Ex-United Nations Workers Accused The US OF Genocide
“Our interest, our involvement in the gulf, is not transitory. It pre-dated Saddam Hussein's aggression and will survive it.” - President George H. W. Bush, September 11, 1990.
On September 11, 1990, President George H. W. Bush addressed a joint session of Congress, opening with the statement, “......We gather tonight, witness to events in the Gulf as significant as they are tragic. In the early morning hours of August 2nd, following negotiations and promises by Iraq's dictator, Saddam Hussein, not to use force, a powerful Iraqi army invaded its trusting and much weaker neighbor, Kuwait. Within 3 days, 120,000 Iraqi troops with 850 tanks had poured into Kuwait and moved south to threaten Saudi Arabia. It was then that I decided to act to check that aggression.”
Bush Administration misrepresented the reason for Kuwait's invasion by Iraq
The first Bush Administration featured Dick Cheney as the Secretary of Defense, Paul D. Wolfowitz as Under Secretary for Defense Policy, and Colin L. Powell as Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff. Together, with President Bush, Sr, they systematically misrepresented the reason for Iraq's invasion of Kuwait, Iraq's conduct in Kuwait, and the cost of the Persian Gulf War.
When Iraqi troops invaded Kuwait that August, Bush compared it to the Nazi occupation of the Rhineland, declaring that history has taught us the importance of resisting aggression lest it destroy our freedoms. Employing fear tactics and outright lies, the administration “leaked” false reports of the tens of thousands of Iraqi troops that were supposedly massing on the Saudi Arabian borders for the purpose of invading the oil fields. Warnings regarding the industrial economies of the entire world being held hostage to Iraq were widely reported.
Bush Administration aimed to control oil fields.
If Iraq wasn't interested in controlling the oil fields, then just what was their agenda? There is wide agreement by students of the Gulf War that Iraq invaded Kuwait in relation to historical grievances, exacerbated by Kuwait's demand for repayment of previous loans made to Iraq during their conflict with Iran. More importantly, administration officials appeared to agree with historical issues being the reason for Iraq to invade Kuwait. The U.S. Ambassador to Baghdad told Hussein that the US had “no opinion on Arab-Arab conflicts such as the border conflict with Kuwait.
Bush Administration hired a public relations firm to instigate a propaganda campaign
Administration officials, with Cheney leading the way, soon viewed the conflict as an opportunity for capitalization, with an eye toward the administration's own agenda. Knowing that a peaceful solution to the crisis would undermine its lordly desires, the administration shot down any and all diplomatic initiatives toward putting an end to the crisis, including a compromise drawn up by Arab leaders. To gain support for their actions, they instigated and condoned a propaganda campaign centered around the alleged Iraqi atrocities committed against the Kuwaiti citizens, going so far as to hire the public relations firm, Hill and Knowlton, to arrange testimony from at least one dubious “eye witness.”
Satellite photos showed NO evidence of an amassed Iraqi military force
On the very day that President Bush, Sr addressed the joint session of Congress, a soviet commercial satellite was taking photos of Saudi Arabia, as well as two days later on September 13, 1990. The photos obtained by at least two media outlets, were examined for evidence of the Iraqi troops purported to have been massed at that time. Peter Zimmerman, who served with the U.S. Arms Control and Disarmament Agency during the Reagan administration, and a nuclear physicist, examined the photos saying that there was no evidence to be found of even 20% of the force reported by the Pentagon. In addition to Zimmerman, a former image specialist for the Defense Intelligence Agency (DIA) who asked to remain anonymous, also examined the photos and found no evidence.
The Pentagon made claims that Iraqi forces had reached 360,000 troops and 2,800 tanks as of September 18, 1990. According to the photos taken only days previously, there was no evidence of any type of installations which could contain that large of a surge in numbers. The main Kuwaiti air base had appeared to be deserted. All Kuwaiti roads leading to the Saudi border were covered at various intervals with deposits of windblown sand too deep to be passed by personnel or supply vehicles. There was no sign that tanks had made use of the roads, either. When confronted with questions surrounding the inconsistencies, Pentagon spokesman Bob Hall insisted that the troops were present and claimed that the US had intelligence capabilities not likely to be discussed with the public.
1.5 million civilian deaths resulted from fabricated reasons for sanctions against Iraq
The U.S, with help from allies, continued to monitor Iraq during the years following the Gulf War, finding fault with their alleged continuance of a biological weapons program begun in the early 1980's with the help of the United States. At that time, the US supported Iraq in their conflict with Iran. Allegedly, details of the chemical weapons program surfaced following the Gulf War, after investigations conducted by the United Nations Special Commission (UNSCOM) who had been assigned the duty of post-war disarmament. Though the investigation concluded a lack of evidence of a continuing weapons program, the US and allies maintained a policy of “containment.” The policy included many economic sanctions and enforcement of Iraqi no-fly zones declared by the US and the UK.
The Iraq sanctions imposed an almost complete financial and trade embargo on Iraq, beginning only four days after Iraq's invasion of Kuwait and stayed in force until after Saddam Hussein was forced from power in 2003. They banned all trade and financial resources except for medicine and foodstuffs. The stated purpose of such economic sanctions? To force Iraq to withdraw military power from Kuwait, while paying reparations, and to disclose and eliminate weapons of mass destruction. The result of the sanctions was an estimated 1 million to 1.5 million civilian deaths, most of them children who died of starvation and disease.
"...a program that satisfies the definition of genocide."
Chlorine, commonly used to purify water was banned due to the slim possibility of someone making use of it in order to manufacture chlorine gas. Department of Defense studies gave a clear indication they understood and accepted the fact that civilian deaths would occur as a result of the ban. Though arguments were made in favor of the shipment of liquid chlorine for disinfecting water supplies, they went unheeded. Dennis Halliday, United Nations Humanitarian Coordinator in Baghdad only lasted a year from September 1, 1997 to October 1998 when he resigned after a 34 year career in the UN. “I don't want to administer a program that satisfies the definition of genocide,” he is reported to have said.
Mario Bettati, who invented the notion of “the right humanitarian intervention” was quoted by Sophie Boukhari, a UNESCO Courier journalist in response to the accusation of genocide, “People who talk like that don't know anything about law. The embargo has certainly affected the Iraqi people badly, but that's not at all a crime against humanity or genocide.” William Bourdon, the secretary-general of International Federation of Human Rights League, stated his own views regarding implied genocide. He said, “one of the key elements of crime against humanity and of genocide is intent. The embargo wasn't imposed because the United States and Britain wanted children to die. If you think so, you have to prove it.” A rose by any other name........
"...infanticide masquerading as policy..." ~ Congressman David Bonior
We might be able to swallow the idea that the embargo was a necessary action if Denis Halliday was the only one to turn his back on a long-term career, but his successor, Hans von Sponeck, also resigned in protest after only 15 months on February 15, 1999. As his predecessor, he walked away from a career spanning more than 30 years. He called the results of the sanctions a “true human tragedy.” The very next day, Jutta Berghardt, head of the World Food Program in Iraq, followed their example and resigned her position. A letter, containing signatures of 70 members of Congress, was delivered to the White House, calling on President Clinton to lift the economic sanctions against Iraq. Congressman David Bonior called the sanctions “infanticide masquerading as policy” at a press conference on February 16.
American government refused to honor Congressional requests and concerns
In response to the protests, a Security Council resolution was drafted which the UN and United States claimed would lift the sanctions. It did no such thing. Instead, it created a new arms monitoring agency, and would only give consideration to lifting sanctions more than a year later. A dangling carrot was also presented in a hint that some economic restrictions might be temporarily suspended. Looking back over the 13 years the sanctions were in place, it's easy to see that the United States was the leader of the sanctions regime, therefore was responsible for the half million children killed as a result, as well as the other half million unnecessary deaths.
While Jutta Burghardt was in Iraq, she was clear in her criticisms of the Iraqi regime. However, her duty was to oversee the distribution of food to those in need. According to her, monthly food baskets delivered, only had enough staples to see the recipient through the first 21 days of the month. Recognizing a need for income-generating programs, she attempted to initiate a few. She claimed her ideas were not accepted at headquarters because the United States is the agency's biggest donor and played a key role in preventing her plans from being instigated.
The big question is why? Why would the United States, who insisted that there was no intent of genocide or infanticide, continue to ignore more than a million deaths? Why would they refuse to seriously consider the pleas of international experts working on the ground? Even more important to every red-blooded American, why would our government refuse to honor the requests and concerns of 70 members of Congress who were elected by the people, for the people?
The United States government was calling the shots for all the people of Iraq, long before the 9/11 events. Our government was the driving factor behind the creation of the agency responsible for conducting the search for weapons of mass destruction, which we are well aware, never existed. Our government saw to the starvation deaths of a million people in an attempt to demonize the Iraqi regime; a regime which could have been taken down right from the start, without killing the most innocent of all, the children.
Perhaps the American government secretly abides by the idea that the only good Iraqi is a dead Iraqi?
If you find this information helpful or interesting, why not pass it on by clicking the Tweet, Like, or +1 buttons provided at the top of the page?
- The New World Order: Not Just Another Conspiracy Theory
The subject of a New World Order has been a recurring theme since the Senior President Bush took office. This article explores the background and foundations of the idea known as the New World Order.
- Civil Rights Violations Cited In Lawsuit Against Homeland Security
The ACLU on behalf Of David House, a computer programmer who is a member of the Bradley Manning Support Network, has filed a suit against Homeland Security for the illegal search and seizure of David's personal laptop. They claim that confidential in
- The CIA: A Nazi Network
Most Americans aren't aware how the Central Intelligence Agency got its start or who was behind the drive to turn it into an organization for furthering the work begun by Hitler and his Nazi party. Read here, how Nazi war criminals were secretly brou
- 9/11: The New Pearl Harbor?
This year marks 10 years since terror proved it had grown roots in American soil. Much has been written and rewritten about the events of 9/11, as well as some of the blunders in handling a growing concern with terrorism. The author gives a chronolog