Mwalimu Obe, you forgot to add that our US government supported Iraq's attack on Iran. Some observers even stated that our US government pushed Iraq to attack Iran in order to counterbalance the rise of Iran in the region. The following is a chronology of events by John King.
Arming Iraq: A Chronology of U.S. Involvement
By: John King, March 2003
A crisis always has a history, and the current crisis with Iraq is no exception. Below are some relevant dates.
September, 1980. Iraq invades Iran. The beginning of the Iraq-Iran war. [8]
February, 1982. Despite objections from congress, President Reagan removes Iraq from its list of known terrorist countries. [1]
December, 1982. Hughes Aircraft ships 60 Defender helicopters to Iraq. [9]
1982-1988. Defense Intelligence Agency provides detailed information for Iraq on Iranian deployments, tactical planning for battles, plans for air strikes and bomb damage assessments. [4]
November, 1983. A National Security Directive states that the U.S would do "whatever was necessary and legal" to prevent Iraq from losing its war with Iran. [1] & [15]
November, 1983. Banca Nazionale del Lavoro of Italy and its Branch in Atlanta begin to funnel $5 billion in unreported loans to Iraq. Iraq, with the blessing and official approval of the US government, purchased computer controlled machine tools, computers, scientific instruments, special alloy steel and aluminum, chemicals, and other industrial goods for Iraq's missile, chemical, biological and nuclear weapons programs. [14]
October, 1983. The Reagan Administration begins secretly allowing Jordan, Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, and Egypt to transfer United States weapons, including Howitzers, Huey helicopters, and bombs to Iraq. These shipments violated the Arms Export Control Act. [16]
November 1983. George Schultz, the Secretary of State, is given intelligence reports showing that Iraqi troops are daily using chemical weapons against the Iranians. [1]
December 20, 1983. Donald Rumsfeld , then a civilian and now Defense Secretary, meets with Saddam Hussein to assure him of US friendship and materials support. [1] & [15]
July, 1984. CIA begins giving Iraq intelligence necessary to calibrate its mustard gas attacks on Iranian troops. [19]
January 14, 1984. State Department memo acknowledges United States shipment of "dual-use" export hardware and technology. Dual use items are civilian items such as heavy trucks, armored ambulances and communications gear as well as industrial technology that can have a military application. [2]
March, 1986. The United States with Great Britain block all Security Council resolutions condemning Iraq's use of chemical weapons, and on March 21 the US becomes the only country refusing to sign a Security Council statement condemning Iraq's use of these weapons. [10]
May, 1986. The US Department of Commerce licenses 70 biological exports to Iraq between May of 1985 and 1989, including at least 21 batches of lethal strains of anthrax. [3]
May, 1986. US Department of Commerce approves shipment of weapons grade botulin poison to Iraq. [7]
March, 1987. President Reagan bows to the findings of the Tower Commission admitting the sale of arms to Iran in exchange for hostages. Oliver North uses the profits from the sale to fund an illegal war in Nicaragua. [17]
Late 1987. The Iraqi Air Force begins using chemical agents against Kurdish resistance forces in northern Iraq. [1]
February, 1988. Saddam Hussein begins the "Anfal" campaign against the Kurds of northern Iraq. The Iraq regime used chemical weapons against the Kurds killing over 100,000 civilians and destroying over 1,200 Kurdish villages. [8]
April, 1988. US Department of Commerce approves shipment of chemicals used in manufacture of mustard gas. [7]
August, 1988. Four major battles were fought from April to August 1988, in which the Iraqis massively and effectively used chemical weapons to defeat the Iranians. Nerve gas and blister agents such as mustard gas are used. By this time the US Defense Intelligence Agency is heavily involved with Saddam Hussein in battle plan assistance, intelligence gathering and post battle debriefing. In the last major battle with of the war, 65,000 Iranians are killed, many with poison gas. Use of chemical weapons in war is in violation of the Geneva accords of 1925. [6] & [13]
August, 1988. Iraq and Iran declare a cease fire. [8]
August, 1988. Five days after the cease fire Saddam Hussein sends his planes and helicopters to northern Iraq to begin massive chemical attacks against the Kurds. [8]
September, 1988. US Department of Commerce approves shipment of weapons grade anthrax and botulinum to Iraq. [7]
September, 1988. Richard Murphy, Assistant Secretary of State: "The US-Iraqi relationship is... important to our long-term political and economic objectives." [15]
December, 1988. Dow chemical sells $1.5 million in pesticides to Iraq despite knowledge that these would be used in chemical weapons. [1]
July 25, 1990. US Ambassador to Baghdad meets with Hussein to assure him that President Bush "wanted better and deeper relations". Many believe this visit was a trap set for Hussein. A month later Hussein invaded Kuwait thinking the US would not respond. [12]
August, 1990 Iraq invades Kuwait. The precursor to the Gulf War. [8]
July, 1991 The Financial Times of London reveals that a Florida chemical company had produced and shipped cyanide to Iraq during the 80's using a special CIA courier. Cyanide was used extensively against the Iranians. [11]
August, 1991. Christopher Droguol of Atlanta's branch of Banca Nazionale del Lavoro is arrested for his role in supplying loans to Iraq for the purchase of military supplies. He is charged with 347 counts of felony. Droguol is found guilty, but US officials plead innocent of any knowledge of his crime. [14]
June, 1992. Ted Kopple of ABC Nightline reports: "It is becoming increasingly clear that George Bush Sr., operating largely behind the scenes throughout the 1980's, initiated and supported much of the financing, intelligence, and military help that built Saddam's Iraq into [an aggressive power]." [5]
July, 1992. "The Bush administration deliberately, not inadvertently, helped to arm Iraq by allowing U.S. technology to be shipped to Iraqi military and to Iraqi defense factories... Throughout the course of the Bush administration, U.S. and foreign firms were granted export licenses to ship U.S. technology directly to Iraqi weapons facilities despite ample evidence showing that these factories were producing weapons." Representative Henry Gonzalez, Texas, testimony before the House. [18]
February, 1994. Senator Riegle from Michigan, chairman of the Senate Banking Committee, testifies before the senate revealing large US shipments of dual-use biological and chemical agents to Iraq that may have been used against US troops in the Gulf War and probably was the cause of the illness known as Gulf War Syndrome. [7]
August, 2002. "The use of gas [during the Iran-Iraq war] on the battle field by the Iraqis was not a matter of deep strategic concern... We were desperate to make sure that Iraq did not lose". Colonel Walter Lang, former senior US Defense Intelligence officer tells the New York Times. [4]
This chronology of the United States' sordid involvement in the arming of Iraq can be summarized in this way: The United States used methods both legal and illegal to help build Saddam's army into the most powerful army in the Mideast outside of Israel. The US supplied chemical and biological agents and technology to Iraq when it knew Iraq was using chemical weapons against the Iranians. The US supplied the materials and technology for these weapons of mass destruction to Iraq at a time when it was know that Saddam was using this technology to kill his Kurdish citizens. The United States supplied intelligence and battle planning information to Iraq when those battle plans included the use of cyanide, mustard gas and nerve agents. The United States blocked UN censure of Iraq's use of chemical weapons. The United States did not act alone in this effort. The Soviet Union was the largest weapons supplier, but England, France and Germany were also involved in the shipment of arms and technology.
References:
Iran-Iraq War 1980-1988
Chemical Warfare In The Iran-Iraq War 1980-1988
The Iran-Iraq War: Serving American Interests
The United States and Iran-Iraq War 1980-1988
Pictures of Iran-Iraq War 1980-1988
By: John King, March 2003
- What follows is an accurate chronology of United States involvement in the arming of Iraq during the Iraq-Iran war 1980-88. It is a powerful indictment of the president Bush administration attempt to sell war as a component of his war on terrorism. It reveals US ambitions in Iraq to be just another chapter in the attempt to regain a foothold in the Mideast following the fall of the Shah of Iran.
A crisis always has a history, and the current crisis with Iraq is no exception. Below are some relevant dates.
September, 1980. Iraq invades Iran. The beginning of the Iraq-Iran war. [8]
February, 1982. Despite objections from congress, President Reagan removes Iraq from its list of known terrorist countries. [1]
December, 1982. Hughes Aircraft ships 60 Defender helicopters to Iraq. [9]
1982-1988. Defense Intelligence Agency provides detailed information for Iraq on Iranian deployments, tactical planning for battles, plans for air strikes and bomb damage assessments. [4]
November, 1983. A National Security Directive states that the U.S would do "whatever was necessary and legal" to prevent Iraq from losing its war with Iran. [1] & [15]
 |
| Donald Rumsfeld -Reagan's Envoy- provided Iraq with chemical & biological weapons |
October, 1983. The Reagan Administration begins secretly allowing Jordan, Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, and Egypt to transfer United States weapons, including Howitzers, Huey helicopters, and bombs to Iraq. These shipments violated the Arms Export Control Act. [16]
November 1983. George Schultz, the Secretary of State, is given intelligence reports showing that Iraqi troops are daily using chemical weapons against the Iranians. [1]
December 20, 1983. Donald Rumsfeld , then a civilian and now Defense Secretary, meets with Saddam Hussein to assure him of US friendship and materials support. [1] & [15]
July, 1984. CIA begins giving Iraq intelligence necessary to calibrate its mustard gas attacks on Iranian troops. [19]
January 14, 1984. State Department memo acknowledges United States shipment of "dual-use" export hardware and technology. Dual use items are civilian items such as heavy trucks, armored ambulances and communications gear as well as industrial technology that can have a military application. [2]
March, 1986. The United States with Great Britain block all Security Council resolutions condemning Iraq's use of chemical weapons, and on March 21 the US becomes the only country refusing to sign a Security Council statement condemning Iraq's use of these weapons. [10]
May, 1986. The US Department of Commerce licenses 70 biological exports to Iraq between May of 1985 and 1989, including at least 21 batches of lethal strains of anthrax. [3]
May, 1986. US Department of Commerce approves shipment of weapons grade botulin poison to Iraq. [7]
March, 1987. President Reagan bows to the findings of the Tower Commission admitting the sale of arms to Iran in exchange for hostages. Oliver North uses the profits from the sale to fund an illegal war in Nicaragua. [17]
Late 1987. The Iraqi Air Force begins using chemical agents against Kurdish resistance forces in northern Iraq. [1]
February, 1988. Saddam Hussein begins the "Anfal" campaign against the Kurds of northern Iraq. The Iraq regime used chemical weapons against the Kurds killing over 100,000 civilians and destroying over 1,200 Kurdish villages. [8]
April, 1988. US Department of Commerce approves shipment of chemicals used in manufacture of mustard gas. [7]
August, 1988. Four major battles were fought from April to August 1988, in which the Iraqis massively and effectively used chemical weapons to defeat the Iranians. Nerve gas and blister agents such as mustard gas are used. By this time the US Defense Intelligence Agency is heavily involved with Saddam Hussein in battle plan assistance, intelligence gathering and post battle debriefing. In the last major battle with of the war, 65,000 Iranians are killed, many with poison gas. Use of chemical weapons in war is in violation of the Geneva accords of 1925. [6] & [13]
August, 1988. Iraq and Iran declare a cease fire. [8]
August, 1988. Five days after the cease fire Saddam Hussein sends his planes and helicopters to northern Iraq to begin massive chemical attacks against the Kurds. [8]
September, 1988. US Department of Commerce approves shipment of weapons grade anthrax and botulinum to Iraq. [7]
September, 1988. Richard Murphy, Assistant Secretary of State: "The US-Iraqi relationship is... important to our long-term political and economic objectives." [15]
December, 1988. Dow chemical sells $1.5 million in pesticides to Iraq despite knowledge that these would be used in chemical weapons. [1]
July 25, 1990. US Ambassador to Baghdad meets with Hussein to assure him that President Bush "wanted better and deeper relations". Many believe this visit was a trap set for Hussein. A month later Hussein invaded Kuwait thinking the US would not respond. [12]
August, 1990 Iraq invades Kuwait. The precursor to the Gulf War. [8]
July, 1991 The Financial Times of London reveals that a Florida chemical company had produced and shipped cyanide to Iraq during the 80's using a special CIA courier. Cyanide was used extensively against the Iranians. [11]
August, 1991. Christopher Droguol of Atlanta's branch of Banca Nazionale del Lavoro is arrested for his role in supplying loans to Iraq for the purchase of military supplies. He is charged with 347 counts of felony. Droguol is found guilty, but US officials plead innocent of any knowledge of his crime. [14]
June, 1992. Ted Kopple of ABC Nightline reports: "It is becoming increasingly clear that George Bush Sr., operating largely behind the scenes throughout the 1980's, initiated and supported much of the financing, intelligence, and military help that built Saddam's Iraq into [an aggressive power]." [5]
July, 1992. "The Bush administration deliberately, not inadvertently, helped to arm Iraq by allowing U.S. technology to be shipped to Iraqi military and to Iraqi defense factories... Throughout the course of the Bush administration, U.S. and foreign firms were granted export licenses to ship U.S. technology directly to Iraqi weapons facilities despite ample evidence showing that these factories were producing weapons." Representative Henry Gonzalez, Texas, testimony before the House. [18]
February, 1994. Senator Riegle from Michigan, chairman of the Senate Banking Committee, testifies before the senate revealing large US shipments of dual-use biological and chemical agents to Iraq that may have been used against US troops in the Gulf War and probably was the cause of the illness known as Gulf War Syndrome. [7]
August, 2002. "The use of gas [during the Iran-Iraq war] on the battle field by the Iraqis was not a matter of deep strategic concern... We were desperate to make sure that Iraq did not lose". Colonel Walter Lang, former senior US Defense Intelligence officer tells the New York Times. [4]
This chronology of the United States' sordid involvement in the arming of Iraq can be summarized in this way: The United States used methods both legal and illegal to help build Saddam's army into the most powerful army in the Mideast outside of Israel. The US supplied chemical and biological agents and technology to Iraq when it knew Iraq was using chemical weapons against the Iranians. The US supplied the materials and technology for these weapons of mass destruction to Iraq at a time when it was know that Saddam was using this technology to kill his Kurdish citizens. The United States supplied intelligence and battle planning information to Iraq when those battle plans included the use of cyanide, mustard gas and nerve agents. The United States blocked UN censure of Iraq's use of chemical weapons. The United States did not act alone in this effort. The Soviet Union was the largest weapons supplier, but England, France and Germany were also involved in the shipment of arms and technology.
References:
- Washingtonpost.com. December 30, 2002
- Jonathan Broder. Nuclear times, Winter 1990-91
- Kurt Nimno. AlterNet. September 23, 2002
- Newyorktimes.com. August 29, 2002
- ABC Nightline. June9, 1992
- Counter Punch, October 10, 2002
- Riegle Report: Dual Use Exports. Senate Committee on Banking. May 25, 1994
- Timeline: A walk Through Iraq's History. U.S. Department of State
- Doing Business: The Arming of Iraq. Daniel Robichear
- Glen Rangwala. Labor Left Briefing, 16 September, 2002
- Financial Times of London. July 3, 1991
- Elson E. Boles. Counter Punch. October 10, 2002
- Iran-Iraq War, 1980-1988. Iranchamber.com
- Columbia Journalism Review. March/April 1993. Iraqgate
- Times Online. December 31, 2002. How U.S. Helped Iraq Build Deadly Arsenal
- Bush's Secret Mission. The New Yorker Magazine. November 2, 1992
- Grolier Multimedia Encyclopedia: Iran-Contra Affair
- Congressional Record. July 27, 1992. Representative Henry B. Gonzalez
- Bob Woodward. CIA Aiding Iraq in Persian Gulf War. Washington Post. 15 December, 1986
- Case Study: The Anfal Campaign. www.gendercide.com
Iran-Iraq War 1980-1988
Chemical Warfare In The Iran-Iraq War 1980-1988
The Iran-Iraq War: Serving American Interests
The United States and Iran-Iraq War 1980-1988
Pictures of Iran-Iraq War 1980-1988 > [Original Message]
> From: Ayo Obe <ayo.m.o.obe@gmail.com>
> To: usaafricadialogue@googlegroups.com <usaafricadialogue@googlegroups.com>
> Date: 11/13/2011 1:12:19 AM
> Subject: Re: USA Africa Dialogue Series - Re: Paneta Warns Against MilitaryStrike Against Iran
>
> Come on Ken, you know that very well it was Iran that was attacked and invaded by Iraq. The response to that is not called 'waging war' but self-defence.
>
> And by the way, the support that Saddam Hussein's Iraq received from the United States dwarfs anything that Iran may have offered Hezbollah in its resistance to Israeli occupation.
>
> Ayo
> I invite you to follow me on Twitter @naijama
>
> On 13 Nov 2011, at 00:31, kenneth harrow <harrow@msu.edu> wrote:
>
> > "iran has not waged war on another country."
> > so the 2 million or so who died in the iran-iraq war were imaginary?
> > ken
> >
> > On 11/12/11 6:11 PM, Cornelius Hamelberg wrote:
> >> Sir,
> >>
> >> True: Boko Haram is not a country, although it's a clear intention of
> >> theirs to proclaim Sharia Law throughout what they dream will soon be
> >> be the Federal Islamic Republic of Nigeria.
> >>
> >> Whereas Iran is already an Islamic State - please take note - Iran
> >> is not an ordinary Muslim State, or some uncle tom kind of Islamic
> >> State and that's why it's called the Revolutionary Islamic Republic
> >> with its own unique national, regional and global agenda. Under the
> >> mantle of Wilayat-e-faqih, the state has its duties and
> >> responsibilities though perhaps it's unlikely that the Mullahs (the
> >> Council of Guardians) call for a referendum - a consultation with the
> >> people about the nuclear issue or about any other priorities on their
> >> agenda.
> >>
> >> http://www.google.com/search?q=Boko+Haram&ie=utf-8&oe=utf-8&aq=t&rls=org.mozilla:sv-SE:official&client=firefox-a#q=Boko+Haram&hl=en&client=firefox-a&hs=Ejh&rls=org.mozilla:sv-SE:official&prmd=imvnsu&source=lnms&tbm=nws&ei=kPK-Ttq6O5SK4gTPuMG4BA&sa=X&oi=mode_link&ct=mode&cd=5&ved=0CBgQ_AUoBA&bav=on.2,or.r_gc.r_pw.,cf.osb&fp=b79e7cf5fdd41d7d&biw=1255&bih=844
> >>
> >> Iran and their surrogates Hezbollah are working for the erection of a
> >> New Islamic State between Jordan and the deep blue Sea - to replace
> >> Israel which they would like to wipe off the surface of the map ( God
> >> forbid) and they would like to call their new state the Great Islamic
> >> Republic of Palestine, the 23rd Arab State. I believe that they intend
> >> to create that state through military means.
> >>
> >> You seem to think that it's mainly the West that's worried about
> >> Iran's peaceful nuclear programme, but I assure you that all the
> >> neighbouring Sunni Arab Muslim countries, the Saudis, Egypt, the
> >> Turks, in short all the Sunnis great and small are a little worried
> >> about the more dominant role that Iran could play - militarily in
> >> their neighbourhood …
> >>
> >> There's a lot of truth in what you say about listening to all sides of
> >> the conflict in the name of fair play and I am as concerned about the
> >> security, peace and well-being of the Iranian people as you are – in
> >> fact I supported Iran throughout the war that Iraq and sponsors
> >> imposed on the Islamic Republic. As things are in that volatile
> >> region, even having nuclear reactors for peaceful purposes only
> >> incurs the risk of those reactors being targeted – as military
> >> targets- in the eventually of an enemy attack on Iran and that could
> >> cause great sorrow.
> >>
> >> You say that "Iran has stated that the possession of nuclear weapons
> >> is prohibited in Islam"
> >> How do you reconcile Pakistan - another Muslim state - being in
> >> possession of nuclear weapons?
> >> Which other weapons of mass destruction does Islam prohibit?
> >>
> >> Our great concern about Iran's nuclear intentions doesn't go away
> >> because of your simple assurance that "Iran is an strictly Islamic
> >> state. Iran has so far not attacked or waged war on another country."
> >>
> >> Looka here:
> >> http://www.tehrantimes.com/index.php/politics/4489-any-action-against-iran-will-speed-up-israels-collapse-ambassador
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> On Nov 12, 10:27 pm, "Anunoby, Ogugua"<Anuno...@lincolnu.edu> wrote:
> >>> '...you too would have the same
> >>> shivers running down your spine were you to hear that Boko Haram had
> >>> got their hands on some weapons of mass destruction, and in fact
> >>> declared that they were going nuclear with their intentions."
> >>>
> >>> ch
> >>>
> >>> Iran is a state/country. Boko Haram is not. Boko Haram is amorphous and anomalous. Iran is not. The differences here is significant.
> >>> Iran has always made it clear that its nuclear program is for peaceful purposes only. Iran has stated that the possession of nuclear weapons is prohibited in Islam. Iran is an strictly Islamic state. Iran has so far not attacked or waged war on another country. She been attacked by other countries.
> >>> It is all well to be concerned about the western interests in the Middle East and oil. Should it not be as well to be concerned about Iran and her people, and their fear of external military attack.
> >>> Peace, true peace is usually possible and is more likely to be achieved if the concern of all parties are frontally, earnestly, and fully addressed. Peace in the Middle East or indeed any place else should be predicated on the resolution of the concerns of all parties to a conflict.
> >>> Those supporting a military stike against Iran probably know how the strike will begin. What no one knows is how Iran will respond to a military strike and therefore what happens after. What is needed in the Middle East is negotiated peace however difficult, not forced peace however "easy".
> >>>
> >>> oa
> >>>
> >>> ________________________________________
> >>> From: usaafricadialogue@googlegroups.com [usaafricadialogue@googlegroups.com] On Behalf Of Cornelius Hamelberg [corneliushamelb...@gmail.com]
> >>> Sent: Saturday, November 12, 2011 8:33 AM
> >>> To: USA Africa Dialogue Series
> >>> Subject: Re: USA Africa Dialogue Series - Re: Paneta Warns Against Military Strike Against Iran
> >>>
> >>> The future in that area is uncertain - and nuclear weapons in the
> >>> hands of a theocracy which denies the Holocaust and has already talked
> >>> about wiping out Israel, is not to be taken lightly.
> >>>
> >>> If you are half as Nigerian as I am, then you too would have the same
> >>> shivers running down your spine were you to hear that Boko Haram had
> >>> got their hands on some weapons of mass destruction, and in fact
> >>> declared that they were going nuclear with their intentions.
> >>>
> >>> In the final analysis "prevention is better than cure" and when the
> >>> Shia doctrines of Taqiyya and Kitman enter the political arena of
> >>> public diplomacy there's no telling exactly where the Iranian regime
> >>> is heading. It's extra dangerous because we cannot foresee that the
> >>> regime is destined to be stable., forever. Most of the Sunni World
> >>> backed Saddam Hussein in his 8 year war which he started against Iran
> >>> and since around that time there's been a storm brewing with the
> >>> custodians of the Holy places in Saudi Arabia and as you know the
> >>> whole area is the reservoir of oil supplies to the West, to China and
> >>> Japan......so nobody wants to see any nuclear tipped missiles flying
> >>> around in this area which would be better off without them and the
> >>> mad rush of the other neighbours to achieve nuclear capability. If
> >>> Gaddafi, and Saddam had had nuclear weapons we'd now be telling
> >>> another tale.
> >>>
> >>> Should Iran be given the opportunity of upgrading from peaceful to
> >>> military, in response to the IEAE saying so you were lying, they will
> >>> justify themselves with " But Israel also has" and the doctrine of "
> >>> All's fair in love and war."
> >>>
> >>> No matter how sympathetically you look at the scenario, it's a matter
> >>> of great concern, presently and in the unforeseeable future.
> >>>
> >>> http://www.thelocal.se/blogs/corneliushamelberg/
> >>>
> >>> On Nov 12, 5:10 am, "Anunoby, Ogugua"<Anuno...@lincolnu.edu> wrote:
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>> Every right thinking person knows that a military strike against Iran will have serious consequences for all concerned and more. If Iran is indeed developing nuclear weapons, a military strike will at best delay it. The question that needs to be asked and answered truthfully is why Iran would want to develop nuclear weapons. Iran must be aware of the weapons' deterent benefit. If Iran felt more safe from external threats and attack than it presently does, its posture on self-defense might be different. Iran's situation is analogous to Pakistan's after India developed nuclear weapons. Russia and China propose the continuation of talks. They know that talk is is more efficacious and cheaper than war.
> >>>> What the world needs is peace and leaders of goodwill, not a new imperialism and belligerent leaders of belicose countries. The experience of recent history is that the attack of one country by another is decreasingly a win-win possibility. War is increasingly unwise and too costly at the end of the day. War may enrich individuals and corporations but it impoverishes countries. Military superiority no longer conveys the advantage that it did in the past. Victory and defeat have lost their essence, meaning, and value. War without end is the new normal. Paneta is well aware of this reality. He has done his job. He has warned against military strike on Iran. Will "they" listen is once again the question.
> >>>> oa
> >>>> ________________________________________
> >>>> From: usaafricadialogue@googlegroups.com [usaafricadialogue@googlegroups.com] On Behalf Of Emeagwali, Gloria (History) [emeagw...@mail.ccsu.edu]
> >>>> Sent: Friday, November 11, 2011 6:04 PM
> >>>> To: usaafricadialogue@googlegroups.com
> >>>> Subject: RE: USA Africa Dialogue Series - Re: Paneta Warns Against Military Strike Against Iran
> >>>> One of the unintended consequences of hitting Iran's nuclear
> >>>> facilities could be the radioactive fallout enveloping the area in a
> >>>> nuclear fog....and this could affect a lot of innocent Iranians, who
> >>>> have no part to play in the ideals of nuclear terror.
> >>>> True. Maybe the Iranians can pay Cheney's former firm Blackwater to do the clean up.
> >>>> Come to think of it, an unihabitable and underpopulated MiddleEast will be great for Big Oil.
> >>>> They can have it all....and Obama would have an oil tanker named after him.
> >>>> Dr. Gloria Emeagwali
> >>>> Prof. of History& African Studies
> >>>> History Department
> >>>> Central Connecticut State University
> >>>> New Britain
> >>>> CT 06050www.africahistory.netwww.esnips.com/web/GloriaEmeagwali
> >>>> emeagw...@ccsu.edu
> >>>> ________________________________________
> >>>> From: usaafricadialogue@googlegroups.com [usaafricadialogue@googlegroups.com] On Behalf Of Cornelius Hamelberg [corneliushamelb...@gmail.com]
> >>>> Sent: Friday, November 11, 2011 9:53 AM
> >>>> To: USA Africa Dialogue Series
> >>>> Subject: USA Africa Dialogue Series - Re: Paneta Warns Against Military Strike Against Iran
> >>>> One of the unintended consequences of hitting Iran's nuclear
> >>>> facilities could be the radioactive fallout enveloping the area in a
> >>>> nuclear fog....and this could affect a lot of innocent Iranians, who
> >>>> have no part to play in the ideals of nuclear terror.
> >>>> The bigger question is what would be the consequence of not doing
> >>>> anything?
> >>>> Some of the consequences of inaction are spelled out here in the
> >>>> alarming updates on the approaching inevitable showdown between Iran
> >>>> and those united in faith against an Iranian bomb, which all things
> >>>> considered ought to be feared...
> >>>> http://www.dailyalert.org/archive/2011-11/2011-11-11.html
> >>>> On Nov 11, 4:29 am, Abdul Karim Bangura<th...@earthlink.net> wrote:
> >>>>> Panetta warns on Iran strike consequencesUS defence chief cautions on regional fallout from any military strike against Iran.
> >>>>> Last Modified:11 Nov 2011 01:46
> >>>>> Panetta says a strike on Iran will only delay its nuclear programme [EPA]
> >>>>> US Defence Secretary Leon Panetta has warned that military action against Iran could lead to "unintended consequences" for the region.
> >>>>> "You've got to be careful of unintended consequences here," Panetta told reporters at a Pentagon press conference on Thursday.
> >>>>> His comments came only hours after Tehran itself warned that any attack on its nuclear sites would be met with "iron fists."
> >>>>> Panetta, who in July succeeded Robert Gates in the Pentagon's top post, said his assessment is in line with his predecessor's.
> >>>>> He maintained that a strike on Iran might fail to deter Iran "from what they want to do" and would only delay its controversial nuclear programme.
> >>>>> "But more importantly, it could have a serious impact in the region, and it could have a serious impact on US forces in the region," he said. "And I think all of those things, you know, need to be carefully considered."
> >>>>> 'Toughest sanctions'
> >>>>> Panetta stressed instead on US efforts to win tougher sanctions against Tehran.
> >>>>> "It is important for us to make sure we apply the toughest sanctions -- economic, diplomatic pressures -- on Iran to change their behaviour," he said.
> >>>>> "And we are in discussions with our allies with regards to additional sanctions that ought to be placed on Iran."
> >>>>> The European Union may approve fresh sanctions against Iran within weeks, after a UN agency said Tehran had worked to design nuclear bombs, EU diplomats said on Thursday.
> >>>>> EU sanctions would be a significant part of Western efforts to ratchet up pressure on Tehran. Western governments would prefer UN Security Council measures against Tehran, but Russia and China, both permanent UN Security Council members with veto power, are opposed.
> >>>>> Tensions over Tehran's nuclear programme were re-ignited on Tuesday when a report by the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA), said Iran had worked on designing a bomb and that research to that end may be on-going.
> >>>>> Israel exacerbated speculation of a strike against Iran after last week'stesting of a ballistic missilecapable of traveling the 6,437 kilometres to Iran.
> >>>>> Israel's first test-fire of a missile in three years came after Israeli media speculation alleging Benyamin Netanyahu, the Israeli prime minister, and Ehud Barak, defence minister, of planning a strike against Iran's nuclear facilities.
> >>>>> Iran has warned that it will respond to any attacks
> >>> ...
> >>>
> >>> read more »
> >
> > --
> > kenneth w. harrow
> > distinguished professor of english
> > michigan state university
> > department of english
> > east lansing, mi 48824-1036
> > ph. 517 803 8839
> > harrow@msu.edu
> >
> > --
> > You received this message because you are subscribed to the "USA-Africa Dialogue Series" moderated by Toyin Falola, University of Texas at Austin.
> > For current archives, visit http://groups.google.com/group/USAAfricaDialogue
> > For previous archives, visit http://www.utexas.edu/conferences/africa/ads/index.html
> > To post to this group, send an email to USAAfricaDialogue@googlegroups.com
> > To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to USAAfricaDialogue- unsubscribe@googlegroups.com
>
> --
> You received this message because you are subscribed to the "USA-Africa Dialogue Series" moderated by Toyin Falola, University of Texas at Austin.
> For current archives, visit http://groups.google.com/group/USAAfricaDialogue
> For previous archives, visit http://www.utexas.edu/conferences/africa/ads/index.html
> To post to this group, send an email to USAAfricaDialogue@googlegroups.com
> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to USAAfricaDialogue-
> unsubscribe@googlegroups.com
No comments:
Post a Comment