Repression of the 1991 Uprising

[King Tech Quadafi]

Following the 1991 Gulf war, mass uprisings against the Iraqi regime occurred in the Kurdish north and the Shi`a south, at least in part encouraged by then-President George H. Bush’s broadcasted call to the Iraqi people to “take matters into their own hands to force Saddam Hussein, the dictator, to step aside.”3 The uprising began in the southern cities of Zubair and Basra on February 28-March 1 and by the end of the first week of March had spread to all major urban areas in the south. In al-Nasiriyya, for instance, returning soldiers from Kuwait joined up with Shi`a army deserters and rapidly seized the local army garrison.4 In the south the uprising gained support from the largely Shi`a population long repressed by the Sunni-dominated regime of Saddam Hussein. Throughout the south, vengeance killings took place as the population acted out its anger against anyone associated with the Iraqi government, killing hundreds of Ba’th party officials, local bureaucrats, and intelligence agents.5

The U.S. backed away from supporting the uprising, which failed to acquire any momentum in Baghdad or the center of the country. The Iraqi government was able to reorganize loyalists within the army, and with the support of Ba’th Party cadre and supportive tribal allies soon mounted a counter-offensive against the rebels. By the end of March, these loyalist forces had brutally crushed the rebellion in the south. As Human Rights Watch described in a 1992 report:

In their attempt to retake cities, and after consolidating control, loyalist forces killed thousands of unarmed civilians by firing indiscriminately into residential areas; executing young people on the streets, in homes and in hospitals; rounding up suspects, especially young men, during house-to-house searches, and arresting them without charge or shooting them en masse; and using helicopters to attack unarmed civilians as they fled the cities.6

Following the defeat of the rebellions in the north and south, the government began indiscriminately arresting tens of thousands of persons on suspicion of supporting the rebellion. Because of the active role played by Shi`a soldiers and deserters in the uprising, they were particularly targeted. In city after southern city, loyalist forces organized checkpoints and went house to house to round up suspects. Their arrest campaign was as indiscriminate as the firepower used to crush the rebellion. Countless civilians, at times entire families, were arrested and “disappeared.”

http://www.hrw.org/reports/2003/iraq0503/4.htm


I gots ta do it!

[King Tech Quadafi]

Keep it going going, Keep it moving moving

Atoning for the Sins of the Father
I can’t stop thinking that our betrayal of the 1991 Shia uprising against Saddam —an act the US government had called for— will haunt us. This excellent article, from somebody who was there, contributes to our understanding of its possible repercussions. I am sure that G. W. Bush had the betrayal in mind when he decided to go to war, but it is sad he can’t publicly say so.

“The spontaneous Shiite uprising of 1991 consumed the southern part of Iraq right up to the approaches to Baghdad. Rebels came to U.S. troops, who were then deployed in the Euphrates Valley, begging for U.S. intervention. The Shiite political parties sent emissaries to the few Americans who would see them. To this day, I am haunted by the desperation in the appeals made to me by one group, as they realized time was running out for their countrymen.”
“The current President Bush cannot escape these ghosts. An American may understand what happened in 1991 as carelessness —inexcusable but not malicious. An Iraqi Shiite saw a superpower that called for a rebellion and then ensured its failure. Naturally, he assumed this was intentional. In the months and years to come, many Shiites may take a lot of convincing about U.S. motives and reliability.”
Carelessness? I can’t agree with Peter Galbraith’s easy forgiveness; even Colin Powell accepted that the decision not to support the uprising was realpolitik at work. The US wanted either a weakened Saddam or another Baath dictator to counterbalance other powers in the region and also avoid a potential dismemberment of Iraq. But why call for the uprising, then? Bush 41 can’t have it both ways.


http://val.dorta.com/archives/000174.html

Roll Call:

Smerlus
Mozip
Jr. Wopper
Machiavelli

Step in here and defend ya selves or kiss the ring.

[King Tech Quadafi]

Americans blaming the Iranians originally for the gassing of the Kurds?!!? Of course, who wants ta see their friend in trouble? 

http://www.disinfopedia.org/wiki.phtml?title=Repetition

Saddam gasses the Kurds, Bush 1 and Dole opposed Iraqi sanctions? Of course, who wants ta see their friend broke? 

http://www.democracynow.org/article.pl?sid=03/09/29/155243

Americans helping Saddam defeat Kurds?? Of course, who wants ta see their friend get beat up? 

Get em Tech!!

[Thirteen]

all you're proving is that we play people like puppets and that muslims are sheep. when asked to jump, they won't even ask "how high?" they'll just jump.

also if you study law...even if you broke this situation down to the basics... bush sr still couldn't be held responsible for causing an uprising because he had no authority over those people....he gave a suggestion and they followed it, which is not a crime

finally look up the strategy called "divide and conquer" and you'll see why this makes more sense