The post makes clear, to me at least, that the context of all this is more important than what actually happened at Halabja, unless you were there at the wrong time. It points up the moral irrelevance of U.S. Gov protestations re: Iraq and gas. Moral horror rises and falls according to U.S. foreign policy swings. Sort of like the US outrage over the Khmer Rouge, after siding with it v. the Vietnamese. You have to be Swedish or something to have any standing on this issue.
I recall vividly chatter before the Gulf War to the effect that the evil Iraqis had this wicked device that could incinerate a huge area by first dispensing a combustible mist, then igniting it. Of course, it was the U.S. that had this weapon and used it on the "Highway of Death" and in Afghanistan. Now they're called 'daisy-cutters.'
So why does Jude miss the forest for the trees?
mbs
>
>
>
> On Tue, 2 Apr 2002, Max Sawicky wrote:
>
> > Speaking of Jude, Timothy Noah has a piece in Slate debunking Jude's
> > debunking of the Saddam/poison gas/kurds story. Does anyone here know
> > enough of the details to suggest who is right?
>