American/British Assassination of the Leader of Iraq
POSTED BY: Ghoulman
UPDATED: Friday, June 25, 2004 02:25
VIEWED: 14132
PAGE 1 of 12
Hi,
A little history seems to have shown up online. Thought I'd drop it here in case anyone was interested.
1963: American/British Assassination of the Leader of Iraq
http://www.sianews.com/modules.php?name=News&file=article&sid=1705
Submitted by: njona "by William Blum
May 14, 2004
In July 1958, Gen. Abdul Karim Kassem overthrew the monarchy and established a republic. Though somewhat of a reformist, he was by no means any kind of radical. His action, however, awakened revolutionary fervor in the masses and increased the influence of the Iraqi Communist Party.
By April of the following year, CIA Director Allen Dulles, with his customary hyperbole, was telling Congress that the Iraqi Communists were close to a “complete takeover” and the situation in that country was “the most dangerous in the world today.” In actuality, Kassem aimed at being a neutralist in the Cold War and pursued rather inconsistent policies toward the Iraqi Communists, never allowing them formal representation in his cabinet, nor even full legality, though they strongly desired both. He tried to maintain power by playing the Communists off against other ideological groups...
A secret plan for a joint US-Turkish invasion of the country was drafted by the United States Joint Chiefs of Staff shortly after the 1958 coup. Reportedly, only Soviet threats to intercede on Iraq’s side forced Washington to hold back. But in 1960, the United States began to fund the Kurdish guerrillas in Iraq who were fighting for a measure of autonomy and the CIA undertook an assassination attempt against Kassem, which was unsuccessful.
The Iraqi leader made himself even more of a marked man when, in that same year, he began to help create the Organization of Petroleum Exporting Countries (OPEC), which challenged the stranglehold Western oil companies had on the marketing of Arab oil; and in 1962 he created a national oil company to exploit the nation’s oil.
In February 1963, Kassem told the French daily, Le Monde, that he had received a note from Washington -- "in terms scarcely veiled, calling upon me to change my attitude, under threat of sanctions against Iraq... All our trouble with the imperialists [the US and the UK] began the day we claimed our legitimate rights to Kuwait." (Kuwait was a key element in US and UK hegemonic designs over mid-east oil.)
A few days after Kassem’s remarks were published, he was overthrown in a coup and summarily executed; thousands of communists were killed.
The State Department soon informed the press that it was pleased that the new regime would respect international agreements and was not interested in nationalizing the giant Iraq Petroleum Co., of which the US was a major owner. The new government, at least for the time being, also cooled its claim to Kuwait.
Papers of the British cabinet of 1963, later declassified, disclose that the coup had been backed by the British and the CIA."
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:Really? That's like saying I back IBM. Of cousre I back IBM, I have over 3000USD of stocks in IBM. Assume suddenly a new IBM CEO appeared saying he was going to declare bankruptcy, and was then murdered the following day. Based on this twisted logic, I would be responsible for his murder because I backed my interests in IBM.
Originally posted by Ghoulman:
Papers of the British cabinet of 1963, later declassified, disclose that the coup had been backed by the British and the CIA."
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by Finn mac Cumhal:Quote:Really? That's like saying I back IBM. Of cousre I back IBM, I have over 3000USD of stocks in IBM. Assume suddenly a new IBM CEO appeared saying he was going to declare bankruptcy, and was then murdered the following day. Based on this twisted logic, I would be responsible for his murder because I backed my interests in IBM.
Originally posted by Ghoulman:
Papers of the British cabinet of 1963, later declassified, disclose that the coup had been backed by the British and the CIA."
I think you're misunderstanding- 'Backed' politically and historically means financed and supplied, not just supported as we slangily use the term- If we 'back' an assassination attempt in say, Bulgaria or something (so as not to turn this into a flamewar), it means we financially supplied them, or provided them arms or information- In this context, Finn, If you 'back' an IBM takeover/murder/whatever, you're directly contributing, not are just happy with the results- The term has been 'slangified'
------------------------------------------
He looked bigger when I couldn't see him.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:Let me elaborate, if this hypothetical IBM CEO were to claim that he was to declare bankruptcy and I were to loose all my 3 large, I would support (i.e. send money) to help remove said CEO. I'm not intentionally causing his murder nor am I condoning it. I'm sending money to support my investment. The US does this a lot. We send money to many different places to support our investments. How these people choose to deal with their problem is up to them. So my point is that it is disingenuous to claim that the US/Britain assassinated someone, when actually all they did was support their interests in this part of the world.
Originally posted by SevenPercent:
I think you're misunderstanding- 'Backed' politically and historically means financed and supplied, not just supported as we slangily use the term- If we 'back' an assassination attempt in say, Bulgaria or something (so as not to turn this into a flamewar), it means we financially supplied them, or provided them arms or information- In this context, Finn, If you 'back' an IBM takeover/murder/whatever, you're directly contributing, not are just happy with the results- The term has been 'slangified'
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
I'm really getting sick of these sureal analogies, e.g: supporting a political take-over involving the deaths of thousands is like supporting IBM when a new CEO doesn't do what you want. When human lives are at stake the rules really oughta change. It seems to me that it is exactly the kind of thinking that can equate "business deal" and "military coup" that fuels our government's overseas adventurism.
HKCavalier
Hey, hey, hey, don't be mean. We don't have to be mean, because, remember, no matter where you go, there you are.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Odd that you seem to define murder as just another "business deal." Perhaps you are grossly missing the point, or one hell of an aggressive negotiator.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Oh, good gravy, no Finn, I'm pretty sure you have grossly misunderstood the point. Would somebody care to help Finn out here? I'm gonna be late for work if I write another line...
HKCavalier
Hey, hey, hey, don't be mean. We don't have to be mean, because, remember, no matter where you go, there you are.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by Finn mac Cumhal:
[BI were to loose all my 3 large, I would support (i.e. send money) to help remove said CEO. I'm not intentionally causing his murder nor am I condoning it. I'm sending money to support my investment.
It's this line I dont understand, and I think it's HK's problem too-Maybe you arent being clear enough so we're not getting you- If you are sending funds to help remove someone, by force, which involves a murder, how are you not causing it or condoning it?- By assisting (without being coerced yourself) you are expressly condoning an action, and I'm not sure how your argument follows-
If I want someone dead or gone, and I give someone the money and gun to do it, I'm to blame when that person gets killed- I have abetted a murder- They put people in jail in this country for that, look at the hockey player (from my home team no less) that is going to jail for a murder-for-hire plot to kill his agent- He was just providing the funds, yet ultimately he is considered responsible-
It's the same thing in this instance- Any country's government that provided backing for an action is responsible for that action and its consequences- Whether it protects our interests or not, it is still assassination- Now, I'm not saying that a country doesnt have to do bad things sometimes to remove threats or protect interests, its a fact of life- But, lets not bandy words about what it is- It's murder with the goal of protecting our interests- That's what we dont follow- You cannot be involved yet not be responsible-
------------------------------------------
He looked bigger when I couldn't see him.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Well, it's a vague article in a way. The language is very 1950s with the 'support' and all (must have been written by some old guy). That's why people get confused and forget the reality - people were killed, laws were broken, and the West lied about it.
Sounds kinda familiar doesn't it?
And that's the point. We in the West have a lot of blood on our hands and if we don't fess up to the truth and kick out the 
in the White House (as they are the leader of the West... that is, the ones with all the money and power) and completely commit to our high sounding words ... meaning the words that start with WE THE PEOPLE...
Well, it means we will be living in a terrible world... oh wait. Too late. 
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Perhaps I need to spell out the context.
Soviet Russia was the most totalitarian, brutal and powerful regime that has existed, perhaps in history. The Soviets sought to conquer as much of the world as possible. In some cases, they sent an invading arming in to acquire that nation, but the problem they faced especially in the later half of the century was that the US/Britain military power and economic power combined (not military power alone) was enough to counter the Soviet arsenal. This, and this alone, maintained Western Europe free. To that end it was difficult for the Soviets to outwardly invade any nation on it wanted, as it sought to do in the early half of the century, although in competition with Nazi Germany. So the Soviets went with underground revolts wherever possible. Supply money and arms and big promises to the leaders of the Communist Parties of many nations from South/Central America to Southeast Asia to the Middle East. They were successful on many occasions, acquiring allies and puppet nations all over the world.
Afghanistan, Iran and Iraq are three nations that the Soviets sought to acquire. Afghanistan was a primitive, landlocked nation that the Soviets believed the West cared little about. So they simply invaded this nation. Iran and Iraq, on the other hand were more difficult. They were supported by the US, primarily because of the strategic importance in the oil trade. In outward invasion of either Iran or Iraq would have begun World War III.
The US's intent in all this, was to maintain Iran and Iraq as independent and free as possible. The Soviets intent was to concur and acquire Iran and Iraq. If the Soviets had been successful in acquiring the Middle East as they had been in acquiring much of Central Asia, this would have put the world's largest oil reserve at their command, and likely would have turned the balance of power on the world stage. Ultimately the Soviets lost the Cold War, but it didn’t have to be that way. If they had acquired the Middle East, they may have won.
So that is the context under which this 1963 Iraqi revolt occurred, as far as the US/Britian involvment is concerned. The US backed parties in Iran and Iraq that would (1) maintain a free and independent Iran and Iraq (to the degree that such a thing could be expected) and (2) prevent the Soviets from dominion over such an important strategic site. How these parties chose to achieve these ends was their decision, not the US or Britain. That they achieved them was sufficient. If that seems cold to you, it is probably because you are unfamiliar with the 100-150 million innocent civilians killed within Soviet Gulags, starved to death by Soviet politics/economics or simply taken out, shot and buried in mass graves by the Soviets. And that’s just the people they killed in Soviet Russia.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME