The whack-a-mole game continues in Iraq...

[Lanny_MacDonald]

Originally Posted by Dan02

Its interesting that the fact, 10s of thousands were killed every year under Saddams reign, has been forgotten. Or that he gassed his own ing citizens, started 2 wars which killed how many thousands??? The thing is no one reported every time Saddam lined up 50 people infront of the firing squads on CNN like every incident in Iraq gets reported now. Perhaps if every time someone was killed in Iraq before Saddam was removed was splattered all over western media we'd have a better guage of how bad the violence in Iraq actually is now compared to then, in reality we don't have a clue.

Seems YOU don't have a clue. That whole train of thought is so lame. No one is defending Hussein, or the tyrant that he was. No one says that he was a nice guy. What people are saying is that things were better under him. The Iraqis say it, and prior to the invasion, the military was saying it too.

Now stow the BS about Hussein starting 2 wars and gassing his own people. The WORLD had the chance to take him out in 1991 and elected to leave him in power as a paper tiger. After Kuwait, more people died from sanctions than from Hussein's brutality. In fact, Hussein was kept in check in the decade after the Gulf War. As Anthony Zinni stated, repeatedly, prior to the invasion of Iraq, Iraq was contained and was no threat to anyone in the region. Its funny, but almost every government in the world saw this coming, including the Americans. They were just too damn stupid and drunk on power to heed their own advice from a few years earlier.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6BEsZMvrq-I

[I_am_Beast]

Originally Posted by Lanny_MacDonald

Seems YOU don't have a clue. That whole train of thought is so lame. No one is defending Hussein, or the tyrant that he was. No one says that he was a nice guy. What people are saying is that things were better under him. The Iraqis say it, and prior to the invasion, the military was saying it too.

Now stow the BS about Hussein starting 2 wars and gassing his own people. The WORLD had the chance to take him out in 1991 and elected to leave him in power as a paper tiger. After Kuwait, more people died from sanctions than from Hussein's brutality. In fact, Hussein was kept in check in the decade after the Gulf War. As Anthony Zinni stated, repeatedly, prior to the invasion of Iraq, Iraq was contained and was no threat to anyone in the region. Its funny, but almost every government in the world saw this coming, including the Americans. They were just too damn stupid and drunk on power to heed their own advice from a few years earlier.

Agreed, there we far better ways to let the guy " fade out " and stablize the region than tear the damn thing apart and give more fuel to the fire.

Lanny I see your "you-tube " and raise ya

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xcjLEwZqcQI

[oldschoolcalgary]

Originally Posted by Hemi-Cuda

do YOU have a clue? the Iraqi people themselves say life was better under Saddam (the same Saddam that the US gave all that power to btw). so who am i going to believe, the guy in front of a computer half a world away, or the Iraqi civilian who has lived through it all?

exactly!!! i find it really, really sad how a lot of people still either a) do not understand the history of US foriegn policy in Iraq or b) choose to ignore it.

Fact: the US government (both Dem and GOP btw), lent support to this dictator a long, long time ago because he served their goals in the Middle East...they didn't care he was a despot...they didn't care about the gassing...they didn't care about his military build up...

the rationalizing of ousting a dictator holds ZERO credibility for anyone having a inkling of the history of Iraq...now, even democracy is seen as "too lofty" a goal for Iraq due to political/cultural reasons...huh?!

so why did they go in there in the first place.

those who do not learn from history are doomed to repeat it...That's why history is important...

[HOZ]

Originally Posted by oldschoolcalgary

exactly!!! i find it really, really sad how a lot of people still either a) do not understand the history of US foriegn policy in Iraq or b) choose to ignore it.

How about those that exaggerate it or take it out of context or choose to ignore the situations or timeline of the decisions?


USA did NOT give Iraq chemical weapons. If they did then England, Germany, France (especially), Italy AND C A N A D A are E Q U A L L Y as responsible.

[Lanny_MacDonald]

Originally Posted by HOZ

USA did NOT give Iraq chemical weapons.

Wrong again.

http://www.iranchamber.com/history/a...rming_iraq.php

"May, 1986. The US Department of Commerce licenses 70 biological exports to Iraq between May of 1985 and 1989, including at least 21 batches of lethal strains of anthrax."

"April, 1988. US Department of Commerce approves shipment of chemicals used in manufacture of mustard gas."

Oh, and if you're going to try and use the defense that the United States didn't know that the Iraqis were using, or would use, chemical and biological weapons in the theatre of war, I'll burst that baloon as well.

"November 1983. George Schultz, the Secretary of State, is given intelligence reports showing that Iraqi troops are daily using chemical weapons against the Iranians."

"August, 1988. Four major battles were fought from April to August 1988, in which the Iraqis massively and effectively used chemical weapons to defeat the Iranians. Nerve gas and blister agents such as mustard gas are used. By this time the US Defense Intelligence Agency is heavily involved with Saddam Hussein in battle plan assistance, intelligence gathering and post battle debriefing. In the last major battle with of the war, 65,000 Iranians are killed, many with poison gas. Use of chemical weapons in war is in violation of the Geneva accords of 1925."

If someone cares to toss out the BS about the United States being so upset about Saddam gassing the Kurds, this will also blow that out of the water.

http://www.hartford-hwp.com/archives/51/040.html

"When Saddam did in fact use chemical weapons against his own people, he did so on the afternoon of 17 March 1988, against the Kurdish city of Halabja. The United States provided diplomatic cover by initially blaming Iran for the attack. The Reagan Administration tried to prevent criticism of the atrocity. The Bush (senior) administration authorised new loans to Saddam in order to achieve the goal of increasing US exports and put us in a better position to deal with Iraq regarding its human rights record."

One last beauty, from the first linked doc, that the big RWers on the sight will have a hard time explaining away.

"February, 1982. Despite objections from congress, President Reagan removes Iraq from its list of known terrorist countries."

Not only did Reagan arm and train the mujahideen, that evolved in al Qaeda, but they were the ones that built up Saddam. God bless the saint of all neo-cons, he really was a forward thinker!

[oldschoolcalgary]

Originally Posted by HOZ

How about those that exaggerate it or take it out of context or choose to ignore the situations or timeline of the decisions?


USA did NOT give Iraq chemical weapons. If they did then England, Germany, France (especially), Italy AND C A N A D A are E Q U A L L Y as responsible.

ah...the ploy of the desperate - P A T R O N I Z I N G those who hold positions contrary to your own...

What next, because I don't support the US in its invasion of Iraq, I am labelled a supporter of dictatorships? Please if you want to debate, that's great - but don't try to insult my intelligence or imply that I do not have a modicum of understanding of the history of that region. You'd be very surprised...

[Lanny_MacDonald]

Be nice to HOZ. He's having a very tough few years. First he gets exposed for being a BS artist on the hockey front, and that his "game tapes" are non-existent. Then he finds out that his neo-con buddies are nothing but a bunch of neo-con-men out to bilk the taxpayers of billions. I hazard to guess what he will do when he finds out that Ronnie Ray-gun was not the super hero the neo-cons make him out to be, and that he was largely responsible for the mess we are in today. Thank god they primarily use chop sticks in Japan, or they would have to start hiding silverware to prevent HOZ from slashing his wrists.

[FireFly]

Originally Posted by Lanny_MacDonald

Be nice to HOZ. He's having a very tough few years. First he gets exposed for being a BS artist on the hockey front, and that his "game tapes" are non-existent. Then he finds out that his neo-con buddies are nothing but a bunch of neo-con-men out to bilk the taxpayers of billions. I hazard to guess what he will do when he finds out that Ronnie Ray-gun was not the super hero the neo-cons make him out to be, and that he was largely responsible for the mess we are in today. Thank god they primarily use chop sticks in Japan, or they would have to start hiding silverware to prevent HOZ from slashing his wrists.

Apparently you've never sharpened a chop stick... They can be lethal as well.

[Biff]

Another sociological time bomb in Iraq is the extremely jaded impression left among the Iraqis of the "defenders of freedom" and "champions of democracy". What a wonderful eye-opener it must be to Joe Iraqi to discover that the free world is apparently led by, filled with, and committed to exporting by means of force, corruption, bullying, ignorance, intolerance and violence. Way to civilize the 3rd world. I know I'd be impressed.

[Dion]

Originally Posted by HOZ

USA did NOT give Iraq chemical weapons.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp...&notFound=true

A review of thousands of declassified government documents and interviews with former policymakers shows that U.S. intelligence and logistical support played a crucial role in shoring up Iraqi defenses against the "human wave" attacks by suicidal Iranian troops. The administrations of Ronald Reagan and George H.W. Bush authorized the sale to Iraq of numerous items that had both military and civilian applications, including poisonous chemicals and deadly biological viruses, such as anthrax and bubonic plague.

A 1994 investigation by the Senate Banking Committee turned up dozens of biological agents shipped to Iraq during the mid-'80s under license from the Commerce Department, including various strains of anthrax, subsequently identified by the Pentagon as a key component of the Iraqi biological warfare program. The Commerce Department also approved the export of insecticides to Iraq, despite widespread suspicions that they were being used for chemical warfare.

The fact that Iraq was using chemical weapons was hardly a secret. In February 1984, an Iraqi military spokesman effectively acknowledged their use by issuing a chilling warning to Iran. "The invaders should know that for every harmful insect, there is an insecticide capable of annihilating it . . . and Iraq possesses this annihilation insecticide."

[oldschoolcalgary]

Originally Posted by Dion

http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp...&notFound=true

A review of thousands of declassified government documents and interviews with former policymakers shows that U.S. intelligence and logistical support played a crucial role in shoring up Iraqi defenses against the "human wave" attacks by suicidal Iranian troops. The administrations of Ronald Reagan and George H.W. Bush authorized the sale to Iraq of numerous items that had both military and civilian applications, including poisonous chemicals and deadly biological viruses, such as anthrax and bubonic plague.

A 1994 investigation by the Senate Banking Committee turned up dozens of biological agents shipped to Iraq during the mid-'80s under license from the Commerce Department, including various strains of anthrax, subsequently identified by the Pentagon as a key component of the Iraqi biological warfare program. The Commerce Department also approved the export of insecticides to Iraq, despite widespread suspicions that they were being used for chemical warfare.

The fact that Iraq was using chemical weapons was hardly a secret. In February 1984, an Iraqi military spokesman effectively acknowledged their use by issuing a chilling warning to Iran. "The invaders should know that for every harmful insect, there is an insecticide capable of annihilating it . . . and Iraq possesses this annihilation insecticide."

shhhh!!! they don't want to hear that...or they'll simply blame it as a fabrication of the left-wing media...

[HOZ]

Originally Posted by Dion

http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp...&notFound=true

A review of thousands of declassified government documents and interviews with former policymakers shows that U.S. intelligence and logistical support played a crucial role in shoring up Iraqi defenses against the "human wave" attacks by suicidal Iranian troops. The administrations of Ronald Reagan and George H.W. Bush authorized the sale to Iraq of numerous items that had both military and civilian applications, including poisonous chemicals and deadly biological viruses, such as anthrax and bubonic plague.

A 1994 investigation by the Senate Banking Committee turned up dozens of biological agents shipped to Iraq during the mid-'80s under license from the Commerce Department, including various strains of anthrax, subsequently identified by the Pentagon as a key component of the Iraqi biological warfare program. The Commerce Department also approved the export of insecticides to Iraq, despite widespread suspicions that they were being used for chemical warfare.

The fact that Iraq was using chemical weapons was hardly a secret. In February 1984, an Iraqi military spokesman effectively acknowledged their use by issuing a chilling warning to Iran. "The invaders should know that for every harmful insect, there is an insecticide capable of annihilating it . . . and Iraq possesses this annihilation insecticide."

Again............The USA did not sell them chemical weapons. Nope, nada, not one. Still stand by that. What that article shows is what I have known for a very long time.....

What they ARE guilty of, without a doubt, along with a whole mass of European countries (actually companies within those countries) is selling them the material to which they could manufacture chemical weapons.

How about so good ole' condemnation for the Europeans to go along with the vitrol spat at the USA? I don't see any investigations within Europe.

[oldschoolcalgary]

true - the US was not solely responsible...many countries did sell Iraq the so-called pre-cursor materials that were utilized to create the weaponry.

That being said, the leap from pre-cursor, to the potential use of those chemicals was not a something that was totally out of the blue...just as the refining of plutonium for energy by Iran is seen as a step towards weaponizing.

Certainly, European countries should be called out for their role - however, the difference is that those countries haven't acted out like the US has, trying to justify a war and invasion predicated on actions that they facilitated when it served their political goals in the past.

[HOZ]

Originally Posted by oldschoolcalgary

ah...the ploy of the desperate - P A T R O N I Z I N G those who hold positions contrary to your own...

What next, because I don't support the US in its invasion of Iraq, I am labelled a supporter of dictatorships? Please if you want to debate, that's great - but don't try to insult my intelligence or imply that I do not have a modicum of understanding of the history of that region. You'd be very surprised...

I am not sure how I am in opposition to you? There are still people who are ignorant of the history of the US foreign policy in Iraq. I won't argue that the US gave Saddam the ability to manufacture chemical weapons that were used on the Iranians and Kurds because it served their purpose. The purpose was to help a so called "moderate" regime not get overrun by the Iranians allowing a Radical Muslim goverment control 1/2?? of the Mid - East Oil reserves. And yes a war that the so called "moderate" regime started.

But for some reason people have forgotten or ignored or do not know the fact that the US stopped supporting Saddam about 1989-90. Was that not a good thing? Was that NOT the right thing for them to do?

As well....people have the blinders on to what the Europeans have done in Iraq at the same time and after the US stopped supporting Saddam.

[Dion]

Originally Posted by HOZ

Again............The USA did not sell them chemical weapons. Nope, nada, not one. Still stand by that. What that article shows is what I have known for a very long time.....

What they ARE guilty of, without a doubt, along with a whole mass of European countries (actually companies within those countries) is selling them the material to which they could manufacture chemical weapons.

How about so good ole' condemnation for the Europeans to go along with the vitrol spat at the USA? I don't see any investigations within Europe.

Yes they did.

What the article shows is that they ARE guilty of knowing that Saddam was using chemical weapons on his people and the Iranians. They chose to ignore that because economic relations with Saddam was more important.

From the article I quoted......

Declassified documents show that Rumsfeld traveled to Baghdad at a time when Iraq was using chemical weapons on an "almost daily" basis in defiance of international conventions.

Why sell a country materials that could be used in chemical weapons when they knew full well what Saddam was doing to his people and the Iranians?

[HOZ]

Originally Posted by Dion

Yes they did.

What the article shows is that they ARE guilty of knowing that Saddam was using chemical weapons on his people and the Iranians. They chose to ignore that because economic relations with Saddam was more important.

From the article I quoted......

Declassified documents show that Rumsfeld traveled to Baghdad at a time when Iraq was using chemical weapons on an "almost daily" basis in defiance of international conventions.

Why sell a country materials that could be used in chemical weapons when they knew full well what Saddam was doing to his people and the Iranians?

No they did NOT sell him weapons. They sold him the material he could use to make them.

The rest of what you typed there is in complete agreement of what I have said in this thread.

[Dion]

Wheaton, Md.: I hear pro-Saddam activists often claim that Reagan supplied Hussein with chemical weapons. I've seen no evidence to support these claims. Is there any truth to this?

Joyce Battle: I have not personally seen documents that indicate that the Reagan administration supplied Iraq with chemical weapons. However, the documents we recently posted on the Internet demonstrate that the administration had U.S. intelligence reports indicating that Iraq was using chemical weapons, both against Iran and against Iraqi Kurdish insurgents, in the early 1980s, at the same time that it decided to support Iraq in the war. So U.S. awareness of Iraq's chemical warfare did not deter it from initiating the policy of providing intelligence and military assistance to Iraq. There were shipments of chemical weapons precursors from several U.S. companies to Iraq during the 1980s, but the U.S. government would deny that it was aware that these exports were intended to be used in the production of chemical weapons.

http://discuss.washingtonpost.com/wp...ttle022703.htm

[Dion]

Originally Posted by HOZ

No they did NOT sell him weapons. They sold him the material he could use to make them.

The rest of what you typed there is in complete agreement of what I have said in this thread.

We will agree to disagree on wether he sold them weapons. No disrespect but I have desire to get into a game of semantics over what consitutes a chemical weapon.

You didn't answer my question btw.

[Hemi-Cuda]

Originally Posted by HOZ

No they did NOT sell him weapons. They sold him the material he could use to make them.

The rest of what you typed there is in complete agreement of what I have said in this thread.

so you're saying that if i sell you a gun and a bullet, i'm not selling you a weapon? the gun and bullet are useless by themselves, and it's up to you to put them together to do any damage with it. the US sold chemical weapons to Iraq in the essense that they gave them all the materials they needed with full knowledge of what they would be used for. it doesn't matter if they sold just the pieces or the fully built weapon, the end result is the same

[Dion]

On July 31st, two days before the Iraqi invasion, John Kelly, Assistant Secretary of State for Near Eastern affairs, testified to Congress that the "United States has no commitment to defend Kuwait and the U.S. has no intention of defending Kuwait if it is attacked by Iraq.

" Eight days later, on August 2, 1990, Saddam Hussein's massed troops invaded and occupied Kuwait (ironically, this was done in a method historically similar to the American annexation of Texas). One month later in Baghdad, British journalists obtained the tape and transcript of the Hussein-Glaspie meeting on July 25, 1990. In order to verify this astounding information, they attempted to confront Ms. Glaspie as she was leaving the U.S. Embassy in Baghdad.

Journalist 1: "Are the transcripts (holding them up) correct, Madam Ambassador?"

(Ambassador Glaspie does not respond)

Journalist 2: "You knew Saddam was going to invade (Kuwait), but you didn't warn him not to. You didn't tell him America would defend Kuwait. You told him the oppose - that America was not associated with Kuwait."

Journalist 1: "You encouraged this aggression - his invasion. What were you thinking?"

U.S. Ambassador Glaspie: "Obviously, I didn't think, and nobody else did, that the Iraqis were going to take ALL of Kuwait."


http://www.chss.montclair.edu/englis...r-fingrut.html