Kurds Mark 20th Anniversary of Deadly Gas Attack

[Gunny]

By ERICA GOODE
Published: March 16, 2008

BAGHDAD — Thousands of Kurds gathered Sunday in the town of Halabja, in the northern uplands of Iraq, to mark a grim anniversary: the day 20 years ago when clouds of poison gas swept through the town, killing as many as 5,000 people.

The chemical bombings, part of Saddam Hussein’s campaign against the Kurds, began in the early evening of March 16, 1988, and continued through the night.

On Sunday, ceremonies were held to commemorate the dead and to pay homage to the more than 200 living victims who suffer lingering effects from the poisons used in the bombings. Prime Minister Nuri Kamal al-Maliki’s government called for a moment of silence and a reading of a verse of the Koran in remembrance of those who were killed.

One survivor, Ismail Abdullah, 50, who had helped to bury the dead after the attacks, died on Saturday.

Luqman Muhammad, a spokesman for relatives of the Halabja victims, said that Mr. Abdullah had died from health problems caused by the chemical bombings.

“He needed a treatment but the necessary medicines were not available for him in Kurdistan hospitals,” Mr. Muhammad said.

When the bombs struck, many residents, believing they were conventional explosives, ran to their basements, but could not escape the gas. Survivors later said that some victims died immediately, while others, gasping for breath and vomiting, took longer.

For several years after the attacks, Halabja, a village of unpaved streets and old stone buildings, was abandoned. Survivors suffered health problems that included sterility, breathing problems and children born with deformities.

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/03/16/w...46cf3cb3de7ce0&ei=5088&partner=rssnyt&emc=rss

Since we know Saddam posessed no WMDs, the "chemical" that murdered these Kurds must have been a collective, overactive imagination.

 

[onedomino]

The mass murder of Kurds was alone more than enough reason to destroy the regime of Saddam Hussein, much less the additional crimes against humanity that came after.

Chemical Ali will soon be executed in Baghdad for his role in the mass murder of Kurds and Shiites. Argue the right and wrong of invading Iraq all night and all day. But the simple fact is that this guy would be running around free today if not for the destruction of Saddam's regime.

 

[Shogun]

Since we know Saddam posessed no WMDs, the "chemical" that murdered these Kurds must have been a collective, overactive imagination.

oh it was muster gas that cheney was referring too right before the 04 election...

gotcha..

 

[eots]

the mustard gas we sold to him and gave approval to use..

 

[Gunny]

oh it was muster gas that cheney was referring too right before the 04 election...

gotcha..

Halabja was gassed with sarin, mustard gas, tabun and VX. They also believe hydrogen cyanide may have been used.

All are classified as chemical weapons and fall under the heading "Weapons of Mass Destruction."

 

[Gunny]

the mustard gas we sold to him and gave approval to use..

Incorrect. Saddam already posessed mustard gas. It has been reported but not substantiated that the CIA showed his chemists how to refine it.

Saddam did not require approval to do anything, and there is no evidence to support such conjecture.

 

[Shogun]

Halabja was gassed with sarin, mustard gas, tabun and VX. They also believe hydrogen cyanide may have been used.

All are classified as chemical weapons and fall under the heading "Weapons of Mass Destruction."

hehehe..


stick with that story, gunny. wear it on a shirt to the polls.

 

[DeadCanDance]

The mass murder of Kurds was alone more than enough reason to destroy the regime of Saddam Hussein, much less the additional crimes against humanity that came after.

LOL

I highly doubt you were saying that in 2003, when you were cheerleading a war that we were told was based on the mortal threat of saddam giving WMD to al qaeda. I guess you had to come up with a new reason to justify your 3 trillion dollar war.

Worship Bush much?

 

[jreeves]

LOL

I highly doubt you were saying that in 2003, when you were cheerleading a war that we were told was based on the mortal threat of saddam giving WMD to al qaeda. I guess you had to come up with a new reason to justify your 3 trillion dollar war.

Worship Bush much?

And do you worship the lying 'god' much? The war in Iraq hasn't cost 3 trillion dollars.

 

[jillian]

And do you worship the lying 'god' much? The war in Iraq hasn't cost 3 trillion dollars.

I'm certain you are waaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaay more informed than nobel laureates and harvard economists.



please, read, learn... would be good for you.

EXCLUSIVE–The Three Trillion Dollar War: Nobel Laureate Joseph Stiglitz and Harvard Economist Linda Bilmes on the True Cost of the US Invasion and Occupation of Iraq
One week after President Bush rejected charges the war in Iraq has hurt the US economy, a new book puts a conservative estimate of the war’s cost at $3 trillion so far. In their first national broadcast interview upon their book’s publication, Nobel laureate and former chief World Bank economist, Joseph Stiglitz, and co-author Linda Bilmes of Harvard University say the Bush administration has repeatedly low-balled the cost of the war—and even kept a second set of records hidden from the American public. [includes rush transcript]

http://www.democracynow.org/2008/2/29/exclusive_the_three_trillion_dollar_war

 

[jreeves]

I'm certain you are waaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaay more informed than nobel laureates and harvard economists.



please, read, learn... would be good for you.



http://www.democracynow.org/2008/2/29/exclusive_the_three_trillion_dollar_war

I know about this article he posted this BS on another thread, they take all of the indirect negative costs of the war but don't account for the positive gains in the economy from the war in Iraq. He is a self proclaimed anti-war, so I'm sure he was trying to portray the war in the best possible light. Also he stated in a earlier article that the cost was 1 trillion dollars....hmm...let me see here where did that extra 2 trillion dollars come from.

But I will agree with you that smart economists can shape an outlook of a war very well without taking into account the positive gains.

 

[onedomino]

LOL

I highly doubt you were saying that in 2003, when you were cheerleading a war that we were told was based on the mortal threat of saddam giving WMD to al qaeda. I guess you had to come up with a new reason to justify your 3 trillion dollar war.

Worship Bush much?

Then you would be completely wrong, as you most often are. When I read the history, I thought that Saddam should have been taken out in 1991 during the first Gulf War. Not doing so led to the no-fly zone stalemate, ineffective sanctions, the oil for palaces program, and the second Gulf War. In 2003, I thought that possible WMD was one of many reasons for ridding the world of Saddam. Mass murder of Kurds and Shiites was always an important reason he needed to be brought to justice and his regime destroyed. And the Administration erred in not emphasizing it. Payment to the families of Palestinian homicide bombers was another good reason. Invading Kuwait another. Shooting at US and UK aircraft another. Ignoring many UNSC resolutions another. But to some people the fact that Saddam was a mass murderer was not a reason to intervene and dispose of him. It was instead a reason to stand by and watch, or pass yet another utterly pointless UN resolution.

It is astonishing that even an extreme Leftist like you can belittle every accomplishment regarding Iraq, even if it involves getting a mass murderer like Chemical Ali behind bars. Post the categories of spending and their specific amounts that add up to $3 trillion. Show us where the amounts spent on war transportation, weapons, supplies, housing, medical care, etc., add up to $3 trillion. Since that amount is about 350 percent more than commonly referred to in the media, you need to post links to the specific dollar amounts for categories of war expense that add up to your claimed $3 trillion.

 

[onedomino]

I'm certain you are waaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaay more informed than nobel laureates and harvard economists.



please, read, learn... would be good for you.



http://www.democracynow.org/2008/2/29/exclusive_the_three_trillion_dollar_war

If being a Harvard professor necessarily entailed that one delivered correct and practical economic theory, then we would all greatly benefit. About Stiglitz: he has spent his academic career justifying government intervention in free markets. He is opposed to the free market economies promoted by conservative administrations. For example, he argued in favor of the nationalization of Bolivian oil and gas, as the Russians did to Yukos. For economic theory justifying government intervention in free market capitalist economies, it is hardly surprising that Stiglitz was given an award in Europe, where state ownership and interference with economic assets is not unusual. His views have been the subject of many refutations. Back to the topic at hand: what are the claimed war category expenses and their dollar amounts that when added together equal $3 trillion? That amount is at least $500 billion greater than all other defense spending combined during the five year period of the war, and 350 percent more than reported in the media.

 

[jreeves]

I'm certain you are waaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaay more informed than nobel laureates and harvard economists.



please, read, learn... would be good for you.



http://www.democracynow.org/2008/2/29/exclusive_the_three_trillion_dollar_war

http://www.cbo.gov/ftpdocs/86xx/doc8690/10-24-CostOfWar_Testimony.pdf

Seems as though the CBO disagrees with this blantant lie.

 

[jreeves]

http://www.cbo.gov/ftpdocs/86xx/doc8690/10-24-CostOfWar_Testimony.pdf

Seems as though the CBO disagrees with this blantant lie.

For those of you that can't read...
Including both funding provided through 2007 and projected funding under the
two illustrative scenarios, total spending for U.S. operations in Iraq and Afghanistan
and other activities related to the war on terrorism would amount to between
$1.2 trillion and $1.7 trillion for fiscal years 2001 through 2017 (see Table 1).1 A
final section of this testimony briefly compares parts of CBO’s estimate to a frequently
cited estimate prepared by two academic researchers, Linda Bilmes and
Joseph Stiglitz.2
Funding Through Fiscal Year 2007
From September 2001 through the end of fiscal year 2007, the Congress appropriated
$602 billion for military operations in Iraq and Afghanistan and other activities
associated with the war on terrorism. In addition, although not explicitly
appropriated for that purpose, an estimated $2 billion has been spent by VA for
war-related benefits. Including VA’s spending, funding for the war has amounted
to $604 billion. Those sums do not include any funding for fiscal year 2008; activities
currently are being funded by a continuing resolution (which is in effect
through November 16, 2007).
1. To the extent that those sums are not offset by reductions in other spending or increases in
revenue—and therefore are financed by higher budget deficits—additional budget costs would
occur through higher debt-service costs.
2. Linda Bilmes and Joseph Stiglitz, The Economic Costs of the Iraq War: An Appraisal Three
Years After the Beginning of the Conflict, Working Paper No. 12054 (Cambridge, Mass.:
National Bureau of Economic Research, February 2006).


That was an estimate for both wars, Iraq and the Afgan war.

 

[jillian]

Since we know Saddam posessed no WMDs, the "chemical" that murdered these Kurds must have been a collective, overactive imagination.

It also happened BEFORE the first time we invaded... I figure the statute of limitations ran.

So point?

 

[Gunny]

hehehe..


stick with that story, gunny. wear it on a shirt to the polls.

I have stuck with the story since it's fact. Chossing to believe otherwise is purposefully ignoring the facts for no more than political partisanship.

 

[Gunny]

LOL

I highly doubt you were saying that in 2003, when you were cheerleading a war that we were told was based on the mortal threat of saddam giving WMD to al qaeda. I guess you had to come up with a new reason to justify your 3 trillion dollar war.

Worship Bush much?

Never fails to amaze me how you lefties cherrypick facts to suit your accusations. Iraq was not invaded solely for WMDs and some link to AQ. But then you KNOW that.

 

[Gunny]

I'm certain you are waaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaay more informed than nobel laureates and harvard economists.



please, read, learn... would be good for you.



http://www.democracynow.org/2008/2/29/exclusive_the_three_trillion_dollar_war

What seems conveniently unavailable is how much money was put into tying up a good percentage of our forward deployed military babysitting Saddam for 13 years.

For some reason, those dollars don't count.

 

[Shogun]

I have stuck with the story since it's fact. Chossing to believe otherwise is purposefully ignoring the facts for no more than political partisanship.

hehehe..


YEA! I KNOW.. and the economy is a purring kitten and the iraq war will be over in three weeks.. mission accomplished, right?




Like I said.. wear it on a shirt to the polls. Hindsight just doesn't agree with you.