Sponsors

Judgment at Baghdad Email Print

By Bob Kendall
04/10/2006 11:47:14 PM EST

A motion picture with the title "Judgment at Baghdad" could be a box office bonanza around the world if the truth were told about Saddam Hussein and his rise to power, as well as who helped him to become a murderous dictatorial monster.  This move could fall into the horror flick category, which is so popular these days, only this could also be advertised as a reality show.

The United States remembers Benedict Arnold as a traitor, and in this movie there are a lot of traitors whose betrayals could be shown graphically with the killing scenes using deadly weapons supplied by out of control governmental action, weapons that were supplied by leading corporations.

This film would begin in 1959 when Saddam was, according to the Fort Lauderdale Sen-Sentinel December 23, 2003 article by Jim Mullins, who stated, "Saddam `wiseguy' in Mafia parlance, who made his `bones' in a CIA plot to assassinate then Iraqi Prime Minister General Abdullah al-Karin Qasim.  Qasim had joined the Baghdad Pact, a regional agreement with Turkey, Iran, Afghanistan and Great Britain, put together as a bulwark against Soviet influence."

All that dramatically changed when Iraq's Prime Minister General Qasim suddenly withdrew from the post in 1959 and began buying arms from the Soviets.  Then "the CIA set up a six man team under Saddam to assassinate him.  Saddam botched the job, killing the General's driver and only wounding Qasim."

Saddam Hussein, with CIA and Egyptian help, went to Cairo.  He returned to Baghdad when Qasim was killed in a Baath Party coup.  It didn't take long for Saddam to rise in the party apparatus.  Saddam was placed in charge of mass killings of Iraqi Communists.  This was accomplished in a nationwide roundup.  This is the important part of the story, "from a list provided by the CIA."

Get the plot for the potential horror movie?  The USA, alleged to be a nation of freedom, justice and democracy, accomplished the goal of ridding Iraq of those bothersome Communists.  After all, doesn't the end justify the means?  For a warped mind it certainly does.

Iraq's only entrance to the Persian Gulf was the Shatt al-Arab waterway.  This happens to be Iran's largest refinery's shipping channel.  Saddam was forced to cede Iran half of this vital channel.

The Shah of Iran forced Saddam to expel the Ayatollah Khomeini, generating everlasting hatred from Islamic fundamentalists.  When the Shah was overthrown Khomeini returned to Iran, installing an Islamic regime.

Saddam, observing Iran's weakened military, began attacking.  The result was a mutually destructive eight-year war.  Even though the United States was claiming to be neutral, the United States began to supply Saddam with biological and chemical materials, as well as helicopters, along with satellite information that helped enormously at a critical point when Iran was winning the war.  

Proof of this was exposed years later when the United Nations set a deadline for Iraq to report on its chemical, biological and nuclear weapons programs.  However, when the United States read the report Saddam produced, concerned government officials tried to hide all incriminating evidence by removing the pages that documented western corporate involvement in supplying Saddam with chemical and biological weapons.

A reporter for a German newspaper, Die Tageszeitung, later revealed the information that had been removed:  "24 major U.S. corporations - Bechtel, Dupont, Rockwell and Spery Corporation etc. had sold chemicals and weapons to Iraq."  As if that was not enough, the U.S. government nuclear labs - Lawrence Livermore, Los Alamos and Sandia had been training visiting Iraqi scientists.  

There is more!  Congressional records reveal that the Center for Disease Control along with a private biological sample company, the American Type-e Culture Collection, had been sending Iraq strains of anthrax, botulism toxin and germs that cause gas gangrene.  Is that how a Christian nation treats its enemies?  

Now what if a motion picture in the horror genre showed how the Iranians died from the biological and chemical weapons the U.S. sold to Saddam.  Wouldn't that be something horrifying to see?


KEYWORDS: , , ,

Sign up for a Complimentary Member Account... Join the community! It's fast. And it'll allow you to take advantage of all this site's great features!

< A Fraudulent War? | CA-50 Special Election >
 Display:
Judgment at Baghdad | 1 comment (1 topical, editorial, 0 hidden)
Saddam's erection to power. A CIA interuptus. (none / 0)
Saddam was erected by the CIA to rule Iraq because he would kill whoever they wanted killed.
   The CIA had also, earlier, deposed Mossadeqh (sp?) who had been elected President of Iran.  Mossadeqh was a progressive socialist, who wanted to redistribute the oil wealth of Iran as equally as possible through the population.
   A US agent named Roosevelt, yes, a cousin of that Roosevelt, managed to whip up street demonstrations by paying unemployed thugs to rage through the streets of Tehran condemning the nascent socialist policies.  These thugs had no concept of what they were doing other than they were getting off and getting paid.
   The Shah flew back, catalysed the army to regain law and order and took over the Presidential palace with troops loyal to his family and possibly his money.  Mossadeqh resigned under pressure and the monarchy was restored.  The Shah began killing the opposition with his brutal Savak Secret Police.  (Trained by the US.  How did we know how to train them in fascist suppression of dissent?  Good Q.)  
   When the Shah began to push Saddam (what other leader do we consistently call by his first name?)it was for simple passage of oil out of the harbor as stated in the article.  The strait of Hormuz could have been closed to Iraq, as a threat to ensure negotiations, but the US would have found that a bad precedent.  So we made Saddam cave in.
   Bad scene followed.  The Shah, and his secret police murderers, were finally evicted by the only political force strong enough to do it: Khomeini and the Shiite fundamentalists.  This was alarming to Saddam since the Shiites comprised 60% of his country's population.  He. being Sunni Moslem, had to constantly keep the Shiites under control.  
   So he went to war, using Shiite soldiers as cannon fodder against their own religious brothers.  This was an eight year war between two insanely stubborn nations.  The US has never fought even a five year war...except for Vietnam, which tore us apart, and the cold war in general.  Near the end Iran was conscripting pre-teens to march across mine-strewn fields to clear a path for regular troops to follow.  Millions died.  And the populations were small to begin with.
   The Shiite hatred for Sunnis is rooted in the memory of this combat and the Sunni tyranny in Iraq.  It is hard to believe they will ever join with Sunni people to rule that nation together in a peaceful democracy.  If the American people knew the whole story we would immediately see the futility of such a course.
   The only hope for leaving Iraq is to split it up firmly and fairly according to the population of the various ethnicities, remembering that some families are mixed.  It might be possible in future generations to meld them all into one Moslem nation...or even more miraculously, one secular society, but not soon.
   We have had jpractice with this in the old Yugoslavia, which has finally found a modicum of peace after breaking up into some six independent nations: Slovenia, Croatia, Bosnia, Kosovo, Serbia, and Macedonia.  
   In Iraq the numbers are about the same and the land is much larger, although the inhabited part is comparable.  The historic hatreds are also similar.
   The Kurds in the north have the honor of being the longest existing ethnicity without having had a homeland in all history--for 5,000 years they have lived in nearby diaspora...in Turket, Iran, and Syria mostly.
   The Sunnis live mostly in the central areas of Iraq--around Baghdad.  The Shiites live to the south, but also in a very large and poor part of Baghdad called Sadr City.  Splitting the oil revenue equally, adult by adult, might go a long way toward ameliorating their general sense of desperation.  Poverty breeds violence.  They live over the 2nd largest oil reserves in the world.
   I would suggest that redistribution of that wealth fairly would be the best first step we could take to getting our military out of there.
   Even with a modest US air presence to assure non-aggression of a major scale, we would be looking at more than a year.  We would graduate from occupiers to caretakers, nurturing three  independent judiciaries and naturally associated police functions.
   Concurrently, we could apply the lessons of recent history and let it be.  They need to sell the oil: we, and Europe and China, the entire world, want to buy it.  Where's the problem if we don't make one up?
   Iraqis, call them by their chosen names, could develop their own rules and freedoms and eonomies without our impossible meddling in every infinitessimal aspect of their existence.
   Remember, we couldn't even handle New Orleans properly...not that this administration wanted or wants to anyway.  The only alternative is civil war, stirred up by US over-involvement.
jimmy mankind, san francisco

by jimmy driver on 04/11/2006 04:48:07 PM EST

Judgment at Baghdad | 1 comment (1 topical, 0 editorial, 0 hidden)
 Display: