http://www.iwpr.net/index.pl?archive/irq/irq_01_5_eng.txt

As usual, IWPR strikes true with their reports.

Nothing in life is black and white, and like most others, this
story too has another side.

The Halabja massacre in 1988 happened during the Iran-Iraq war,
while the neighbouring area had both an Iran and Iraqi military
presence. Both forces were using chemical weapons, and Halabja
hosted Irani sympathizers (treason). While it's not ok to gass
civilians, the rather biased article doesn't care to mention the
treason they committed and that they provided shelter and
logistics for Iranian troops. Iraqi Kurdish soldiers (both the
PUK and the KDP party) took up arms with the Iranis and attacked
Iraqi troops.

Anybody can try to create horrible mental images of a grim
dictator. That's what the Kuwaiti authorities tried to do before
the Gulf War broke out, of Iraqi troops smashing Kuwaiti babies
against the hospital floor (story later on and in silence proved
to be false). The fact that these allegations come from a Kurd
does make it biased. The Kurds have been opposed to any regime
in Iraq (be it Baathist or not) since the 1930s. Many wars were
waged by the Kurds against Iraqi authorities by the Kurdish
leader Mulla Mustafa Barzani (pre-Saddam era). Halabja or not,
the Kurds would want to see Saddam's regime toppled and to have
their own independance.

Now the main questions is - what would a life without Saddam be?
There are three major factions in Iraq: Arabs 75% (Shia ~65%,
Sunni ~35%) and Kurds 15-20%. The largest group is the Shia
Muslims, who are deeply religious and have ties to the Irani
revolutionaries. This is fertile ground for religious fundamentalist
movements, and the western world isn't very popular among Shia's
who see the western culture as a threat against the Muslim culture.

The Kurds are a broken group, haunted by years of injustice, who
despite their common name, share no religious or political bonds.
After the US imposed no-fly zones brought peace from Saddam's troops,
the Iraqi Kurds waged bloody civil wars among the Kurdish tribes.
Turkey (a NATO ally) fierce oppose any move to strengthen the
Kurdish foothold in northern Iraq.

The Sunnis, from which both the Baath party and Saddam originate,
are less fundamental about religion than their Shiite counterparts,
and emphasize the need of a secular state (as opposed to implementing
Sharia). Hussein and the Sunni's was the closest allies the western
world (primarily the US) could find in the region.

So before hammering the drums of war, please ask yourself which group
should take control of Iraq afterwards. The Kurds who wage wars even
among themselves, the fundamentalist Shiites who slaughtered thousands
of Sunni's after the gulf war, or perhaps the Sunni's who currently
are in power? The rifts between the groups are great, as can clearly
be seen by the failure to get even exiled opposition groups to agree.
Also note that prior to the gulf war, the Sunni's had modernized Iraq,
and the standard of living (and life expetancy and literacy) was
excellent compared to other nations in the region. Horrors or not, the
regime of Saddam Hussein has also done alot of good for the country,
but that's easily forgotten in the sea of propaganda.

++ Gore