Saddam's On the Clock by Geezer

Keep the Shiny side up

Quote:
Originally posted by rue:
How about differently biased?

http://www.house.gov/delahunt/halabja.shtml

Interesting political speech. And, yes, it's biased.

"Keep the Shiny side up"

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, January 1, 2007 1:29 PM

I have a vote and I'm not afraid to use it!

Disprove any part of it.

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, January 1, 2007 1:32 PM

Keep the Shiny side up

Quote:
Originally posted by SevenPercent:
Certainly. I have outrage at any form of weapons brokering, regardless which country it comes from. But the minute you and some of the other right-of-center folks hear US, you think that's the only place we're levelling criticism against.

Ignoring the "right-of-center" allegation...show me somewhere in this post where you, Rue, SignyM, PirateJenny, Citizen, Chrisisall, HKCavalier, Bagherra, or Yinyang have criticized any country other than the U.S. We've already established that other countries have provided chemical/biological weapons precurser chemicals and know-how to Iraq, often in much greater amounts than the U.S. However, until I brought it up, no one mentioned them. So maybe my supposition that your criticism is limited to U.S. actions has some basis.

"Keep the Shiny side up"

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, January 1, 2007 1:41 PM

I have a vote and I'm not afraid to use it!

Slick,

I'm waiting for you to disprove any part of my post and engage in substantive discussion.

Nice ad hominemn BTW.

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, January 1, 2007 1:46 PM

Keep the Shiny side up

Quote:
Originally posted by rue:
Disprove any part of it.

Hey, you quoted it, you should back it up. Sorry, Rue, but if you get to quote political speeches as fact without providing anything to support them, then I get the same privilege.

Quote:
It should have prompted the US to convene an international war crimes tribunal and isolate Iraq until Saddam and his cronies were brought to justice for their savagery.

The US can convene international tribunals on our own, and bring people to justice without having to mess with the UN or ICC? Cool. And no one else on the planet can request such a tribunal? Apparently so, since no one else did.

"Keep the Shiny side up"

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, January 1, 2007 1:54 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by Geezer:
Ignoring the "right-of-center" allegation...show me somewhere in this post where you, Rue, SignyM, PirateJenny, Citizen, Chrisisall, HKCavalier, Bagherra, or Yinyang have criticized any country other than the U.S. We've already established that other countries have provided chemical/biological weapons precurser chemicals and know-how to Iraq, often in much greater amounts than the U.S. However, until I brought it up, no one mentioned them. So maybe my supposition that your criticism is limited to U.S. actions has some basis.

Show me where I critised the US, or indeed even implied that the US was only at fault as you claim.

More insane ramblings by the people who brought you beeeer milkshakes!
No one can see their reflection in running water. It is only in still water that we can see.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, January 1, 2007 1:59 PM

I have a vote and I'm not afraid to use it!

dbl ... musta' been that gas attack from the party food last night ...

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, January 1, 2007 2:03 PM

I have a vote and I'm not afraid to use it!

Slick,

"The US can convene international tribunals on our own, and bring people to justice without having to mess with the UN or ICC? Cool." YEP.
http://www.beyondintractability.org/essay/int_war_crime_tribunals/
Currently, tribunals have to be sponsored by an organization like the U.N. or a national government.

"And no one else on the planet can request such a tribunal?" They did try. The US blocked it at the UN.

http://www.globalpolicy.org/security/issues/iraq/history/2003/0117gas.
htm
However, in 1988 the US worked to prevent the international community from condemning Iraq's chemical attack against the Kurdish village of Halabja, instead attempting to place part of the blame on Iran.

So, got anything else besides word-smithing?

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, January 1, 2007 3:01 PM

Keep the Shiny side up

Quote:
Originally posted by citizen:
Quote:
Originally posted by Geezer:
Ignoring the "right-of-center" allegation...show me somewhere in this post where you, Rue, SignyM, PirateJenny, Citizen, Chrisisall, HKCavalier, Bagherra, or Yinyang have criticized any country other than the U.S. We've already established that other countries have provided chemical/biological weapons precurser chemicals and know-how to Iraq, often in much greater amounts than the U.S. However, until I brought it up, no one mentioned them. So maybe my supposition that your criticism is limited to U.S. actions has some basis.
Show me where I critised the US, or indeed even implied that the US was only at fault as you claim.

"Show me where [the usual suspects] have criticized any country other than the U.S." So show me where in this thread you have criticized any country other than the U.S., since that's what I asked.

Edit: An apology to Gino for not including you in the 'didn't criticize other countries' list.

"Keep the Shiny side up"

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, January 1, 2007 3:07 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by Geezer:
"Show me where [the usual suspects] have criticized any country other than the U.S." So show me where in this thread you have criticized any country other than the U.S., since that's what I asked.

But If I haven't criticised the US your initial premise is flawed.

If you meant in the wider reaching articles of the RWED I can show you numerous posts where I've criticised other countries. However your question was loaded, it is attempting to prove people have only been blaming the US, if I have not blamed countries other than the US it is irrelevant to the purpose of the question if I have not criticised the US either, and given the purpose of your question it is dishonest of you to demand an answer when you can't prove the basics of your underlying premise.

If you ask an honest question, you will receive an honest answer.

More insane ramblings by the people who brought you beeeer milkshakes!
No one can see their reflection in running water. It is only in still water that we can see.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, January 1, 2007 3:14 PM

Keep the Shiny side up

Quote:
Originally posted by rue:
Slick,

Currently, tribunals have to be sponsored by an organization like the U.N. or a national government.

Neat. If only we'd done this pre-Iraqi Freedom, we'd have been all legal then.

Quote:
"And no one else on the planet can request such a tribunal?" They did try. The US blocked it at the UN.
http://www.globalpolicy.org/security/issues/iraq/history/2003/0117gas.
htm
However, in 1988 the US worked to prevent the international community from condemning Iraq's chemical attack against the Kurdish village of Halabja, instead attempting to place part of the blame on Iran.

But you just proved that any national government could convene a tribunal. Don't need the UN to do it. Would the then-Soviet Union have folded to US pressure?

Still not sure what this has to do with SignyM's as-yet-unproven allegation that US sourced helicopters were used to spray chemical weapons on Halajaba, or other folk's unverified allegations that US chemicals were used to make Iraqi weapons. Or maybe it's just mis-direction, since no one has been able to provide any verification.

"Keep the Shiny side up"

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, January 1, 2007 3:22 PM

Keep the Shiny side up

Quote:
Originally posted by citizen:
However your question was loaded, it is attempting to prove people have only been blaming the US, if I have not blamed countries other than the US it is irrelevant to the purpose of the question if I have not criticised the US either.

If you ask an honest question, you will receive an honest answer.

After reviewing this thread, I have to apologize. Your posts have consisted of sarcastic one-liners and quibbles about the meaning of "moot". Thanks for your contributions to the discussion.

"Keep the Shiny side up"

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, January 1, 2007 3:39 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by Geezer:
After reviewing this thread, I have to apologize. Your posts have consisted of sarcastic one-liners and quibbles about the meaning of "moot". Thanks for your contributions to the discussion.

Come on Geezer, I expect better of you than a temper tantrum when you're proven wrong. You asked a loaded question, which does little to contribute to this discussion, except dishonestly attempt to swing it in your favour by erroneously and dishonestly attempting to paint anyone who disagrees with you as merely an anti American. You asked where certain posters have blamed other countries to that end, well if they haven't criticised other countries then the point you attempt to raise really is moot (note the correct usage of the word moot) if they haven't criticised the US either.

Further more I have lent comments that reach to the heart of the discussion, for instance exposing certain other posters comments as merely ad Hominems or Strawman arguments does help the topic, far more than a loaded question built on a false or misleading premise, I may add. I have also rebuked certain assertions, such as it is not important what part any third party (whomever that party may be) to do with the gassing of the kurds, since it was Mr Saddam what done it, so to speak.

If you care to notice I have contributed to this discussion, and I am further contributing to it by calling you on a dishonest question, though I am sure you do not ask it for that purpose, more you did not consider the wording, an honest answer to it would well lend it self to a dishonest conclusion, so by pointing it out I merely help ensure that the discussion is kept reasonably open and honest, and free of mere argumentative tactics that lend little to the subject discussed.

So maybe you can ask an honest question, to which I promise you you will receive an honest answer, or you can attempt to attack me personally and erroneously again.

Thank you.

More insane ramblings by the people who brought you beeeer milkshakes!
No one can see their reflection in running water. It is only in still water that we can see.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, January 1, 2007 3:52 PM

Keep the Shiny side up

Quote:
Originally posted by citizen:
So maybe you can ask an honest question, to which I promise you you will receive an honest answer, or you can attempt to attack me personally and erroneously again.

Thank you.

OK. Do you have any evidence of US-made helicopters spraying chemical weapons on Halajaba, or in fact on any Kurds, during the Al-Anfal campaign? Any evidence that US-made chemicals were converted by Iraq into chemical or biological weapons? I've been looking for an answer since this was brought up, but don't seem to be getting much back that relates to these questions.

"Keep the Shiny side up"

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, January 1, 2007 4:22 PM

I have a vote and I'm not afraid to use it!

Slick,

"Neat. If only we'd done this pre-Iraqi Freedom, we'd have been all legal then."
Yes, wouldn't it have been much better for the US to involve itself legally rather than start an illegal war? And now it's such a mess, there is no way the US can either stay in or get out with good results.

"But you just proved that any national government could convene a tribunal. Don't need the UN to do it. Would the then-Soviet Union have folded to US pressure?"
At issue was "who was the perpetrator?" The US government knowingly and officially pretended to have information that took Hussein off the hook (ie it lied to protect Hussein). In the face of those claims it would have been impossible for another government to have proven otherwise.

"Still not sure what this has to do with SignyM's as-yet-unproven allegation ..."
And SignyM and I are different people. My posts are not referenced to SignyM's posts. Why you're asking the question is unfathomable. And pointless.

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, January 1, 2007 4:39 PM

I have a vote and I'm not afraid to use it!

So Slick,

Is any of this untrue?

the Reagan Administration removed Iraq from the list of terrorist states
the Reagan Administration began providing intelligence for use in the Iran-Iraq war
Rumsfeld’s missions in 1983 were followed by the restoration of diplomatic ties
the Reagan Administration gave Iraq billions of dollars in loan guarantees
the Reagan Administration approved the sale of technology useful for weapons of mass destruction
the Reagan Administration winked when other countries supplied US military equipment
the Reagan Administration later shared highly sensitive satellite intelligence (to allow Hussein to better target his victims)
in 1988 the US squelched attempts to punish the Iraqi regime
the Bush Administration in 1990 defeated several measures in both Houses that would have restricted U.S. sales credits, loan guarantees, insurance support in international lending institutions, and trade preferences for Iraq

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, January 1, 2007 4:43 PM

FINN MAC CUMHAL

Perspective?

The US contributed almost nothing to the Iraqi/Hussein arsenal, and when Hussein finally stepped over the line and attacked a US ally, the US, unlike those countries responsible for the bulk of the Iraqi/ba’ath arsenal, took a hardline position against Iraq. Some of those countries continued to support Iraq with oil contracts and weapons even after 1991 to such a degree that they ended up compromising the integrity of the UNSC. That’s the big picture.

France and Russia have been the major supporters, in the West, for the Ba’ath’s regime, not the US.[1] And the Russia and China were the major providers of weapons to the Ba’ath regime. In fact, the only significant weapon’s transfer to the Iraqi/Hussein regime that the US made between 1975 and 2003 were transport helicopter during the 1980s, and that constituted a whole 0.36% of the weapons transfers to Iraq. The bulk of Hussein’s arsenal came from Russia (93.575% between 1957 and 2003), and the largest contributors above the US in order of contribution were Russia, China, France, Italy, and Yugoslavia, with eight other nations below the US. [2]. So while it is true that the US is the largest supplier of weapons in the world, they are not the largest supplier to rogue regimes, that auspicious title falls on Russia and China.

I’m not sure what the US weapon’s contribution has to do with Iraqi chemical attacks on the Kurds though, since such attacks are routinely carried out by airplanes or munitions, not helicopters. I’m also not sure it is real good idea to go dispersing chemical weapons by helicopter, since they tend to be relatively tactical not strategic vehicles and given their nature of propulsion would seem to strike me as not excellent at dispersing an airborne weapon. Also according to Kurds who were at Halabja, the chemical attack was carried out by sorties of 8 warplanes, not helicopters (and of course that makes more sense from a military standpoint.) [3] The US never sold Iraq any war planes, so the planes being used in this case were most likely Soviet MiGs or Sukhoi, but may have been French Mirages. What they were not was American. [2]

The chemical weapons, themselves, could have come from a variety of direct or indirect sources, including the US, but by far largest contribution came from Germany, which provided Iraq with everything from weaponized agents, such as Mustard Gas, precursors and equipment (including in some cases, installation and plant construction.) [4] Nerve agents, like GA, GB and VX were never sold to Iraq in weaponized form to my knowledge, but Iraq developed the means of manufacturing both GA and GB, and probably VX using precursors imported largely from German companies. Soil samples obtained from bomb crater in the Anfal province in 1992 indicated the existence of Sarin (GB) and Mustard contamination with a chemical structure consistent with the chemical composition of Mustard gas developed in East Germany. [5][6]

Now it would be one thing, when critics say that they don't agree with the US’s support for Iraq during the 80’s. There is some sympathy among reasonable people, because a lot of people, including myself, don’t like the US support for Iraq, as meager as it was. However, the reason why people supported Iraq in the Iran/Iraq war was a beleif that the status quo in the Middle East should be maintained. The US foreign policy with regard to the Middle East, before Bush, was about maintaining the status quo. Many people, including many who are now criticizing Bush in this thread, wanted to leave Hussein in power in 2003, which is in fact, a continuation of that very status quo policy. So I’m not sure that such positions are even internally consistent much less carrying any degree of perspective.

However, instead of simply disagreeing with the US foreign policy with regard to Iraq some people make asinine comments that equate Bush to Hussein or implied threats of assassination. And what I’m seeing here is not disagreement; it’s fanaticism, and it’s far more consistent with the rhetoric of terrorists (who frequently use half-truths to denounce Western leaders or call for their assassination) then with what one might expect from reasonable people.

[1]” Right now the United States and the United Nations seldom deal directly with Iraq. They deal instead with France and Russia.” http://www.globalpolicy.org/security/issues/iraq/2002/0312france.htm

[2] SIPRI Arms Transfer Database
http://www.sipri.org/contents/armstrad/access.html

[3] “According to the testimony of survivors, the chemical weapons employed in Halabja were dropped from airplanes well after the town had been captured by Iranians and Iraqi Kurdish rebel forces allied with them, and after fighting in the immediate area had ceased”
http://www.hrw.org/reports/1991/IRAQ913.htm#6

[4] “A confidential report issued on 21 August 1990 by Helmut Hossman (name as transliterated), the Economy Minister of then West Germany, confirmed that the German companies had the lion's share in these transactions. The report said that since 1983, West German companies have exported to Iraq huge quantities of raw materials, equipment, and small industrial factories to produce poison gases. The report also said that these companies participated directly in building the Sa'd Project, the Iraqi chemical project, and the construction of the military complex in Al-Taji.”
http://www.fas.org/nuke/guide/iraq/cw/az120103.html

[5] http://www.fas.org/nuke/guide/iraq/cw/program.htm

[6] Technical Aspects of Chemical Weapon Proliferation, The American Federation of Scientists

Nihil est incertius vulgo, nihil obscurius voluntate hominum, nihil fallacius ratione tota comitiorum.

Nothing is more unpredictable than the mob, nothing more obscure than public opinion, nothing more deceptive than the whole political system.

-- Cicero

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, January 1, 2007 4:51 PM

Keep the Shiny side up

Quote:
Originally posted by rue:
Slick,
"Still not sure what this has to do with SignyM's as-yet-unproven allegation ..."
And SignyM and I are different people. My posts are not referenced to SignyM's posts. Why you're asking the question is unfathomable. And pointless.

Just though it was germane since you originally responded to a post of mine asking 7% if he had any alternate info about the Halajaba attack. This after I had questioned SignyM's allegation that US choppers were used. Which she has never responded to, BTW.

"Keep the Shiny side up"

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, January 1, 2007 4:59 PM

Keep the Shiny side up

Quote:
Originally posted by rue:
So Slick,

Is any of this untrue?

the Reagan Administration removed Iraq from the list of terrorist states
the Reagan Administration began providing intelligence for use in the Iran-Iraq war
Rumsfeld’s missions in 1983 were followed by the restoration of diplomatic ties
the Reagan Administration gave Iraq billions of dollars in loan guarantees
the Reagan Administration approved the sale of technology useful for weapons of mass destruction
the Reagan Administration winked when other countries supplied US military equipment
the Reagan Administration later shared highly sensitive satellite intelligence (to allow Hussein to better target his victims)
in 1988 the US squelched attempts to punish the Iraqi regime
the Bush Administration in 1990 defeated several measures in both Houses that would have restricted U.S. sales credits, loan guarantees, insurance support in international lending institutions, and trade preferences for Iraq

Rue. You're the one who brought this all up, and it has no relation to what I was talking about, i.e. SignyM's "whose choppers" remark. Still looking for evidence of US-sourced helicopters or chemical weapons being used in the Halajaba attack or the Al-Anfar campaign.

"Keep the Shiny side up"

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, January 1, 2007 5:00 PM

I have a vote and I'm not afraid to use it!

Finn,

The LARGER perspective is that the US was complicit in supporting Iraq financially, technically, legally, diplomatically, and yes, militarily during the war; while knowing Iraq was using chemical weapons on civilian populations.

The US then did an about-face, condemning Iraq for what it had previously supported, and invaded Iraq on that pretext.

I don't think you can find a similar international record re Iraq from any other country. That's what makes the US such an outstanding case.

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, January 1, 2007 5:09 PM

I have a vote and I'm not afraid to use it!

Slick,

"Rue. You're the one who brought this all up, and it has no relation to what I was talking about, i.e. SignyM's "whose choppers" remark."

Lets see. As I read it, you're responding to Citizen's challenge for an honest question by nitpicking a SignyM post. What do either of those posts have to do with mine? I've been pursuing my own argument since before either one posted.

My question is how did the US support Hussein even while he was gassing Kurds?

My answer is, let me count the ways ...

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, January 1, 2007 5:23 PM

I have a vote and I'm not afraid to use it!

And well, It's been fun, but I need to sign off for now.

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, January 1, 2007 5:32 PM

SEVENPERCENT

Quote:
Originally posted by Geezer:
Quote:
Originally posted by SevenPercent:
Certainly. I have outrage at any form of weapons brokering, regardless which country it comes from. But the minute you and some of the other right-of-center folks hear US, you think that's the only place we're levelling criticism against.

Ignoring the "right-of-center" allegation...show me somewhere in this post where you, [edited names]... have criticized any country other than the U.S.

I don't know, how about the very first line of mine you quoted, where I said,

Quote:
Certainly. I have outrage at any form of weapons brokering, regardless which country it comes from.

You have selective reading skills, apparently.

As to the others, I don't speak for them. Here, let me say it for you, clearer this time. If the French and Russians and the Chinese and the Cubans or Mongolians or anyone else provided weaponry which was then used for the purpose of mass murder, then the governments of those countries are complicit in the crimes. Should that include the US, and in the case of chemical weapons it appears to (if you read your own link that I criticized, experts in that citation agree that the chemicals given by the US to Iraq were used in that manner). Therefore, along that logic, we too are complicit. As I believe someone else said, accessories to the crime.

I want to prevent my govt from taking actions like this in the future, as I believe it to be unethical. If you, Geezer, want to turn a blind eye to it and claim the US never does any wrong, more power to you. But I concentrate on the US because, in agreement with someone else, I live here. You can't be a shining example to the world if you're constantly covered in blood and dirt.

------------------------------------------
"A revolution without dancing is no revolution at all." - V

Anyone wanting to continue a discussion off board is welcome to email me - check bio for details.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, January 1, 2007 6:00 PM

FINN MAC CUMHAL

Quote:
Originally posted by rue:
Finn,

The LARGER perspective is that the US was complicit in supporting Iraq financially, technically, legally, diplomatically, and yes, militarily during the war; while knowing Iraq was using chemical weapons on civilian populations.

The US then did an about-face, condemning Iraq for what it had previously supported, and invaded Iraq on that pretext.

I don't think you can find a similar international record re Iraq from any other country. That's what makes the US such an outstanding case.

Well, I don’t know about that. With regard to turning an about face on Iraq, I think Poland, Italy, the UK and Australia all pretty much did a 180 (or there about) in 1991, and all of which participated in the 2003 war. Or if you mean with regard to support for the Ba’ath’s regime during the 80s, I don’t think the US is unique in that regard either. The French sold weapons and even built Hussein a nuclear plant that could have been used to produce plutonium. The Germans trained Iraq’s intelligent force. The Russians provided Iraq with almost their entire weapons arsenal. All of which I would consider demonstrating a much stronger support for Iraq then the US.

Both Russia and France provided financial aid to Iraq in the 1980s and continued to providing financial and political support throughout the 1990s. And frankly, I have a lot more condemnation for countries that didn’t turn an about-face vis-a vis Iraq, then I do with those that did.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, January 1, 2007 10:13 PM

I have a vote and I'm not afraid to use it!

Finn,

The US's about face was not a conclusion that it had been wrong. Nowhere do you find the message - we did it and we shouldn't have. Instead what you find is a loud attempt to shift focus - HE was wrong ! HE was bad ! and most important, a way to eliminate the main witness.

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, January 2, 2007 3:20 AM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.

Quote:
Rue. You're the one who brought this all up, and it has no relation to what I was talking about, i.e. SignyM's "whose choppers" remark. Still looking for evidence of US-sourced helicopters or chemical weapons being used in the Halajaba attack or the Al-Anfar campaign.

Ok, so we sold them choppers with crop spraying booms that didn't happen to be used for chemical weapons. (Although based on the energy that Baldrige and Schultz put behind the deal I wouldn't be surprised if there were a few crossed fingers that would be exactly how the choppers were used.) We were just complicit in other ways. You need to make those kinds of distinctions? Huh. Sounds like Bush to me. I didn't exactly say 'imminent threat'.... {whinge} It wasn't me it was those folks {whine}.... the buck stops {points finger and spins like a weather vane}

Finn- the difference between the USA and the other nations that supported Iraq in the Iran-Iraq war was that they didn't use "chemical weapons" as a pretext for invading Iraq. It goes to the issue of hypocracy and breaking international law on the issue of invading a sovereign state which was not an imminent threat.

---------------------------------
Reality sucks. Especially when it contradicts our cherished ideas.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, January 2, 2007 5:10 AM

Keep the Shiny side up

Quote:
Originally posted by SignyM:
Ok, so we sold them choppers with crop spraying booms that didn't happen to be used for chemical weapons. (Although based on the energy that Baldrige and Schultz put behind the deal I wouldn't be surprised if there were a few crossed fingers that would be exactly how the choppers were used.) We were just complicit in other ways. You need to make those kinds of distinctions? Huh. Sounds like Bush to me. I didn't exactly say 'imminent threat'.... {whinge} It wasn't me it was those folks {whine}.... the buck stops {points finger and spins like a weather vane}

Ah, enter the ad hominem attack, with a side of straw man thrown in.

Back to the facts relating to Halajaba and the Al-Anfar campaign. So far we got:

- No US Helicopters involved in spraying gas. It was French and Russian made planes dropping Iraqi made bombs, and Russian made artillery firing Iraqi made shells.

- No US chemical weapons used. Per Finn's post above, Germany provided much of the know-how, and the US is way down on the list of countries which provided dual-use chemicals which could have been used to make weapons. No hard evidence is available that US sourced chemicals were ever used to make weapons.

- Few, if any, US weapons used at all. The overwhelming percentage of Iraqi weapons were sourced from Russia. France provided attack aircraft and helicopters.

- Who had the most interest in taking down Iran? The US couldn't be happy with the country which held it's embassy staff hostage for 444 days, so they wouldn't be too upset at an Iraqi victory. Russia has a stronger interest, since Iran is fomenting Islamic revolution right on the border of Russia's largely Muslim satellite states.

- Who ordered the Al-Anfar campaign? Saddam Hussein.

So it looks like the Al-Anfar campaign, including the Halajaba attack, was Saddam Hussein's idea. It was executed by Iraqi forces using weapons from Russia and France, and chemical weapons know-how from Germany.

US involvement is all post-event; turning a blind eye and suggesting that Iran might be involved. Politically expedient, but ethically wrong.

I'm voting for Saddam as the villian of the Al-Anfar story, with Russia, France, and Germany in supporting roles. The US is a bit player in the third act.

"Keep the Shiny side up"

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, January 2, 2007 6:15 AM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.

Quote:
You need to make those kinds of distinctions? Huh. Sounds like Bush to me.-Signy

Ah, enter the ad hominem attack, with a side of straw man thrown in.-Geezer

Geezer, it's not an ad hominem attack because it is very much on-point, the point being that your argument focuses on supportive trivia rather than substantively addressing the issue of USA complicity with/ support of Iraq. To make a point about word-games, let me demonstrate that I too can play word-games: Nowhere in my post did I say that crop-spraying helicopters were used to spray chemical weapons on Halabja. Read my post carefuly and you will see that you've spent several posts attacking something that I never said But I would rather focus on the substance of the argument that play diddly.

You've since refocused on the main point of the argument, and I will respond in-kind by saying that USA involvement was not just after the fact. In addition to providing persoanl computers, bio reactor vessels and so forth, we also provided Iraq critical intel on Iranian positions, movements, and infrastructure and on chemical weapon kill rates. I'll have to get the links later.

---------------------------------
Reality sucks. Especially when it contradicts our cherished ideas.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, January 2, 2007 6:59 AM

Keep the Shiny side up

Quote:
Originally posted by SignyM:
You've since refocused on the main point of the argument, and I will respond in-kind by saying that USA involvement was not just after the fact. In addition to providing persoanl computers, bio reactor vessels and so forth, we also provided Iraq critical intel on Iranian positions, movements, and infrastructure and on chemical weapon kill rates. I'll have to get the links later.

Computers and bio reactor vessels are dual-use, just like helicopters and chemicals. They can be used for many things. We've already cleared the air about the 'copters, and no one has produced any evidence that US sourced chemicals were used in a bad way. There's no reported use of biological weapons by Iraq at any time during the Al-Anfar campaign, so the bio reactor vessels are out. Any proof of US-sourced computers being used in chemical weapons production, or just more supposition?

And, yes, the US did provide intellegence on Iranian positions, etc. Iran was considered more of a threat to the US than Iraq at the time. What providing info on Iranian military movements has to do with the Al-Anfar campaign against the Kurds escapes me.

"Keep the Shiny side up"

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, January 2, 2007 7:10 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by Geezer:
OK. Do you have any evidence of US-made helicopters spraying chemical weapons on Halajaba, or in fact on any Kurds, during the Al-Anfal campaign? Any evidence that US-made chemicals were converted by Iraq into chemical or biological weapons? I've been looking for an answer since this was brought up, but don't seem to be getting much back that relates to these questions.

No, but why are you asking me this, I thought it was Signym you were having this conversation with?

It is clear to me that Saddam's crimes were endorsed by the US amongst other nations, such as the UK, when this was convent. We know that the US, UK, France, Russia so on and so forth sold Saddam weapons. We know that the US and the UK sold Saddam chemicals that could be used for chemical weapons. A terrorist organisation buys a ton of fertiliser, people don't say "what a big garden they must have" so why do you quibble? What do you think the militant dictator wanted the chemicals for, wowy-pops? We know where they went, you know where they went and our governments know and knew where they went.

Like it or not our governments are complicit in many crimes against Humanity in the middle east, we prop up the brutal regime of Saudi Arabia and bang on about how great they are for crying out loud. Comparing Saudi Arabia to the 'evil' Iran makes Iran look like Canada, yet because Iran doesn't play the game we want them to play we vilify them and turn a blind eye to beheadings in Saudi Arabia. It was the same with Saddam, come on you know this.

You can't sell weapons or the components of weapons to a militant dictator and turn around with clear concious and say, "well how were we supposed to know they were to be used as weapons".

More insane ramblings by the people who brought you beeeer milkshakes!
No one can see their reflection in running water. It is only in still water that we can see.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, January 2, 2007 7:20 AM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.

So, you're saying it was OK for us to provide intel to Iraq on how to gas Iranians?

---------------------------------
Reality sucks. Especially when it contradicts our cherished ideas.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, January 2, 2007 7:20 AM

SHINYED

Saddam and his 2 sons were truly evil monsters who killed and tortured 100's of thousands of Iraqis.

After being witness to the events in Iraq since their "Liberation" 3 years ago my opinion is the following :

Iraqis are vile, ignorant, brutal savages who DIDN'T DESERVE the freedom America & England tried in vain to bring to them. They have shown the world that they are more interested in killing themselves and anyone trying to bring democracy to them...in other words...Saddam & his boys WERE PERFECT FOR THESE IRAQI ANIMALS!

Saddam knew how to control them, brutalize them, torture them, and put down insurrections with deadly force.....because there t'aint no other f'ing way!

Bush and Blair have failed miserably in Iraq mainly because we've tried to be nice guys, tried to be politically correct, tried to conduct a war with the approval stamp of the f'ing UN and NY Times & ACLU, etc etc ...Why should a place like Falluja still even exist? Gorram rutting insurgent slaughterhouse city that hung Americans from a bridge should have been leveled down to sand..same with the whole Sunni triangle....but nooooo...we got this Vietnam disease which makes America & the West afraid to WIN anything...no we have appease the whole world...the same whole world that hates & is jealous of America, and roots for our demise.

So I say so long Saddam.....yeah you were a vile monster, but NO ONE knew Iraq like you sir!

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, January 2, 2007 7:33 AM

I have a vote and I'm not afraid to use it!

"Iraqis are vile, ignorant, brutal savages who DIDN'T DESERVE the freedom America & England tried in vain to bring to them. They have shown the world that they are more interested in killing themselves and anyone trying to bring democracy to them...in other words...Saddam & his boys WERE PERFECT FOR THESE IRAQI ANIMALS!

Bush and Blair have failed miserably in Iraq mainly because we've tried to be nice guys, tried to be politically correct, tried to conduct a war with the approval stamp of the f'ing UN and NY Times & ACLU, etc etc ..."

-------------------------------------------
WOW. I didn't know people like this existed anywhere but in cartoons.

I wouldn't know where to start on this one. Maybe rather than try to be all pacifist and politically correct and engage in civil debate we should just zap the mind clean so there's nothing left, and start over.

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, January 2, 2007 7:34 AM

I have a vote and I'm not afraid to use it!

dbl

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, January 2, 2007 7:59 AM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.

Geezer, FYI:

A 1994 US Senate report revealed that US companies were licenced by the commerce department to export a "witch's brew" of biological and chemical materials, including bacillus anthracis (which causes anthrax) and clostridium botulinum (the source of botulism). The American Type Culture Collection made 70 shipments of the anthrax bug and other pathogenic agents.

The report also noted that US exports to Iraq included the precursors to chemical warfare agents, plans for chemical and biological warfare facilities and chemical warhead filling equipment. US firms supplied advanced and specialised computers, lasers, testing and analysing equipment. Among the better-known companies were Hewlett Packard, Unisys, Data General and Honeywell.
Billions of dollars worth of raw materials, machinery and equipment, missile technology and other "dual-use" items were also supplied by West German, French, Italian, British, Swiss and Austrian corporations, with the approval of their governments (German firms even sold Iraq entire factories capable of mass-producing poison gas). Much of this was purchased with funds freed by the US CCC credits.

The destination of much of this equipment was Saad 16, near Mosul in northern Iraq. Western intelligence agencies had long known that the sprawling complex was Iraq's main ballistic missile development centre.

Blum reported that Washington was fully aware of the likely use of this material. In 1992, a US Senate committee learned that the commerce department had deleted references to military end-use from information it sent to Congress about 68 export licences, worth more than $1 billion.

www.counterpunch.org/dixon06172004.html

---------------------------------
Reality sucks. Especially when it contradicts our cherished ideas.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, January 2, 2007 8:43 AM

Keep the Shiny side up

Quote:
Originally posted by SignyM:
So, you're saying it was OK for us to provide intel to Iraq on how to gas Iranians?

Obviously not, since I didn't say that. But let's unload your question a bit.

The US provided Iraq intelligence on Iranian military dispositions. It didn't "provide intel...on how to gas the Iranians". The Iraqis decided to do that on their own - using Russian planes and guns and German-developed gas, BTW.

Still not sure how this applies to Al-Anfar.
---------------------------------------------
So far the Al-Anfar discussion has run like this, leaving out the attempts to sidetrack:

"American 'copters were used to gas Halajaba."
Nope. Russian or French jets.
"But...American chemical weapons were used on Halajaba"
Nope. Made in Iraq with German help.
"But...American chemicals were used to make those weapons."
Nope. No proof that they were used.
"But...but, America provided bio reactor vessels that could have been used to make biological weapons."
Nope. First, there's no evidence of that, and second, no biological weapons were used in Al-Anfar.
"But...Iraq got American personal computers."
So? I use mine for email.
"But...America didn't punish Iraq for the Al-Anfar campaign."
Neither did anyone else, and we did eventually punish them in 2003.
"But...but...but...that was illegal then."
Depends on who you ask.
"No! America's got to be the only villian behind Al-Anfar. I KNOW! They let air flow into Iraq, and the Iraqi pilots breathed it when they flew their Russian jets to drop their Iraqi bombs full of German developed gas on the Kurds. They're EVIL, EVIL I TELL YOU!!!"

At this point I reiterate my claim that the Halajaba attack and the entire Al-Anfar campaign are down to Saddam Hussein. It's his responsibility. He is the prime mover behind it. In hindsight, it probably would have preferable if we'd tried and hanged him in 1988, but predicting the future is difficult at best.

"Keep the Shiny side up"

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, January 2, 2007 9:12 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by ShinyEd:
Iraqis are vile, ignorant, brutal savages who DIDN'T DESERVE the freedom America & England tried in vain to bring to them. They have shown the world that they are more interested in killing themselves and anyone trying to bring democracy to them...in other words...Saddam & his boys WERE PERFECT FOR THESE IRAQI ANIMALS!

Okay, err we have reports coming in that brown people aren't really people. Erm, yes a source known only as ShinyEd has reiterated the 19th century position that some people are genetically inferior and need a firm hand to bring them in line, like one may do with a dog. Well obviously someone wouldn't treat a dog that way, dogs cost money and they all loyal and fuzzy, duh.

More insane ramblings by the people who brought you beeeer milkshakes!
No one can see their reflection in running water. It is only in still water that we can see.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, January 2, 2007 9:12 AM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.

No Geezer that's not how it went. We knew that Iraq was gassing people; Kurds as well as Iranians. We provided loans, equipment, and intel that probably ... and in some cases were... used to facilitate chemical warfare. No, we weren't the only ones. Plenty of help was funneled to Saddam from our regional allies and by other nations. What we and everyone else should have done- but didn't- was to stop all shipments to Iraq, put Iraq BACK on the list of nations that supported terrorism (Yep, there was such a list even back then) and break diplomatic ties with Hussein. Instead, we did just the opposite. But I don't intend quote entire articles here, so please read the last article that I linked which refers to a Senate report detailing our involvement.

I did notice one thing interesting tho- According to you the level of proof necessary to invade Iraq is at about the level of "suspicion"... because Iraq had plants and "dual use" technology, and despite the fact that the weapons inspectors under Blix found no evidence of WMD. But the level necessary to implicate the USA despite documents detailing our support of Iraq is "proof".

---------------------------------
Reality sucks. Especially when it contradicts our cherished ideas.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, January 2, 2007 9:53 AM

Keep the Shiny side up

Quote:
Originally posted by SignyM:
What we and everyone else should have done- but didn't- was to stop all shipments to Iraq, put Iraq BACK on the list of nations that supported terrorism (Yep, there was such a list even back then) and break diplomatic ties with Hussein.

So we should now stop all shipments of food and humanitarian aid to North Korea and Sudan, maybe Zimbabwe and a few more, and let the people starve, as was happening in Iraq when we provided them such aid in the early '80s? Sure you're not a closet neo-con? I suppose then that you supported the embargo on Iraq after Gulf War I.

"Keep the Shiny side up"

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, January 2, 2007 10:11 AM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.

I noticed you didn't respond to my comment about the "level of proof" needed to implicate a nation, and how it seems to become more or less stringent depending on who it's applied to. Nor did you rebut the Senate Report detailing our support of a nation actively using chemical warfare agents.

Does this mean that you concede that we supported Saddam with dual-use materials, intel, and money while he was gassing Iranians and Iraqis? Does this mean that you now think that the level of proof that we applied to Saddam in 2003 was too harsh?

---------------------------------
Reality sucks. Especially when it contradicts our cherished ideas.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, January 2, 2007 10:55 AM

Keep the Shiny side up

Quote:
Originally posted by SignyM:
I noticed you didn't respond to my comment about the "level of proof" needed to implicate a nation, and how it seems to become more or less stringent depending on who it's applied to.

How perceptive of you. I could find no way in which it relates to the Al-Anfar issue, so I ignored it. When you go back and answer all the questions I've asked you, maybe I'll consider it.

Quote:
Nor did you rebut the Senate Report detailing our support of a nation actively using chemical warfare agents.

You mean this? http://www.counterpunch.org/dixon06172004.html
Hardly a Senate report, more like the usual "could have, might have" editorial. Also not germane to who was behind Al-Anfar.

Quote:
Does this mean that you concede that we supported Saddam with dual-use materials, intel, and money while he was gassing Iranians and Iraqis? Does this mean that you now think that the level of proof that we applied to Saddam in 2003 was too harsh?

Neither.

Do you still stand behind your suggestion of starving the Iraqi population in hopes that Saddam would have a change of heart? Would you apply this strategy to other countries?

But you won't answer.

Saddam's dead, Reagan's dead, this thread has turned into another dead horse of America-hating which has already been beat enough in countless other threads. Enjoy your spite.

"Keep the Shiny side up"

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, January 2, 2007 11:46 AM

CHRISISALL

Quote:
Originally posted by Geezer:
show me somewhere in this post where you, Rue, SignyM, PirateJenny, Citizen, Chrisisall, HKCavalier, Bagherra, or Yinyang have criticized any country other than the U.S. We've already established that other countries have provided chemical/biological weapons precurser chemicals and know-how to Iraq, often in much greater amounts than the U.S. However, until I brought it up, no one mentioned them. So maybe my supposition that your criticism is limited to U.S. actions has some basis.

Geezer, the U.S. is MY country. I worry about what MY country does. When MY country stops frakking around, THEN I'll worry about other's culpability in the same geo-political messes.

This is the same "Clinton did bad stuff" crap we get when we critize Bush.
Next time I hear what I don't want to hear, I'm gonna say "Well, God LET the Devil temp Eve with the apple!!!! God did bad stuff worse than him/her/it!!!!".

Who s**t in the sandbox Chrisisall

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, January 2, 2007 12:12 PM

I have a vote and I'm not afraid to use it!

And I'm still waiting for a reply to my list:

True or False

the Reagan Administration removed Iraq from the list of terrorist states
the Reagan Administration began providing intelligence for use in the Iran-Iraq war
Rumsfeld’s missions in 1983 were followed by the restoration of diplomatic ties
the Reagan Administration gave Iraq billions of dollars in loan guarantees
the Reagan Administration approved the sale of technology useful for weapons of mass destruction
the Reagan Administration winked when other countries supplied US military equipment
the Reagan Administration later shared highly sensitive satellite intelligence (to allow Hussein to better target his victims)
in 1988 the US squelched attempts to punish the Iraqi regime
the Bush Administration in 1990 defeated several measures in both Houses that would have restricted U.S. sales credits, loan guarantees, insurance support in international lending institutions, and trade preferences for Iraq

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, January 2, 2007 12:15 PM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.

Quote:
Does this mean that you concede that we supported Saddam with dual-use materials, intel, and money while he was gassing Iranians and Iraqis? Does this mean that you now think that the level of proof that we applied to Saddam in 2003 was too harsh?-signy

Neither.-Geezer

Why not? Do you have reason to say that we were NOT supporing Saddam while he was gassing folks during the Iran-Iraq war? Do you have reason to say that we should apply a different test to the USA than to Saddam?

---------------------------------
Reality sucks. Especially when it contradicts our cherished ideas.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, January 2, 2007 12:19 PM

CHRISISALL

Quote:
Originally posted by rue:

True or False

the Reagan Administration removed Iraq from the list of terrorist states
the Reagan Administration began providing intelligence for use in the Iran-Iraq war
Rumsfeld’s missions in 1983 were followed by the restoration of diplomatic ties
the Reagan Administration gave Iraq billions of dollars in loan guarantees
the Reagan Administration approved the sale of technology useful for weapons of mass destruction
the Reagan Administration winked when other countries supplied US military equipment
the Reagan Administration later shared highly sensitive satellite intelligence (to allow Hussein to better target his victims)
in 1988 the US squelched attempts to punish the Iraqi regime
the Bush Administration in 1990 defeated several measures in both Houses that would have restricted U.S. sales credits, loan guarantees, insurance support in international lending institutions, and trade preferences for Iraq

The picture says: "True".

That picture is EVERYTHING that's wrong with American foreigh policy.

Chrisisall

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, January 2, 2007 12:39 PM

RAZZA

Quote:
Originally posted by rue:
And I'm still waiting for a reply to my list:

True or False

the Reagan Administration removed Iraq from the list of terrorist states
the Reagan Administration began providing intelligence for use in the Iran-Iraq war
Rumsfeld’s missions in 1983 were followed by the restoration of diplomatic ties
the Reagan Administration gave Iraq billions of dollars in loan guarantees
the Reagan Administration approved the sale of technology useful for weapons of mass destruction
the Reagan Administration winked when other countries supplied US military equipment
the Reagan Administration later shared highly sensitive satellite intelligence (to allow Hussein to better target his victims)
in 1988 the US squelched attempts to punish the Iraqi regime
the Bush Administration in 1990 defeated several measures in both Houses that would have restricted U.S. sales credits, loan guarantees, insurance support in international lending institutions, and trade preferences for Iraq

Rue:

I'm sure you have them, so could you please provide some sources for these assertions. I don't doubt their veracity, but it would be nice to have more than your word that they are true and the context in which you assert them. Anyone can post a list of things to support their position without context and make them appear absolutes. Thanks!

Chrisisall:

Foreign policy decisions are among the most difficult to make and even more difficult to defend once made. The fact is that the world is everchanging and often faster than any sane human can keep up with. Politics truly makes strange bedfellows and expediency is often the dirty whore we'd rather not have to sleep with, but find ourselves soiled by. This is especially true of foreign policy decisions.

-----------------
"There is not such a cradle of democracy upon the earth as the Free Public Library, this republic of letters, where neither rank, office, nor wealth receives the slightest consideration."
---Andrew Carnegie

"Doing research on the Web is like using a library assembled piecemeal by pack rats and vandalized nightly."
---Roger Ebert

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, January 2, 2007 1:07 PM

Keep the Shiny side up

Quote:
Originally posted by SignyM:
Quote:
Does this mean that you concede that we supported Saddam with dual-use materials, intel, and money while he was gassing Iranians and Iraqis? Does this mean that you now think that the level of proof that we applied to Saddam in 2003 was too harsh?-signy

Neither.-Geezer
Why not? Do you have reason to say that we were NOT supporing Saddam while he was gassing folks during the Iran-Iraq war? Do you have reason to say that we should apply a different test to the USA than to Saddam?

---------------------------------
Reality sucks. Especially when it contradicts our cherished ideas.

Nope. I'm out of this bash-fest.

But a question in parting. No response required.

If the US had responded to Iraqi use of chemical weapons when first used in late 1983 as you suggested: dropped all support and diplomatic recognition of Iraq, embargoed any imports, put them back on the "supporters of terrorism" list, attempted to try Saddam for war crimes, what would have happpened?

Most likely things I can see are starvation for the Iraqi people, defeat of the Iraqi military by Iran, occupation of Iraq by Iran, massacres of Iraqi Sunnis, and the beginnings of a fundimentalist Islamic empire run from Tehran. Yeah, that's much better.

"Keep the Shiny side up"

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, January 2, 2007 1:59 PM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.

Quote:
Why not? Do you have reason to say that we were NOT supporing Saddam while he was gassing folks during the Iran-Iraq war? Do you have reason to say that we should apply a different test to the USA than to Saddam? -Signy

Nope. I'm out of this bash-fest. But a question in parting. No response required. If the US had responded to Iraqi use of chemical weapons when first used in late 1983 as you suggested: dropped all support and diplomatic recognition of Iraq, embargoed any imports, put them back on the "supporters of terrorism" list, attempted to try Saddam for war crimes, what would have happpened?

Most likely things I can see are starvation for the Iraqi people, defeat of the Iraqi military by Iran, occupation of Iraq by Iran, massacres of Iraqi Sunnis, and the beginnings of a fundimentalist Islamic empire run from Tehran. Yeah, that's much better. -Geezer

So, it's okay to support the use of chemical and (one assumes) biological and nuclear weapons, as long as it's important enough that a particular nation win? That seems to be what you're saying. IS that what you're saying?

BTW- I don't think I'm "bashing" anyone. All I'm doing is asking questions.

---------------------------------
Reality sucks. Especially when it contradicts our cherished ideas.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, January 2, 2007 4:23 PM

FINN MAC CUMHAL

Quote:
Originally posted by rue:
The US's about face was not a conclusion that it had been wrong. Nowhere do you find the message - we did it and we shouldn't have. Instead what you find is a loud attempt to shift focus - HE was wrong ! HE was bad ! and most important, a way to eliminate the main witness.

So what? HE was wrong. HE was bad. And the whole eliminating the main witness’ nonsense is just conspiratorial drama.

Quote:
Originally posted by SignyM:
Finn- the difference between the USA and the other nations that supported Iraq in the Iran-Iraq war was that they didn't use "chemical weapons" as a pretext for invading Iraq. It goes to the issue of hypocracy and breaking international law on the issue of invading a sovereign state which was not an imminent threat..

I have yet to see any argument that convinces me that the 2003 war broke international law. I also don’t think there’s anything hypocritical about the Bush II administration taking a different interpretation of events then the Reagan administration. That’s not hypocritical, that’s just two people coming to different conclusions, with over a decade between them; it’s two administrations following different theories of foreign policy.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, January 2, 2007 4:31 PM