turnley was working outside of the journalists' pool during the Gulf War, when on the morning of the last day of the conflict he arrived at what he calls the "mile of death." It was a stretch of desert road back to Baghdad from Kuwait where retreating Iraqis were bombed by Allied forces.

His pictures from that day are gathered together in an online exhibit called The Unseen Gulf War. NPR's Steve Inskeep talks with Turnley about his photos, his work as a photojournalist and about the cost in human lives of war.

In the text that accompanies his exhibit Turnley notes that the images do not represent his judgment on the Gulf War. He writes, "What they do represent is a part of a more accurate picture of what really does happen in war."



















Discussions for this story are now closed

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]


Comments are closed-

The start of the troop deployment
Posted by: Baenz on Feb 28, 2009 4:17 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
It's nice to read such a good article which is to the point. I would just like to ad one more (missing) piece of info:

At the time of the 1st Gulf War we lived in Abu Dhabi (UAE). Just a bit outside Abu Dhabi, on the main land, there was (maybe still is?) a nice Hotel Resort called Beach Hotel (nearby were/are the Military HQs). Newly renovated it opened its doors again sometime in March/April. In June it was suddenly off limits for everyone. Word of mouth spread fast nonetheless and we got to know, that a large number of US Military was put up in the Beach Hotel and, therefore, everything was closed down for the comoners including the Club's facilities.

Now ... how does this tally with the "surprise" invasion of Saddam Hussein into Irak and the "reaction" to it by the US?

I assume that the US Military was on a holiday ... and stayed on in case they might be needed???

Later that year at Christmas time most of us expats who had Christmas parties invited each a few soldiers as we imagined it to be hard to be away on such an occasion. Their stories where quite interesting.

But hey! Everything was a surprise ... a bitter LOL.

Much later, when the so called war was over and we could go back to the Gulf Hotel we found a large picture gallery in the corridors showing the proud management staff with the US Officers.

Interestingly, this gallery suddenly disappeared after approx. 6 weeks. Wonder why - did it have to do with the dates on the pictures ...?

B.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]


Comments are closed-

The effect of DU Munition
Posted by: Baenz on Feb 28, 2009 5:15 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Further up in the thread the mention of the effects of DU Munition came up. Those interested in reading a comprehensive article may go to:

Low Intensity Nuclear War by Prof. Chossudovsky. He describes the effects in the Balkans, Iraq and Afghanistan.

For those with strong nerves - there is a link at the end of the article which leads to a photo gallery. I think it's a must to see in order to understand the full implications of the use of DU Munition.

B.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]


Comments are closed-

from Nora Eisenberg: thanks for the comments
Posted by: eisgirl on Feb 28, 2009 8:27 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I'm so pleased that my article has sparked so many spirited comments. A few responses:

Thanks for mentioning the absence of Timothy McVeigh in the article. I was surely thinking of him when I wrote about the "trauma, addiction and/or brain damage that caused veterans to kill their wives, family, fellow citizens, and/or themselves." I agree that McVeigh's transformation can be traced to Desert Storm (as he himself made clear), and there's a character in my new novel based on McVeigh. John Mohammed, the Beltway Sniper, was also a GW vet. Louis Jones, a decorated career soldier, was executed for a rape crime though a major scientist involved with GW illness showed images of his brain, deformed by neurotoxins, which we now know we exposed troops to. It's hard to determine now, for other cases, the organic vs the psychological.

Thanks for mentiong DU. The recent Research Advisory Committee's report on Gulf War Illness points to neurotoxins as the clear-cut cause of the disease. But the report does not rule out depleted uranium as a contributor. Very encouraging is the work of Department of Army [sic] radiobiologist Dr. Alexandra Miller; her 2006 volume, Depleted Uranium: Properties, Uses, and Health Consequences, brings together a lot of serious research.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]


Comments are closed-

Civilian Deaths
Posted by: eisgirl on Mar 1, 2009 10:27 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Some of you wanted to know more about my figure of 100,000 civilian deaths: Dr. Eric Hoskins in the edited volume War and Public Health (Oxford 2007) puts the civilian death toll at 111,000, including death from war-related illness. Beth DaPonte, a demographer at Carnegie Mellon, puts the Iraqi death count at 205,000,56,000 of whom were Iraqi soldiers, the remaining civilian fatalities from the bombings, crushed rebellions, and war-related illness. Professor Judith Yaphe, of the National Defense University puts the number killed in the Kurdith and Shiite rebellions alone at minimally 60,000 and much as 100,000.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]


Comments are closed-

Change, What Change
Posted by: NeoRevolutions on Mar 1, 2009 11:21 AM   
Current rating: 1    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
While all hoped that Obama and a Democratic majority would end the carnage, it appears that was a pipe dream. The new administration, while continuing the destruction of the dollar, is contemplating widening the middle east quagmire by going into Pakistan, beefing up Afghanistan, and rattling the sabre at Iran, once again. Heck, in his first week in office, Obama authorized a UAV strike that killed women and children in Pakistan. Some change.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: Change, What Change Posted by: Brb007
 
Advertisement
From The Blog
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Most Read
Most Emailed
Most Discussed
On REDDIT
On DIGG
 
loading ...
POWERED BY DIGG'S USERS