, the ever miserable Caroline Haw-Hawley managed to get out of the BBC’s private enclave in central Baghdad to report from Halabja, largely bemoaning:
“but it’s not for this that Saddam’s going on trial, at least not yet, relatives of the five thousand Kurds massacred in Halabja in March 1988 will have to wait for their day in court, the first legal proceedings against Saddam are for separate killings in the town of Dujail, hundreds of miles from here”
Unfortunately Caroline didn’t have the time to tell us that “court officials say the case was chosen because it was the easiest and quickest case to compile“, which sounds quite reasonable under the circumstances, but she did manage to wrap up her piece with:
“each headstone here represents a family wiped out with weapons that Saddam Hussein bought from the West”
Just in case Caroline’s definition of “The West” unintentionally misleads anyone, here, courtesy of Scott Burgess, are figures he derived from those of the Stockholm International Peace Research Institute (an independent foundation established in 1966 under the auspices of the Swedish parliament), showing “actual deliveries of major conventional weapons” to Iraq between 1980 and 2002, expressed in millions of dollars, in relative terms, at 1990 prices:
| Vendors | $Millions | Percent | ||
| USSR | 17,503 | 50.78% | ||
| France | 5,221 | 15.15% | ||
| China | 5,192 | 15.06% | ||
| Czechoslovakia | 1,540 | 4.47% | ||
| Poland | 1,626 | 4.72% | ||
| Brazil | 724 | 2.10% | ||
| Egypt | 568 | 1.65% | ||
| Romania | 524 | 1.52% | ||
| Denmark | 226 | 0.66% | ||
| Libya | 200 | 0.58% | ||
| USA | 200 | 0.58% |
Referring to the original source, we can see that the UK’s total for this period, according to SIPRI, was $79 million dollars. We can also see that there are no figures recorded for the period from 1991-2002 – the period when UN sanctions were officially in force, which is confusing, because I distinctly recall watching, ‘Live on Sky’, as US forces found recently manufactured Russian and French arms at Baghdad airport after they liberated it from Saddam’s forces in 2003. Almost as confusing even as Caroline’s apparent understanding of “The West”, given that, according to SIPRI, over 80% of the arms sales to Iraq were from the Soviets, French and Chinese, which isn’t “The West” as I understand it, then or now.
Just to be clear though, SIPRI’s figures are based on ‘major conventional weapons’ sales rather than chemical weapons, but they give a good indication of who really armed Saddam. Moreover, chemical weapons themselves are relatively cheap and easy to make, the hardest part being the delivery systems for those weapons, which is where all those arms sales would have been useful for Saddam.
To see the report for yourself take your pick of Windows Media Hi/Lo or Realplayer Hi/Lo, starting about 20’39” from the beginning.
OT: “Judge warns of Iraq ‘black hole'”
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/europe/4358628.stm
“France’s top anti-terrorist judge has warned that Iraq is a black hole which has helped to radicalise some young Muslims and drawn them into violence.”
…
“Judge Bruguiere says one of the most worrying developments is evidence that some cells are now acquiring non-conventional weapons, with French intelligence foiling a would-be chemical attack in 2002.”
Err… 2002 was before 2003 wasn’t it?
Yes, I listened to that show. In a world paralysed by PC indoctrination, it was refreshing to hear Rivers (white) blast Howe (black). She was evidently deeply insulted by his comment which went something like, “Rivers is offended by black..”
She immediately stopped him and kept on saying, “How dare you…” Also, at one point she said something about his “stupid head.”
Typically for the BBC, Libby Purves tried at one point to intervene by presenting herself as an impartial observer, saying something like, “I sympathise with both points of view.”
“Bothpoints of view,” Rivers shot back.
Wonderful stuff. Defintely not to be missed if you don’t believe a dark skin hue gives one the right to be as obnoxious as possible without being challenged.
Off topic.
On a discussion about Uncle Saddams trial on newsnight on Wed 19/10/05 did I hear Jeremy Paxman ask if it would have been easier if Saddam was just summarily executed like his sons. I understood they were killed during an assault on the building they were holed up in. Does this now count as summary execution.
Neither the audio clip from TheGuardian or the linked sound edit from the BBC news item give any context to Howe’s declaration the “Black offends Joan”.
Her previous statement was on the lines of
“What we need is a great big melting pot
Big enough enough enough to take
The world and all its got
And keep it stirring for a hundred years or more
And turn out coffee coloured people by the score (courtesy Blue Mink)
showing Howe’s comment to be completely uncalled for.
Rob White,
Thanks for the mp3 link, couldn’t have listened to it otherwise. Cheers.
Rivers tells it as she sees it…
“She has since calmed down but said the row was “one of my proudest moments in my career”.
She told Sky News they were discussing mixed marriages when “five minutes later this idiot man turned around and said back to me ‘you are a racist'”.
RIVERS DEFENDS RACE ROW
http://www.sky.com/skynews/article/0,,30200-13452208,00.html
Another quote from Rivers
“Everybody should be part this, part that and part everything. Race doesn’t mean a damn thing. Everybody should just relax, take the best of their cultures and move forward.”
Howe responded: “That’s not an American approach. America is one of the most savagely racial places in the world.”
I’d say that How’s remark above is racist against Americans. But that’s allowed on the BBC. No wonder Rivers was offended.
Just fantastic (Joan, that is!)
The transcript
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2005/10/20/njoan220.xml&sSheet=/news/2005/10/20/ixnewstop.html
Allah Akbar! (with your taxes)….
BBC World Service set to fund Arabic TV channel
http://www.pressgazette.co.uk/article/201005/bbc_world_service
Why is the BBC obsessed with setting up a competing channel to Al-Jazerra using taxpayers money?
Can it be true?….. before she was pushed perhaps…?
BBC’s Guerin To Leave Middle East
http://www.totallyjewish.com/news/national/?content_id=1787
It seems that theguardian reporter kidnapped in Iraq ia inclined to the Nik Gowing (BBC) view that US soldiers are a danger to the western media –
Journalists believe recent deaths and injuries among their number based in Iraq show US troops are getting out of control
http://www.guardian.co.uk/Iraq/Story/0,2763,1567737,00.htm
via
http://dangerouslysubversivedad.blogspot.com/
[First part of comment deleted on grounds of offensiveness.]
I might even have to stop being an Atheist. Schadenfreude (AIAFS) is such a guilty pleasure…
You might have to stop commenting here, too. – NS
Edited By Siteowner
I think you`re right Rob!
Bore-la forced to leave behind her beloved Palestinians? Oh, no what is the world coming to?
I suspect she will jump ship to Al-Jizya instead. After all they look to be in a big hiring mood. . .
Yes, thanks for the link to the great Rivers-Howe clash. 10-nil to Rivers, say I. How refreshing, not to say cathartic, to hear someone stand up against that whining, hypocritical, chippy, talentless man who is frankly a complete waste of space.
And good, too, to be reminded just how spineless and PC Libby “I sympathise with both sides” Purves really is. Pah!
This Howe fellow was apparently offended by Rivers’ promotion of inter-racial marriage.
The thing is, he no doubt would have been offended if she’d said something against inter-racial marriage as well.
Why do I suspect that for people like Howe, whitey can never win no matter what?
Usual rightwing deceit going on here methinks. No one doubts that most military hardware used by Saddam came from Russia, France and China.
It is when you factor in chemical and biological weapons that one realises how utterly irrelevant your table is.
The US was the source for much of the chemical weaponry that Saddam used in the eighties. As the justification for war was to pre-empt their use, it is wholly right that people point out that the US was key in supplying the very materiel that was supposed to be threatening us.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn?pagename=article&node=&contentId=A52241-2002Dec29¬Found=true
[Faulty link – try http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn?pagename=article&node=&contentId=A52241-2002Dec29 instead.]
So returning to the report in question, most sensible people will conclude that Caroline Hawley is actually right and like much else covered on this blog, no bias exists except in the contributers’ minds.
Well Anonymous, please provide some documentary support for your assertion that the US supplied ‘much’ of Saddam’s chemical and biological arsenal. NB ‘much’ should be defined.
And now, listening to Radio 4, I hear that the population of the UK is to rise by 7 million (1.4 times Scotland’s population) within the next generation. There will be an overt campaign of propagandising by the BBC to convince all of the indigenous and assimilated Britons that nothing can be done to change this future trend and that we are demographically destined to have a bigger and greatly more assertive muslim ‘community’ in our midst. This news, combined with the bland and increasingly insufferable mouthings by the BBC’s Tory candidate, David Cameron, have depressed my mood somewhat.
Funny how so many Leftists choose to be anonymous, isn’t it. I wonder why….
‘The US was the source for much of the chemical weaponry that Saddam used in the eighties. As the justification for war was to pre-empt their use, it is wholly right that people point out that the US was key in supplying the very materiel that was supposed to be threatening us.’
Anon- this is wrong and your linked article actually demonstrates the fact.
What your article talks about is dual use material, logistical and intelligence support, and not direct sales of chemical weaponery.
Furthermore, it says that ‘Opinions differ among Middle East experts and former government officials about the pre-Iraqi tilt, and whether Washington could have done more to stop the flow to Baghdad of technology for building weapons of mass destruction.’
Do you think opinions could differ about hard sales of weaponery? No, I don’t either. Furthermore, the term ‘pre-Iraqi tilt’ (though strange) certainly suggests not direct sales but a blind eye and a certain amount of facilitation consistent with the US antagonism towards its major ME enemy of the period, Iran.
And that’s your documentary evidence? Come back when you have something better, or, better still, change your stance.
hmm, I wouldn’t consider the washington Post to be entirely objective in this case.
As for chemical weapons, it’s common knowledge that the USSR and other Warsaw Pact countries had highly advanced programmes running. No reason to believe that saddam didn’t get to choose from the tuck shop.
The request for proper evidence (by independant, non partisan sources) by Allan still stands.
Just because one makes a claim, it doesn’t make it the truth. There is also the undeniable fact that the US no longer supports Iraq, while the Russians and French never bothered to “mend their ways”. For the latter it was always about money, for the US it was more about containing what was seen (with some justification) as the greater threat, ie. Khomeini’s Iran. At the end of the day, the current US administration cannot be blamed for decisions taken by administrations of 2 decades ago, while the current Russian and French governments tried to play the game of “business as usual”. Anyhow, it’s not the US which is trying him for his crimes – but the Iraqi people.
deepdiver
Ed, expecting “anonymous” to change his stance is really being way too optimistic.
After all, the facts never got in the way of a faith based belief like left-wing inspired hatred of America.
What gets so tiring is that it’s all so one sided – listening to the beeb and other msm is like being in an echo chamber!
deepdiver
Anon, here are some links for you –
http://projects.sipri.se/cbw/research/factsheet-1984.html
“International support, especially by the two parts of Germany, was crucial in activating the Iraqi chemical program.”
http://www.fas.org/nuke/guide/iraq/cw/az120103.html
And here is a ‘Syria bit’
http://www.atimes.com/atimes/Middle_East/ED19Ak05.html
“Syria’s principle suppliers of chemical and biological weapons production technology were large chemical brokerage houses in Holland, Switzerland, France, Austria and Germany, including many of the same companies that were supplying Iraq.”
http://www.google.co.uk/search?hl=en&q=germany+%22chemical+weapons%22+iraq&btnG=Google+Search&meta=
The US is as culpable as Germany, TomL. In fact we all are in the West. And as I say above, that is exactly the point the BBC reporter made.
It’s not a case of “hating America” -a snivelling catch-all phrase for rightwingers who wish to squash dissent – just pointing out the stinking hypocrisy of it all.
You may not like it, that’s hard cheese…
http://www.casi.org.uk/info/usdocs/usiraq80s90s.html
Yes, and the US and Britain finally did something to stop it. What did Germany do? Supported Saddam.
Perhaps the BBC should have made this point to give us a better understanding of the ‘stinking hypocrisy of it all.’
Oil for food, Anon? Perhaps the BBC can truly point out the ‘stinking hypocrisy of it all.’ I haven’t seen any investigative documentaries about that particular subject?
‘Stinking hypocrisy?’ Don’t make me laugh.
You may not like it, that’s hard cheese.
You’ll have to do better than that.
“The US is as culpable as Germany, TomL. In fact we all are in the West. And as I say above, that is exactly the point the BBC reporter made.”
And the hand-wringing “point” is as misleading and self-indulgent as that made about the “West” (i.e. the USA) having armed bin Laden.
If Saddam and bin Laden were indeed armed by the West, it was not for the purposes of exterminating dissident internal populations and blowing up holiday resorts.
The Western Allies supplied Stalin with incredible amounts of armaments for a particular cause. It was Stalin who decided to use them, ruthlessly and appallingly, against his internal enemies. It’s Stalin who was the murdering bastard, and my western conscience is clear.
Lefties whine about the “West” supporting Saddam whilst whining about the “West” removing Saddam. The only common logic is the whining. That’s the intent, and that’s the bias.
Please feel free to feel your dissent being squashed (but really it’s just the sound of you losing the argument).
.
Anon… re: “It’s not a case of “hating America” -a snivelling catch-all phrase for rightwingers who wish to squash dissent – just pointing out the stinking hypocrisy of it all.”
Uhmmm… I really hate to break this to you, but the way the media have been in recent years, SUPPORTING America is the “dissent” position. The “hating America” position is the fashionable one, the easy road to take.
Dissent is difficult. Taking the easy fashionable road is not “dissent”, it is just being a lemming.
Uhmmm… I really hate to break this to you, but the way the media have been in recent years, SUPPORTING America is the “dissent” position. The “hating America” position is the fashionable one, the easy road to take.
Dissent is difficult. Taking the easy fashionable road is not “dissent”, it is just being a lemming.
Precisely. Anti-Americanism is so fashionable at the moment, people consider you to be either “a bit simple” or “a dangerous war monger” if you refuse to jump on the bandwagon.
A few months ago, somebody posted a link to an excellent article explaining the psychology of “Bush Bashing”. Basically, even though you know nothing about current affairs, history, politics, America, etc, you can make yourself seem “knowledgeable” and “caring”, simply by saying a few simple phrases:
“I hate Bush, he’s the biggest murderer”
“America are the real terrorists”
“We created Saddam”
“Israel should give the Palestinians their land back”
Even if you know nothing about the subject, when somebody takes you to task, you’ll have everybody else queuing up to defend you. Even when you are clearly wrong.
Really good points pjf and mamapajamas. I’d hate to be a leftie in an argument with you guys.
Funny how these anonymous posters post hit-and-run comments. Must be too intellectually challenged to come back and fight.
Also funny how they couldn’t be bothered think up a decent pseudonym.
There’s no contradiction between ‘the West’ arming Saddam (even to a minor extent) and subsequently acting to remove him. If facts change and it emerges that you may have made an error then you acknowledge that error, rectify it, make a note not to make it again, and move on. That’s not ‘hypocritical’ just cating with the benefit of experience.
I think that remarks about the French, Russians, Chinese etc acting cynically in attempting to block military action are slightly wide of the mark however. I’m no fan of the French approach to international affairs, however might it not be the case that France’s longstanding commercial and colonial ties in Iraq and elsewhere in the Arab world gave it the experience to forsee some of the problems that have since emerged. Given that nobody sane could yet say with certainty that the invasion will ultimately be a good thing it’s a bit harsh to convict them at this point.
Russia and China have never made much of a secret that they value national self interest above any global crusade to do good. Many right wingers have urged America to adopt the same approach (as indeed it does in many arenas). It seems that only good old Blighty selflessly takes the scrupulously moral approach (through government policy and the legal system) wherever it goes, irrespective of the consequences – personally I’m sure I’m entirely supportive.
Cockney
“nobody sane could yet say with certainty that the invasion will ultimately be a good thing”
I disagree.
WRT My censored (I’m not complaining it’s your right) comments, the gist of comments is “Never interrupt your enemy when he is making a mistake.”: Napolean Bonaparte.
Rob, really?
There’s a lot of potential scenarios in 10 years time.
I’d say it’s (just about) odds on that things will have settled down for the better.
It’s not altogether unreasonable to hypothesise however that there will still be a raging civil war killing far more than Saddam could ever manage and/or wider Iraq inspired regional instability (Kurdistani seccessionists?) and/or a genocidal strongman in power post US bailout and/or global economic crisis inspired by the Asians ceasing to fund the US’ (partly Iraq generated) budget deficits.
If you can categorically rule out all of those and say for certain that in financial, security and democratic terms the Iraqis and ourselves will be better off than when we started then I’d like some racing tips please.
The enemy realised their mistake.
http://english.aljazeera.net/NR/exeres/BEE420BF-4CCE-4341-9648-A04E04FBFC3E.htm
“nobody sane could yet say with certainty that the EU will ultimately be a good thing”
I could say similar things about the EU.
Oh look, a bunch of hardline rightwingers all writing in to a blog and agreeing with each other. Well that must mean that what’s posted is the truth?! Don’t make me laugh.
Back to the issue at hand: none of you has been able to refute what Caroline Hawley said in this report.
You twist, thrash around and resort to obfuscation, but the thrust of the matter is the West provided support and the wherewithall for the arms which murdered all those Iraqis in Halabja.
So much precious time has been wasted on fussily trying to deconstruct the sentence above in a desperate attempt to prove bias it’s laughable. It hasn’t worked. Once again you simpy prove your own inherent prejudices.
None of you are fit to lick the BBC’s boots, however much you try to bathe in its reflected glory. No wonder no one trusts the Right.
>> West provided support and the wherewithall for the arms
all that investment in the USSR, riiiiight.
>>None of you are fit to lick the BBC’s boots
I get it, abuse people to win hearts and minds without any substantive facts unlike the BBBC reference.
troll alert!
And at the end of the day all that “anonyomous” can do is start flinging about epithets like “hardline rightwingers etc etc etc” and that none of us are fit to “lick the BBC’s boots”.
Well, from what I gather, most of the peole on this blog aren’t into licking anyone’s boots – It’s just not in our mindset. We like to question things and not accept all that comes out of the beeb and the msm as gospel truth.
It’s all about our take on life I suppose.
As for “no wonder no-one trusts the right”, well, you have to be pretty far to the left to come up with something like that, seeing how in most of the civilised world, populations are divided pretty evenly along the left – right political spectrum. Of course the extremes (on both sides) can’t see this.
deepdiver
None of you are fit to lick the BBC’s boots…
Euuurgh! What sort of sick pervert are you?
deepdiver – to brain-dead Leftists like our friend “Anonymous”, anyone who is to the right of him is on the Right.
Dave Spart is alive and well, and courageously posting anonymously on the BBBC blog 😉
‘I could say similar things about the EU.’
Quite, there’s rational arguments either way and scope for differing views without either party necessarily having sinister/evil ulterior motives.
I’m not just criticising the blinkered cheerleaders anyway. The overriding failing in the BBC’s coverage of Iraq is that they appear to have already made their mind up on the success or otherwise of the entire venture. Irrespective of whether they overemphasise the current bad news over good news, what happened to no pain/no gain??
Cockney,
I totally agree. I wouldn’t mind the Iraqi bad news if the BBC stopped filtering out anything that didn’t fit their prejudices (i.e. followed their own charter)
Anonymous,
It must be tough on you that one of the more precious myths of the left has been shattered – namely the West arming Sadam – but you could try to actually argue the points raised instead of sharing your colourful images of the right with us:
You twist, thrash around and resort to obfuscation….
….desperate attempt to prove bias….
….laughable….
….fit to lick the BBC’s boots….
….bathe in its reflected glory.
Put all of that together, and this is what emerges:
Anonymous the fisherman has come casting his rod around on this site and has caught some right-wing fish which are gasping for air at his feet while he laughs at them and tells them, “You can’t lick these boots, I got them from the BBC.”
It seems that you either work for the BBC or are emotionally involved with someone who does. But if you can’t come up with a rational argument to refute the points raised on this thread, you should at least be big enough to admit that you are wrong.
Bryan:
Well said!
Anon: get back to work – my licence fee pays your inflated wages!
Dave t,
Thanks.
Some of these anonymous posters are like arsonists, running from blog to blog lighting little fires and never staying around long enough to deal with the heat.
Good one dave t.
What Bryan said is probably true. I’m sorry for all of you in the Uk who actually have to pay for this bilge. Keep up the pressure – who knows, something might change
deepdiver
None of you are fit to lick the BBC’s boots, however much you try to bathe in its reflected glory.
Little bit of a meglomania problem going there, eh Anonymous? Just a tad, I think.
Anon,
How about the BBC gives us a documentary charting all conventional arms, and chemical and biological weapons to Iraq over the last, say, 40 years? Warts and all – the full story? Reports and interviews with those involved – government ministers, etc?
No, instead they will just say, “The West sold arms to Saddam,” in the knowledge that most people will assume they mean the US and UK.
errrr….what was the ‘boot-lick’ thing all about? Are you feeling all right? Do the BBC wear boots?
I thought it would be sandals.
Birkenstocks!
With fake desert dust!
Anon: “Back to the issue at hand: none of you has been able to refute what Caroline Hawley said in this report.”
If you can’t see the assininity of this statement in light of the fact that a complete listing of who sold how much weaponry to Saddam was posted, there is no use arguing with someone so ignorant.
Others, thanks for your comments :). It’s nice to have someone watching your back in the presence of trolls!
You know, I just recalled something else. The question about what the US sold to Saddam and when first came up in the US during those anthrax attacks just after 9/11. It came up in relation, specifically, to anthrax.
It came out that an anthrax sample was sent to Iraq by the CDC, the Center for Disease Control in Atlanta. It was sent for research purposes, any Muslim nation having an interest in developing medicines to protect from anthrax spreading through sheep (a major vector for anthrax). This was a legitimate transaction, but many on the left tried to turn it into “proof” that we’d knowingly sold a biological agent to Saddam.
What was actually eventually done with that anthrax sample is unknown, but it was never sold for the purposes the left claimed. It was for legitimate research purposes, which, usually upon hearing, causes the left to say, “Yeah…wink wink”. The fact is that this was a grave error, but not something that can legitimately be called “selling a biological weapon”. But I’ll bet anything that when the left totes up the “weapons” the US “sold” to Iraq, the anthrax comes up on the list along with the flatbed trucks sold by the Dept of Agriculture that I mentioned in an earlier message.