It's obvious that your own knowledge if Iraq's history is severely wanting
Apparently. But so too is it severely wanting for the British and seemingly nonexistent for the U.S administration that went in guns blazing in 2003. Had they paid more attention to history, I doubt the British would have been so keen to repeat imperial misadventures in both Iraq and Afghanistan. (The british had large military forces in both countries over a century ago, and it eventually backfired on them) To be fair, if the U.S had played it's cards right they could have still invaded and mostly avoided the next 6 years of bloodshed. Those who do not learn from history, are doomed to repeat it!
The Baathists overthrew Qassim. Before that happened was the episode where the US backed an attempt to assasinate Qassim where Saddam was apparently involved. And he was an anti-communist.
But it would be another few years before Saddam took power and the CIA had nothing to do with that or with his later rule.
This is what you are missing my good fellow, and you have pointed it out yourself- he was anti-communist. Therefore, in cold war terms he was an acceptable ally for us. Pinochet was "anti-communist" and so we turned a blind eye while his secret police caused thousands of folks to disapear. Remember, the height of Saddam's crimes against the Kurds were carried out in the mid to late 80's which was also the height of his good relations with the west. And just because you saw hulks of Soviet tanks doesn't mean that therefore that is the only thing given to Iraqis by foreigners. It has been well documented and is not a matter of debate in any legitimate circles, that indeed the U.S did give anthrax and chemical weapons to Iraq at the same time that they were using chemical weapons on the Kurds.
So long as he did what we wanted, we didn't give two rips about the plight of the kurds!
I cannot imagine how one can vanish that many bodies so easily.
It has also been my experience that those who really did murder to so many people are usually quite proud of it and will happily confirm it when asked. The Shah and his widow never struck me as particularly bloodthirsty
So, what exactly has been your experience? Because history speaks to the contrary. Almost in every documented case of genocide, there is never massive bragging or publication of the fact but instead it is swept under the carpet or downplayed as much as possible by the perpetrators.
The Soviets killed millions in their purges and there was never any proud confirmation but more of a stonewalling of journalists and foreigners.
Between 1915 and 1917, (it is believed) between 1.5 and 2 million people of Armenian ethnicity perished in the desert, on a forced deportation from the Grand Vizier back when there still was an Ottoman Empire.
Today, Turkey still denies anything seriously bad happened. Where is the 'proud confirmation' you speak of?
What about the wars in the Congo? While not a concentrated campaign of genocide, it is an accepted estimate that the conflict related deaths (disease and famine which are the worst killers in most wars) have claimed over 5 million in the last decade. That clearly biased, liberal hate-mongering group, the International Red Cross, reported that in 2006 approximately 1,250 people died per day of war related causes.
And, did we hear a peep about it in the media? Not really.
