-
What people seem to forget (from other web sites)
2003-02-01 00:35:16
On June 1st, 1953, the CIA and the British SIS submitted their initial plans for the overthrow of Mossadeq, and the installation of the Shah as dictator and General Zahedi as Prime Minister. Both the CIA and the SIS pledged military and logistical aid, and worked through the British ambassador in Tehran to convince the Shah to assume the dictatorship. In presenting this plan to the Shah, the US and the Brits wanted to stress that the primary objective of the coup was "to maintain independence Iran [sic] and keep from Soviet orbit. To do this Mossadeq must be removed." The secondary objective (which they list first) 'as pitched to the Shah" was oil.
On August 19th, 1953, democratically elected Mossadeq was overthrown, and the Shah took control. Read this Memorandum for the President from August 1953, classified as Top Secret. In particular: "The Shah is a new man. For the first time he believes in himself because he feels that he is King by his people's choice. He recognizes now his debt to us and hopes, as he puts it, that we have a realistic understanding of the importance of Iran to us."
In 1982, the Reagan Administration removed Saddam Hussein’s Iraq from the list of states supporting terrorism, despite credible information that Iraq was, in fact, still supporting terrorism. The decision came as Iraq was on the brink of losing its war with Iran which had begun in September 1980. At the same time, according to the 1995 sworn affidavit of Howard Teicher, a member of Reagan’s National Security Council, Reagan pushed the United States directly into the Iran-Iraq war:
In June 1982, President Reagan decided that the United States could not afford to allow Iraq to lose the war to Iran. President Reagan decided that the United States would do whatever was necessary and legal to prevent Iraq from losing the war with Iran. President Reagan formalized this policy by issuing a National Security Decision Directive ("NSDD") to this effect in June 1982. I have personal knowledge of this NSDD because I co-authored the NSDD with another NSC Staff Member, Geoff Kemp. The NSDD, including even its identifying number, is classified.
CIA Director Casey personally spearheaded the effort to ensure that Iraq had sufficient military weapons, ammunition and vehicles to avoid losing the Iran-Iraq war. Pursuant to the secured NSDD, the United States actively supported the Iraqi war effort by supplying the Iraqis with billions of dollars of credits, by providing U.S. military intelligence and advice to the Iraqis, and by closely monitoring third country arms sales to Iraq to make sure that Iraq had the military weaponry required.
In December 1983, the United States stepped up its relationship, setting up a meeting in Baghdad. The American representative was Reagan’s Special Envoy to the Middle East, Donald Rumsfeld—now George W. Bush’s Secretary of Defense and one of the administration’s leading war hawks. Rumsfeld met with Iraq’s foreign minister, Tariq Aziz, and with Saddam Hussein himself, and delivered a personal letter from Reagan to Hussein. The letter remains classified, but notes on the meetings shed some light:
Saddam at one point expressed “great pleasure” at the letter, and Aziz quoted Reagan as saying “the Iran-Iraq war could pose serious problems for the economic and security interests of the U.S., its friends in the region and in the free world.”
Teicher also reported in his affidavit that Rumsfeld brought an offer of assistance from Israel:
The Israelis approached the United States in a meeting in Jerusalem that I attended with Donald Rumsfeld. Israeli Foreign Minister Yitzhak Shamir asked Rumsfeld if the United States would deliver a secret offer of Israeli assistance to Iraq. The United States agreed. I travelled with Rumsfeld to Baghdad and was present at the meeting in which Rumsfeld told Iraqi Foreign Minister Tariq Aziz about Israel's offer of assistance. Aziz refused even to accept the Israelis' letter to Hussein offering assistance, because Aziz told us that he would be executed on the spot by Hussein if he did so.
Twelve days after the meeting, the United States’ decision that Iraq could not lose the Iran-Iraq War—as decided in the 1982 National Security Decision Directive—came to light in the Washington Post. Three months later, in late March 1984, Rumsfeld was back in Baghdad for another meeting with Aziz. The meeting took place the same day the UN reported that Iraq was using chemical weapons in its war on Iran.
America was not deterred, and on November 26, 1984, President Reagan met with Iraqi foreign minister Tariq Aziz at the White House to re-establish diplomatic ties between the two countries. Iraq had severed diplomatic relations in 1967 during the Arab-Israeli War. Perhaps Iraq’s use of weapons of mass destruction were not an issue because they weren’t a surprise.
The United States was, of course, providing Iraq with advice and assistance. As the New York Times reported in August 2002:
Though senior officials of the Reagan administration publicly condemned Iraq's employment of mustard gas, sarin, VX and other poisonous agents, the American military officers said President Reagan, Vice President George Bush and senior national security aides never withdrew their support for the highly classified program in which more than 60 officers of the Defense Intelligence Agency were secretly providing detailed information on Iranian deployments, tactical planning for battles, plans for airstrikes and bomb-damage assessments for Iraq.
More than simply helping Iraq unleash chemical and biological weapons against Iran, the US got even more involved, as William Blum wrote in 1998:
According to a 1994 Senate report, private American suppliers, licensed by the U.S. Department of Commerce, exported a witch's brew of biological and chemical materials to Iraq from 1985 through 1989. Among the biological materials, which often produce slow, agonizing death, were:
• Bacillus Anthracis, cause of anthrax.
• Clostridium Botulinum, a source of botulinum toxin.
• Histoplasma Capsulatam, cause of a disease attacking lungs, brain, spinal cord, and heart.
• Brucella Melitensis, a bacteria that can damage major organs.
• Clostridium Perfringens, a highly toxic bacteria causing systemic illness.
• Clostridium tetani, a highly toxigenic substance.
Also on the list: Escherichia coli (E. coli), genetic materials, human and bacterial DNA, and dozens of other pathogenic biological agents. "These biological materials were not attenuated or weakened and were capable of reproduction," the Senate report stated. "It was later learned that these microorganisms exported by the United States were identical to those the United Nations inspectors found and removed from the Iraqi biological warfare program."
The report noted further that U.S. exports to Iraq included the precursors to chemical-warfare agents, plans for chemical and biological warfare production facilities, and chemical-warhead filling equipment.
The exports continued to at least November 28, 1989, despite evidence that Iraq was engaging in chemical and biological warfare against Iranians and Kurds since as early as 1984.
Helping to arm a country engaged in a bloody war is fun, but getting your hands dirty yourself is even better. National Security Council staff member Teicher revealed that President Reagan and Vice President Bush did just this, directly involving themselves in the advising of Iraq.
For example, in 1986, President Reagan sent a secret message to Saddam Hussein telling him that Iraq should step up its air war and bombing of Iran. This message was delivered by Vice President Bush who communicated it to Egyptian President Mubarak, who in turn passed the message to Saddam Hussein. Similar strategic operational military advice was passed to Saddam Hussein through various meetings with European and Middle Eastern heads of state. I authored Bush's talking points for the 1986 meeting with Mubarak and personally attended numerous meetings with European and Middle East heads of state where the strategic operational advice was communicated.
While most of the arms and machinery America helped Saddam Hussein get his hands on came through intermediary countries, many others were direct from the US. Among them were more than 100 helicopters (some of which, the Los Angeles Times reported, were used in gassing the Kurds in 1988). William Blum also reports that: “U.S. companies sold Iraq more than $1 billion worth of the components needed to build nuclear weapons and diverse types of missiles, including the infamous Scud.”
After the gassing of the Kurds came to light, the United States Senate unanimously passed sanctions against Iraq to cut off their line to US technology. The move was squashed by the White House, and among other internal reason given, declassified documents show that such sanctions would hinder American companies receiving "massive post-war reconstruction" contracts.
Indeed, the bulk of Iraq’s war machinery came from countries other than the United States, but they still came with the US seal of approval, and in many cases, direct US involvement. Teicher reported on this, too, in his ’95 affidavit:
“I personally attended meetings in which CIA Director Casey or CIA Deputy Director Gates noted the need for Iraq to have certain weapons such as cluster bombs and anti-armor penetrators in order to stave off the Iranian attacks. When I joined the NSC staff in early 1982, CIA Director Casey was adamant that cluster bombs were a perfect "force multiplier" that would allow the Iraqis to defend against the "human waves" of Iranian attackers. I recorded those comments in the minutes of National Security Planning Group ("NSPG") meetings in which Casey or Gates participated.
The CIA, including both CIA Director Casey and Deputy Director Gates, knew of, approved of, and assisted in the sale of non-U.S. origin military weapons, ammunition and vehicles to Iraq. My notes, memoranda and other documents in my NSC files show or tend to show that the CIA knew of, approved of, and assisted in the sale of non-U.S. origin military weapons, munitions and vehicles to Iraq.”
In 1989, George H. W. Bush took office as President of the United States. His policy on Iraq, not surprisingly, followed directly in the steps of Reagan’s:
The Bush administration became a particular focus of criticism because it followed its predecessor in making strengthened U.S.-Iraq relations a key objective, despite the fact that the end of the Iran-Iraq war had eliminated a major rationale for this goal. A transition paper prepared for the new presidency outlined the conflicts that characterized U.S. policy toward Iraq. The paper recommended assigning high priority to U.S.-Iraq relations because of Saddam Hussein’s potential as a "major player," but reviewed persistent divisive issues, including Iraq’s chemical weapons use which "aroused great emotions" in the U.S., and its "abominable human rights record." These negative factors were contrasted with Iraq’s value as a market and its potential as a trading partner, and wit the fact that it shared an interest with the U.S. in containing Iran. The paper recommended that the new administration should begin with a high-level message calling for further development of political and economic relations.8
Secretary of State James Baker personally intervened to promote strong ties with Baghdad. A briefing paper prepared for a March 1989 meeting between Baker and Iraqi Foreign Ministry Under Secretary Nizar Hamdoon discussed Iraq’s active involvement in chemical and biological warfare and missile programs, and recommended stressing the sensitivity of Iraq’s chemical weapons use for U.S.-Iraq relations.9 Hamdoom and Baker discussed Iraq’s wish for medium-term Eximbank export credit guarantees, and Baker assured him that he would take a personal interest in the question. (The State Department later warned Baker that moving forward with the credits would be problematic, given strong congressional opposition to Iraq’s recent chemical weapons use.)10 In June, Baker wrote to Secretary of Agriculture Clayton Yeutter to ask him to increase the size of the CCC’s GSM-102 program by $1 billion, to solve a problem "that has consequences for both U.S. foreign policy and agricultural exports."11 Soon thereafter, the Agriculture Department informed the National Advisory Council on International Monetary and Financial Policies (NAC), an interagency group responsible for approving economic programs involving foreign countries, that Agriculture planned to offer Iraq $1 billion in export credit guarantees for FY 1990.
Eximbank guarantees were provided through the Atlanta branch of the Italian Banca Nazionale del Lavoro:
Banca Nazionale del Lavoro, relying partially on U.S. taxpayer-guaranteed loans, funnelled $5 billion to Iraq from 1985 to 1989. Some government-backed loans were supposed to be for agricultural purposes, but were used to facilitate the purchase of stronger stuff than wheat. Federal Reserve and Agriculture department memos warned of suspected abuses by Iraq, which apparently took advantage of the loans to free up funds for munitions. U.S. taxpayers have been left holding the bag for what looks like $ 2 billion in defaulted loans to Iraq.
On September 19, 2002, Secretary of Defense Rumsfeld testified before the Senate Armed Services Committee during the mostly cursory debate on an imminent attack on Iraq—an attack justified by the weapons of mass destruction the US had given Saddam Hussein in the 80s, and his use of those weapons, which America had tacitly condoned. Senator Robert Byrd of West Virginia referred to this Newsweek article, and asked Rumsfeld pointed questions on America’s involvement in arming Iraq.
SEN. BYRD: Thank you, Mr. Chairman, for holding these hearings. Mr. Secretary, to your knowledge, did the United States help Iraq to acquire the building blocks of biological weapons during the Iran-Iraq War? Are we in fact now facing the possibility of reaping what we have sown?
SEC. RUMSFELD: Certainly not to my knowledge. I have no knowledge of United States companies or government being involved in assisting Iraq develop, chemical, biological or nuclear weapons.
SEN. BYRD: Mr. Secretary, let me read to you from the September 23, 2002 Newsweek story. I read this -- I read excerpts, because our time is limited: ""Some Reagan officials even saw Saddam as another Anwar Sadat, capable of making Iraq into a modern secular state, just as Sadat had tried to lift up Egypt before his assassination in 1981. But Saddam had to be rescued first. The war against Iran was going badly by 1982. Iran's 'human wave attacks' threatened to overrun Saddam's armies. Washington decided to give Iraq a helping hand. After Rumsfeld's visit to Baghdad in 1983, U.S. intelligence began supplying the Iraqi dictator with satellite photos showing Iranian deployments. Official documents suggest that America may also have secretly arranged for tanks and other military hardware to be shipped to Iraq in a swap deal -- American tanks to Egypt, Egyptian tanks to Iraq. Over the protest of some Pentagon skeptics, the Reagan administration began allowing the Iraqis to buy a wide variety of" -- quote -- "dual use" -- close quote -- "equipment and materials from American suppliers. According to confidential Commerce Department export-control documents obtained by NEWSWEEK, the shopping list included a computerized database for Saddam's Interior Ministry, presumably to help keep track of political opponents; helicopters to transport Iraqi officials; television cameras for video surveillance applications; chemical-analysis equipment for the Iraq Atomic Energy Commission, IAEC, and, most unsettling, numerous shipments of bacteria/fungi/protozoa to the IAEC. According to former officials, the bacteria cultures could be used to make biological weapons, including anthrax. The State Department also approved the shipment of 1.5 million atropine injectors, for use against the effects of chemical weapons, but the Pentagon blocked the sale. Helicopters, some American officials later surmised, were used to spray poison gas on the Kurds. The United States almost certainly knew from its own satellite imagery that Saddam was using chemical weapons against Iranian troops. When Saddam bombed Kurdish rebels and civilians with a lethal cocktail of mustard gas, sarin, tabun and VX in 1988, the Reagan administration first blamed Iran, before acknowledging, under pressure from congressional Democrats, that the culprits were Saddam's own forces. There was only token official protest at the time. Saddam's men were unfazed. An Iraqi audiotape, later captured by the Kurds, records Saddam's cousin Ali Hassan al-Majid, known as Ali Chemical, talking to his fellow officers about gassing the Kurds. 'Who is going to say anything?,' closed quotes, he asks. Quote, 'The international community? F-blank them,'" exclamation point, closed quote.
Now, can this possibly be true? We already knew that Saddam was a dangerous man at the time. I realize that you were not in public office at the time, but you were dispatched to Iraq by President Reagan to talk about the need to improve relations between Iraq and the U.S. Let me ask you again: To your knowledge, did the United States help Iraq to acquire the building blocks of biological weapon during the Iran-Iraq War? Are we in fact now facing the possibility of reaping what we have sown? The Washington Post reported this morning that the United States is stepping away from efforts to strengthen the Biological Weapons Convention. I'll have a question on that later. Let me ask you again: Did the United States help Iraq to acquire the building blocks of biological weapon during the Iran-Iraq War? Are we in fact now facing the possibility of reaping what we have sown?
SEC. RUMSFELD: I have not read the article. I, as you suggest, I was for a period in late '83 and early '84, asked by President Reagan to serve as Middle East envoy after the Marines -- 241 Marines were killed in Beirut. And as part of my responsibilities, I did visit Baghdad. I did meet with Mr. Tariq Aziz, and I did meet with Saddam Hussein, and spent some time visiting with them about the war they were engaged in with Iran.
At the time our concern of course was Syria, and Syria's role in Lebanon and Lebanon's role in the Middle East, and the terrorist acts that were taking place. As a private citizen, I was assisting only for a period of months. I have never heard anything like what you have read. I have no knowledge of it whatsoever, and I doubt it.
Perhaps he should read the Reigle Report, from the Senate Committee on Banking, Housing and Urban Affairs, written by Senators Reigle and D’Amato in 1994. That may refresh his memory, assuming he doesn’t doubt the report’s accuracy.
At the time our concern of course was Syria, and Syria's role in Lebanon and Lebanon's role in the Middle East, and the terrorist acts that were taking place. As a private citizen, I was assisting only for a period of months. I have never heard anything like what you have read. I have no knowledge of it whatsoever, and I doubt it.
Perhaps he should read the Reigle Report, from the Senate Committee on Banking, Housing and Urban Affairs, written by Senators Reigle and D'Amato in 1994. That may refresh his memory, assuming he doesn't doubt the report's accuracy.
Following the eight year war with Iran and gassing of the Kurds, the United States continued to aid Saddam Hussein and oil rich Iraq, right up until 1990. Then, on August 2nd http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_east/861164.stm, Iraq invaded Kuwait, thus beginning the Gulf War. Unless they completely destroyed and rebuilt their army and weapons, the Iraqis were using the same weapons they'd used in their war with Iran, the same weapons we'd sent them and helped them to acquire.
On February 27th, the United States announced the liberation of Kuwait and the return to power of the Emir of Kuwait, Sheikh Jaber Al-Ahmad Al-Sabah.
The Gulf War officially lasted for six weeks. In that time, the United States dropped 85,000 tons of explosives in 110,000 sorties over Iraq. The United States lost 125 troops, most of them from friendly fire. It was a new style of war, fought and won—for the most part—from the sky.
On the ground, where the bombs and missiles fell, more than just victory was achieved. The Jordanian Red Crescent estimated that 113,000 Iraqi civilians were killed in the 1991 war.
After the war, of course, came the sanctions. America and the West pushed sanctions through the United Nations, though the sanctions themselves were bound to affect the Iraqi people more than their oppressive, dictatorial rulers. In the past twelve years, Saddam Hussein has lived comfortably, untouched by the sanctions the United States has fought, against growing international outcries, to keep in place.
The sanctions were not without effect. The UN Oil-for-Food program provides a whopping $190 to each Iraqi per year. The middle class in the country is gone—only Hussein and his inner circle and the impoverished masses remain. Diseases eradicated in the 80s have returned, and in many cases—due to the sanctions—the medications needed to treat the diseases are not available. UNICEF, a part of the United Nations, estimated that between 1991 and 1998 over a million Iraqis died from malnutrition and disease, due in large part to the UN implemented sanctions and the US and British bombings that have decimated the Iraqi water supply and overall infrastructure. Half of those dead Iraqis were children under five.
Many have argued that Saddam Hussein is holding aid in warehouses, not releasing it to the people and diverting it to his army and political allies. There is truth in this, certainly, but the UN's sanctions have never worked and have done nothing to weaken Hussein's hold on the country. Additionally, the United Nations, and particularly the United States, have worked tirelessly to keep Iraq from receiving the aid http://www.zmag.org/edwinthalliday.htm.
There is no denying the cruel and dictatorial leadership of Saddam Hussein. At the same time, there should be no denying the cruelty of the sanctions, and the United States' insistence on maintaining them. If they didn't work at first, and they didn't work five years later, and they still didn't work ten years later, at some point you would think the United States would have tried something different. For some reason, they did not. As Dennis Halliday, Former Assistant Secretary-General of The United Nations, said in 2000:
Does the West want to hold on to Saddam? If so, why?
“Bush [the First] or somebody in the United States made a decision not to overthrow Saddam Hussein. What is the motive? Traditionally the motive was that they needed him to provide stability in Iraq, to keep Iraq together, to avoid the Kurds going their way and the Shia perhaps going there way in the South, and so on; and the Shia of course would threaten Saudi Arabia and Kuwait, being Shia as opposed to Suni – so he's a good enemy this man, he's great! Said Aburish in his new book has said that the CIA has worked with him for 30 years. So there is a ploy to keep him in power, but of course to destroy him at the same time, to enable him to survive without having any capacity to threaten his neighbours. If you look at the sales of US military hardware, Saddam is the best salesman in town. I think over $100 billion has been sold to the Saudis, Kuwaitis, the Gulf states, Turkey, Israel, and so on. It's thanks to Saddam. Just last week they sold $6.2 billion of military aircraft to the United Arab Emirates. What on earth does a little country need hardware like that for? Saddam provides that – he should be getting a cut.”
Clinton is gone now and in his place George W. Bush has taken it upon himself to avenge his father's failed presidency and seize Iraq's vast oil fields. If everything goes as planned, the increase in Islamic militancy may just keep the fire burning beneath the mammoth arms sales. If it doesn't, all hell will break loose. One thing's for certain though: more Iraqi civilians, particularly children, will die.
At least we've got that.
-
More protest of War.
2003-02-01 00:20:29
ATLANTA (Reuters) - The Bush administration has not convinced Americans or Europeans that a military attack on Iraq is necessary, Nobel Peace Prize laureate Jimmy Carter said on Friday.
"Our government has not made a case for a pre-emptive military strike against Iraq, either at home or in Europe," the Democratic former president said in a statement.
"It is sobering to realize how much doubt and consternation has been raised about our motives for war in the absence of convincing proof of a genuine threat from Iraq."
Carter, who won the Nobel Peace Prize in 2002, also said it would be "suicidal" for Iraqi President Saddam Hussein to threaten any of his neighbors at a time when the United States was deploying its military forces in the Gulf in preparation for a possible war against Iraq.
The Bush administration has threatened to use military action to remove Saddam if he does not comply with United Nations efforts to ensure he has no weapons of mass destruction.
U.N. weapons inspectors, who returned to Iraq last November after a four-year hiatus, are scheduled to present a progress report on Iraq's compliance with U.N. resolutions on Feb. 14.
Carter said the United States and the world would be better off if the White House supported the strengthening of the inspection process in Iraq.
-
To all the guests I guess I'm going to be having
2003-01-30 21:43:56
Now Ed's got a FORUM TOPIC of me...
So...now many people are probably coming over to the Journal...
This journal is where I come to write about things that I don't feel should be on the forum, since many of them don't deal with anime or anime music AMVs.
I often talk about events in the news... talk about movies I saw... and otherwise discuss things going on in my life.
People who read this and are interested in talking about these topics are free to e-mail me...
but I have no interest in defending anything I write here... I don't see a need to. It's my Journal and that's what Journals are for.
You don't like what you see here, go away... or complain in your own journal (as I know some do)
or... if you MUST... e-mail me about it... my e-mail is in my profile.
Don't involve the whole community with your own insecurities.
-
I got a very interesting e-mail
2003-01-30 16:07:38
A friend of mine from AMV.ORG e-mailed me to let me know that Radical Ed is apparently posting remarks in their journal about my journal entries.
I think it is delightful that Radical Ed is so obsessed with me that she/he/it is spending so much time going over my journal entries. It's very flattering to know that so much of Radical Ed's time is taken with me.
I wonder if Radical Ed has even half the brain to grasp what is being written about... or grasp that the events in the news are events that effect all of us in the world.
I doubt it. Radical Ed can't be bothered to think, or read, or concern her/his/it-self with things beyond the tiny little egocentric world that Ed has set up for it/his/her-self.
None the less, while I appretiate the e-mail, I have no need to go to Ed's Journal, because I can't really be bothered with what that empty-headed no one has to say.
However, I'm sure Ed and Mr. Oni and people of their ilk will continue to pour over my journal witrhout end, because they have so little to do with their lives that they have to find people to antagonize...
They have proven in their own posts on the board that they don't have any capacity to understand anything and simply shout out their ignorance at the top of their lungs.
Since I now know that Ed has joined Mr. Oni in reading my journal... let me add this subject for their benefit.
What do you do about idiots like these two?
I mean... they don't listen, they don't understand english, they reword things you say in the most ludicrous of ways, they simply revel in harassing people and they have nothing useful to offer in any way.
With Mr. Oni, I finally announced how I was simply going to insult him whereever I saw him. That conversation was just not even an option. I suppose, I'll have to take the same approach with Radical Ed now as well.
In the movie "Miracle on 34th St.", a Christmas movie from 1947 (I believe was the date), even the Santa character argued that Mr. Sawyer was such an insufferable person who was unwilling to listen to reason or even consider any view other than his own... and that there was only one thing to do with a person like him and then thwapped Sawyer off the head with this walking stick.
That's how I feel about Oni and Ed. They won't listen, they don't care and the only thing that would have any impact is hitting them off the head with a walking stick.
As for me... I wish I could simply ignore them.
I mean, Ed's just a stupid kid... so Ed is easier to ignore... except that Ed is actively chasing after me... I have become such an important person in Ed's life it would seem. Shows how empty and sad Ed's life is when all Ed can do is come after me.
Then there's Mr. Oni. A man who posts murderous and hate-filled thoughts. A man who scoffs at the death of children and who feels well justified in shooting me dead.
Even if Mr. Oni killed me, it wouldn't change the fact that he is a pea-brained, hate filled waste of life. My not being around to say it wouldn't change this fact.
Martin Luther King said that a great enemy for change in this world is the quiet apathy of so many good-hearted people.
I can't simply ignore the hateful things Oni says because it makes me feel guilty of complicity through apathy.
When I hear things as hate-filled as what Mr. Oni spouts out... it just makes me ill to the core. Ignorant people like him do so much damage to the human condition... and if we simply tolerate it... we help contribute to that.
Well... I will continue to write what I want in my journal, because it is my journal. Ed and Oni can pester me all they want, but in the end, I will always be the better person.
-
MANDELA speaks out against Bush! YEAH!
2003-01-30 15:46:02
JOHANNESBURG (Reuters) - Former South African President Nelson Mandela lashed out at U.S. President George Bush's stance on Iraq on Thursday, saying the Texan had no foresight and could not think properly.
Mandela, a towering statesman respected the world over for his fight against Apartheid-era discrimination, said the U.S. leader and British Prime Minister Tony Blair were undermining the United Nations, and suggested they would not be doing so if the organization had a white leader.
"It is a tragedy what is happening, what Bush is doing in Iraq," Mandela told an audience in Johannesburg. "What I am condemning is that one power, with a president who has no foresight, who cannot think properly, is now wanting to plunge the world into a holocaust," he added, to loud applause.
"Both Bush as well as Tony Blair are undermining an idea (the United Nations) which was sponsored by their predecessors," Mandela said. "Is this because the secretary general of the United Nations (Ghanaian Kofi Annan is now a black man? They never did that when secretary generals were white."
Mandela said he would support without reservation any action agreed upon by the United Nations against Iraq, which Bush and Blair say has weapons of mass destruction and is a sponsor of terror groups, including Osama bin Laden's al Qaeda network.
The United States has promised to reveal evidence that Iraqi President Saddam Hussein has breached U.N. resolutions, a charge Iraq denies.
Mandela said action without U.N. support was unacceptable and set a bad precedent for world politics.
"Are they saying this is a lesson that you should follow, or are they saying we are special, what we do should not be done by anyone," he said in his speech to the International Women's Forum on the theme of Courageous Leadership for Global Transformation.
Nobel Peace Laureate Mandela, 84, has spoken out many times against Bush's stance, and South Africa's close ties with Libya and Cuba irked Washington during Mandela's own presidency.
He also attacked the United States's record on human rights, criticizing the dropping of atomic bombs on the Japanese cities of Hiroshima and Nagaski in World War II.
"Because they decided to kill innocent people in Japan, who are still suffering from that, who are they now to pretend that they are the policeman of the world?..." he asked.
"lf there is a country which has committed unspeakable atrocities, it is the United States of America...They don't care for human beings."
But he said he was happy that people, especially those in the United States, were opposing military action in Iraq.
"I hope that that opposition will one day make him understand that he has made the greatest mistake of his life," Mandela said.
JOURNAL: UncleMilo (Jonathan Osborne)
Current server time: Sep 15, 2025 03:35:18