War On Iraq

Sand

I Never claimed to be moraly superior, nor Moraly qualifiyed.I dont trust those who push Morals on people, as they usualy are intent only on pushing their view of how things should be and not looking out for their fellow man.Often was the lecture of morality recieved from the pulpit while the same people Helped protect paeodophiles.

Grand- I respect your view on that , my own view being that Saddam is an abberation and we shouldnt tolerate him or his ilk. The US and Russia have done in the past, using such butchers as pawns in the Cold War, which is wrong. Id dread living under such a regime - and if nations are willing to topple such regimes in exchange for a deal on oil, then grand imo.

Lol Its not as if I dont like the french or anything Good example, But werent the french on a whole democracy buzz, having just become the first modern democracy since the greeks? Maybe it was idealism on their part, or is my time line wrong?

Slightly - The Americans were the first "big" modern democracy ( Though I *think* the Dutch also had a bit of a stab at democracy of a sort too ) - and they could not have won their freedom without the milatary and financial aid of the French, who were at this time under an oppressive aristocracy which held, literally in many cases, the power of life and death over their serfs. Did the Americans reject aid in creating their democracy from these less than democratic individuals? no. Did the French help the Americans because they loved democracy- no, they did so to get back at Britain and hopefully regain Canada. The good guys arent nessassarily square jawed clean shaven, captain america types- much as the americans would love to portray themselves as such. Even selfish reasoning can lead to beneficial actions.

As for the French revolutionaries they proved themselves to be extremely ruthless in dealing with threats to the revolution - Their "crusade of freedom" was rooted in the revolutionaries fight for survival against the Austrians and Napoleons dreams of glory. Selfish reasoning again, but they shook up the establish european order and set the stage for peaceful reforms - due to the ruling orders fear of another revolution. Like the americans are today, the average Frenchie was wholly confused as to why their German and British counterparts would fight for their oppressive overlords instead of joining the revolution:|

No Im supporting due process and the recignition of soverign states within a U.N frame work.Depotism is the U.s claiming that she is not accountable for the Human Rights(=common decency ?).

Thats the thing for me- I view Saddam and his army of thugs as mere crinimals, the UN should only respect democratic governments, being supported by the US or the USSR does not make you legimate in my eyes - it should work to topple non-democratic regimes. the problem is though that the UN is ironically plagued with non-democratic memeber who have no incentive to provide precedents for tackling non-democratic regimes. Iraq today, Sudan tommorrow?

And who from the Iraqi dissidents will lead? another suharto, hussain or dingh(sp?) .It appears to be the norm in western intervention to put in power people without loyalty to their fellow country men and an obsession with greed.Iraq was a socalist democratic state before the enlightened west installed the ba-rath with which followed saddam.It hasnt worked before to any countrys benifit, why do you think it will start now?

I would hope having learned their lesson about sometime allies in Afghanistan and Iraq they may go for establishing democratic regimes- which they have seem to have done in Afghanistan ( The last "next vietnam" ) they would learn the value of having a friendly, democratic regime in place - France for example has proven a far more useful ally in the long run than Saddam, despite France being full of French people and having an attitude to match.

Dont ever hear much about regime changes in Africa either do we

Well they had a go in Somalia at nation building, disarming and combatting local warlords and generally trying to help a democratic state to emerge but got shot up, ridiculed, called nasty names like "imperialists" and so on and left soon after. BTW does Somalia have a lot of oil under it? Im not sure, but I guess it must have with the whole underlying philosphy of American intervention - bar kosovo of course.

I never said he was the good guy, and I would like to see him gone some day.But as current conditions stand, Not much better will replace him, and the Iraqi people are going pay a very big price just to see the oil that could make them as affluent as norway be stolen by an already affluent theif.

Unless the Americans and the west in general are the ones deciding how Iraq qill be governed in the future the most probable succession is Saddams son or other General. If the americans are in control they pretty much set the ground rules ( though not the result given the nature of democracy) like they did in Germany, Japan and recently, in Afghanistan. The basis for a working democracy is much greater in Iraq imo than it was in afghanistan.

Lennoxschips

Perhaps Ireland should issue a resolution to the Security Council, requesting that the UK cease all nuclear developments (including Sellafield) and destroy all their weapons of mass destruction, overseen by a team of UN Weapons Inspectors. If they choose to ignore this resolution, then the Republic of Ireland will be faced with no other option than to launch a pre-emptive attack on London and initiate a regime change.

Sounds ridiculous, doesn't it? So why can they do it to Iraq?

Sand

UK=Democratic State
Iraq=Warlords fiefdom

DiscoStu

Originally posted by Sand
UK=Democratic State
Iraq=Warlords fiefdom

Why not Israel then?
It fits the bill nicely. Possible war criminal at the helm, large US supplied nuclear/chemical/biological arsenal, openly aggressive to all its neighbouring states, violently opresses people, illegally occupies large areas of land and has violated more UN resolutions that Iraq.

Despencing justice is fine, hypocracy is not.

One last question. How many UN workers have been killed by the Iraqi authorities? Now compare that to Israel's record.

bonkey

Originally posted by DiscoStu
One last question. How many UN workers have been killed by the Iraqi authorities? Now compare that to Israel's record.

Here's one more. How many UN bases of operations have been destroyed by either the Iraqi or Israeli's in the past 2 years?

What about by the Americans?

Are you now going to imply that the US is somehow worse than Iraq because of this?

While I dont necessarily agree with Sands position, direct comparisons show absolutely nothing.

jc

DiscoStu

bonkey the direct comparisons were just to illustrate the hypocracy of the United States position regarding the UN and human rights. It is fine for Israel, a western country to flaunt international law as it sees fit yet another country, Iraq, one that does not play ball by the american rules is a target for sanctions and no fly zones(of very dubious legality, but hey who abides by international law these days.). They were not to prove who was wrong or right or to justify anything.

Sand, you position seems to be that the ends justify the means. Apply that same logic to the IRA terrorisim(remember one persons terrorist is anothers freedom fighter and vice versa) campagin and its perfectly acceptable. Were in a bit of a quandry now ain't we

Sand

Why not Israel then?
It fits the bill nicely. Possible war criminal at the helm, large US supplied nuclear/chemical/biological arsenal, openly aggressive to all its neighbouring states, violently opresses people, illegally occupies large areas of land and has violated more UN resolutions that Iraq.

---

Im not going to get into Israel debate

---

Ive been in far too fecking many of them and I honestly dont care what you lefties think at this stage. And If i have to read another 7 page sermon from a certain individual on the issue Ill go fricking mad.

Having said that, one point: Taking the situation as you describe it there Im all for war on Israel - Tel Aviv before Christmas etc etc.

Returning to the real world and actually taking into account the nature of Israels neighbouring states and their denizens and the history of the region......things become less Star Wars, and Israel gets some competition for taking the role of the Galactic Empire. I wont get into it, just accept I can take say the Stormont Parliments record in isolation and use it to justify 30 years of bombing and murder - When you take something in isolation you can make any point you want.

Sand, you position seems to be that the ends justify the means. Apply that same logic to the IRA terrorisim(remember one persons terrorist is anothers freedom fighter) campagin and its perfectly acceptable. Were in a bit of a quandry now ain't we

Not really - The IRA is wrong (see above for some "good" justification using YOUR logic ), Saddam is wrong, Israel is wrong ANNNNNND all of Israels enemies are wrong - If were going to invade Israel lets go for a clean sweep and invade their neighbours who are harbouring terrorists as well. But, Youre taking Israels actions in isolation to make your analysis of the situation more clear cut and less complicated. Grand.

And Even if Israel is the most despicable bunch of evil scum sucking so and sos what does it have to do with Saddam? Is "Im not as bad as the other guy!!" now a good defence?

Hypocritical? Maybe - the americans dont share your view of Israel so theyre not being hypocritical by their standards. I dont care - Im just glad to see one less dictator in the world.

DiscoStu

Sorry but there is no getting away from the Israel arument. it is inextricably linked to the entire "war on terrorisim"/"war against the infidel"(depending on what way you look at it) situation.

Not really - The IRA is wrong

I agree there but lets run through each scenario step by step.

Northern Ireland
1. British rule in northern ireland is bad, we want them out.
2. IRA bombs people in attempt to get it back - Morally bad action
3. Lather, rinse, repeat.
4. Victory(not quite reality but it is the aim of the IRA)

Iraq
1. Saddam = BAD, we want him out.
2. USA bombs Iraq and starts war - Morally bad action.
3. Lather, rinse, repeat.
4. Victory.

Now considering the "ends justify the means" we can conviently ignore steps 2 and 3 and be safe in knowledge we done the right thing because "we" won.

Correct me if im wrong on your postion. but im drawing it from your stated support of any war with iraq and this nugget:

Theres no Right Choice here

Ajnag

Sand, I had a nice point by point reply, and then lost it, ho hum

However We can agree on one thing that saddam is an asshole and should be removed.

However If you have faith that an oil baron is going to liberate and help the Iraqi people you are mistaken.Afghanistan is still in tatters, with regualar violence still occuring and none of the promised western aid in sight.It still isnt democratic as karzi was only voted in by warlords.Oh but we got the oil pipeline built :rolleyes:

If you really give a **** about Iraq and its people, then you know that only a u.n and internationaly supported(and not u.s led) invasion or supported coup has any chance of helping anyone.

I suggest you read

http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/185984393X/qid=1040693563/sr=1-1/ref=sr_1_1/104-9393040-1627129?v=glance&s=books

You might see modern geo-politics and neo colonialism for what they are.

Chaos-Engine

We can all sit around and biitch about how hypocrical the US is, about how bad Saddam is and how the Israel's are the luckest lot when it comes to friends that back them up...
The real questions should be this...

What in the hell are we going to do about this mess? Are we just going to continue biitching or will we start shouting..

Sand

Sorry but there is no getting away from the Israel arument. it is inextricably linked to the entire "war on terrorisim"/"war against the infidel"(depending on what way you look at it) situation.

Sure there is, I can just go ....... everytime you mention Israel, end of argument.

And it has very little to do with the reasoning either side has presented for the USs invasion of Iraq, The lefties claim its oil, americans claim its a need to prevent saddam getting WMD, and I honestly dont care so long as Saddams toppled and a democratic regime installed in his place.

I agree there but lets run through each scenario step by step.

Youre comparing terrorism to a milatary operation, or even more bluntly the IRA leadership to the Pentagon and the US leadership. Maybe you do this because you view the US milatary in such a low light you believe they plant bombs on shopping high streets to kill civillians, or that they kidnap mothers and torture them to death because they believe them to be informers, or that they deal drugs so as to fund their activities. And on the flip side an IRA apologist would also compare the IRA to the US milatary - after all it was a "urban struggle for freedom" wasnt it?

Correct me if im wrong on your postion. but im drawing it from your stated support of any war with iraq and this nugget:

As bonkey has stated whats your option option?

You dont want war, Id imagine you dont want sanctions, You dont want Saddam --- This is all pretty hard to pull off together. Thats why theres no right choices.

Your strategy is to ask Saddam to abdicate nicely? What if he doesnt? More sanctions?

Sand

Sand, I had a nice point by point reply, and then lost it, ho hum

Ya, I hate it when that happens:D

However If you have faith that an oil baron is going to liberate and help the Iraqi people you are mistaken.

Oh I dont believe Bush cries himself to sleep every night at the plight of the Iraqi people - though then again I dont know, all I really know about him personally is the lampoon/hate figure hes been built up as by the leftie media.

As I already mentioned plenty of good deeds have been accomplished by people acting for their own selfish reasons - Bush need only look at Saddam to see the danger of installing petty dictatorships, hed be a complete moron to invade a country, gain total control of it and then hand it over to some psychopathic maniac who owes him little or no loyalty, and will potentially add to the instability of the region thus affecting Bushs precious oil prices. A functioning, grateful democracy would be far more stable and a better american ally in the long run. Someone just needs to persuade Bush to that line of thinking.

You might see modern geo-politics and neo colonialism for what they are.

Dont worry- despite my rather idealistic views that civillised nations should topple evil regimes such as Saddam through force of arms if nessassary Im blessed as a fairly cynical person - especially when it comes to politics.

DiscoStu

Maybe you do this because you view the US milatary in such a low light you believe they plant bombs on shopping high streets to kill civillians, or that they kidnap mothers and torture them to death because they believe them to be informers, or that they deal drugs so as to fund their activities.

oh boy oh boy oh boy. where do i start. maybe the neumerous rapes, murders, and destruction of villages in vietnam, the reported mass exectutions in panama in 89, the 1000000 innocent people killed in cambodia by us bombs, supply of chemical weapons and the intelligence reports on potential iranian targets handed to saddam in 1988 by donald rumsfeld. What about the many reports CIA drug trafficing to fund their contra wars of the late 70s early 80s and the blind eye being turned to the exploding opium industry that has sprung back up in post taliban afghanistan.

its quite easy to draw comparisons.

DiscoStu

To quote me

Despencing justice is fine, hypocracy is not.

My position is that there must be one standard for all.

where was the United states when there was genocide in rwanda?
did the US feel the need to go into east timor?
they were fine with letting pol pot bring an entire nation back to the stone age.
Yet they suddenly feel the need to go after iraq as part of the war on terror when the only link between iraq and the 9/11 highjackers was one of them had their bags moved from the baggage collection area of an airport to his car when visiting a south east asian country a year before 9/11. not really what ytou would call concrete proof of funding terrorisim.

Sand

oh boy oh boy oh boy. where do i start. maybe the neumerous rapes, murders, and destruction of villages in vietnam,

Good god youre right - That was in West Points tactical operations 101 lectures!!!!!

the reported mass exectutions in panama in 89,

Reported? As in the reported UFO sightings? Or is there proof beyond propaganda?

supply of chemical weapons and the intelligence reports on potential iranian targets handed to saddam in 1988 by donald rumsfeld.

Advantage Disco, Ive never ever ever heard of Rumsfeld ( a politician rather than a general regardless of his delusions ) advising Saddam on the best use of WMD, not even in decidely leftie media, who would view it as the story of the century? Is this reported again?

What about the many reports CIA drug trafficing to fund their contra wars of the late 70s early 80s

Well the CIA isnt the US milatary, the CIA was a dirty organisation in the Cold War which got far too involved with every petty dicatorship. I see that pesky word reports again.

the blind eye being turned to the exploding opium industry that has sprung back up in post taliban afghanistan.

The Allies are not the central government and they havent got the ground forces to act as such - the US has no interest in increasing the drug supply into the US.

its quite easy to draw comparisons.

Of course, all you need are words like "reported" and "reports" whereas I can say with certainty that The IRA and their splinters have been plotting the murder, torture and intimidation of people since the 60s on a grandscale in NI, the UK mainland and Ireland.

You remember when the days of "reported" links between 60s western socialism and USSR hard line communism were used to discredit decent, if wholly stupid, people? Reds under the beds and all that.

Pesky word reported.

Sand

where was the United states when there was genocide in rwanda?

The Guards dont catch all crinimals - so they shouldnt catch any or be called hypocrites?

And where was Europe in all this?

Or the much beloved UN, trusty defender of the true peace loving people of the world......

Oh right.

not really what ytou would call concrete proof of funding terrorisim.

Who cares, one less dictator in the world?

DiscoStu

http://www.commondreams.org/views02/0802-01.htm

buried in the michael moore message board there is also a photo of rumsfled shaking hands with saddamn after that meeting in question.

The Guards dont catch all crinimals - so they shouldnt catch any or be called hypocrites?

there is a little bit of a diffrence between a knacker stealing an old ladys handbag and the mass slaughter of hundreds of thousands of people.

And where was Europe in all this?

europe is not a miliary superpower. at the time there were no plans for a pan european "rapid reaction force" that could have dealt with the situation.

Reported? As in the reported UFO sightings? Or is there proof beyond propaganda?

Am i mistken that the UN declared the invasion of panama was illegal under international law? were the independant bodies resposible for the discoveries of the mass graves under the control of some great "commie" mastermind(remember the ussr and the us were getting pretty damn cosy at the time.) when these reports surfaced?

Well the CIA isnt the US milatary

are the CIA and the US militatry in diametrically opposed positions? would anything that the cia do be not in the best interests of the united states or would what the us military do be not in the intersts of the us? get real sonny, they may not have the same dircet leadership but everything that they do is to help the cause of the united states. if you really wanted you could draw a parallel between sine fein(CIA) and the IRA(US army).

The Allies are not the central government and they havent got the ground forces to act as such - the US has no interest in increasing the drug supply into the US

who is in control of all western military operationsin afghanistan?
my point is that it is only "morally bad" if it not in the best interests of the US.

Sand

Okay - Lets go off into the mists of why the US is the great satan. Iraq was getting boring anyway.

buried in the michael moore message board there is also a photo of rumsfled shaking hands with saddamn after that meeting in question.

Okay - That link you gave points to an article which tells me Rumsfeld was very cosy with Saddam during the Cold War when he was dropping chemical weapons on the Iranians. This is morally corrupt but it is not providing chemical weapons to Saddam and intelligence on where best to employ them as you have claimed.

Youve got me curious though. Any better sources to back up your claim?

there is a little bit of a diffrence between a knacker stealing an old ladys handbag and the mass slaughter of hundreds of thousands of people.

Not in the logic - you catch crinimals when you can, not at all times.

europe is not a miliary superpower. at the time there were no plans for a pan european "rapid reaction force" that could have dealt with the situation.

What does a milatary superpower have to do with peace? Youre opposed to war, surely Europe, by its very pacifist/UN loving nature, was far better equipped to create peace in Rwanda than the evil, corrupt mass murdering americans were? This is your logic here.

Am i mistken that the UN declared the invasion of panama was illegal under international law? were the independant bodies resposible for the discoveries of the mass graves under the control of some great "commie" mastermind(remember the ussr and the us were getting pretty damn cosy at the time.) when these reports surfaced?

I had hardly view the UN as the moral guardians of the world given their membership, but hey. The invasion of Panama was just or unjust based on the merits of the case- not on whether the UN says so or not. And youre still basing your arguments on "reports". There are "reports" the US faked the moon landings, wouldnt put it past them either - dirty low down good for nothings.

are the CIA and the US militatry in diametrically opposed positions? would anything that the cia do be not in the best interests of the united states or would what the us military do be not in the intersts of the us? get real sonny, they may not have the same dircet leadership but everything that they do is to help the cause of the united states. if you really wanted you could draw a parallel between sine fein(CIA) and the IRA(US army).

Id have to argue the CIA and the milatary are different organisations with no significant shared command structure with different spheres of influences and wholly different style of operations and traditions. Using your logic if the Minister of Justice was caught taking bribes then the Gardai should be up in court beside him the next day - they at least share a pupose.

Oh and given the CIAs record in latin america, its incredible record at provoking anti americanism and its generally corrupt morals Id think its very likely the CIA would act against american interests. Havent you noticed how the american media/hollywood portrays the CIA as snivelling worms?

who is in control of all western military operationsin afghanistan?

The allies are. Of course, from what I know western milatary patrols are limited to large urban areas like Kabul and Khandahar. Most of the country is garrisoned by the central governments troops (i.e friendly warlords ). So control of all western milatary operations in afghanistan mightnt be all its cracked up to be.

my point is that it is only "morally bad" if it not in the best interests of the US.

Cant say I agree with your view on that, but hey its your morals.

shotamoose

Originally posted by Sand
Of course, all you need are words like "reported" and "reports" whereas I can say with certainty that The IRA and their splinters have been plotting the murder, torture and intimidation of people since the 60s on a grandscale in NI, the UK mainland and Ireland.

Oh, I hadn't realised you were an eyewitness to the entirety of the Troubles. That must have been rough on you.

Pesky word reported

Yeah, and so are 'claimed', 'said' and even 'stated'. Please, enlighten me: unless you experienced the Troubles first-hand, how did you manage to learn about them without the information being mediated somehow, 'reported', even? Leaving aside the fact (oops, sorry, reported fact) that some convictions of alleged IRA terrorists were subsequently found to be unsafe and that some RUC and Gardai members reportedly colluded with terrorists of various stripes, I'm guessing you know with certainty what you do about the Troubles because you learned it from trusted sources, from some good authorities, perhaps official ones.

Now, if you'd like us to only believe your word on events that you have personally witnessed with your own eyes, please say so (of course, given the medium, we'll have to take your word on what events you'd claim to have witnessed), and people will happily take everything else you say on every other topic with a massive pinch of salt. Otherwise, stop this childish carping and agree that absolute certainty is always elusive and that we must judge every report based on the trustworthiness of the source. Unsatisfactory? Definitely. Inevitable? Absolutely.

So, about the first point raised by Disco Stu, if that really is his name. The claim that the US provided chemical weapons to Saddam and intelligence on where best to employ them is detailed in those bastions of lefty conspiracy theories, the New York Times , USA Today and the Buffalo News .

I don't know if the NYT link will work, so these extracts from a piece in Australia's
Green Left Weekly (careful!) , quoting the NYT and a US Senate report, will have to suffice:

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.

and

The August 17, 2002 NYT reported that, according to ``senior military officers with direct knowledge of the program'', even though ``senior officials of the Reagan administration publicly condemned Iraq's employment of mustard gas, sarin, VX and other poisonous agents … President Reagan, vice president George Bush [senior] and senior national security aides never withdrew their support for the highly classified program in which more than 60 officers of the Defense Intelligence Agency (DIA) were secretly providing detailed information on Iranian deployments, tactical planning for battles, plans for air strikes and bomb-damage assessments for Iraq.''

.

DiscoStu

http://foi.missouri.edu/terrorbkgd/howsaddam.html

its only copy of an article by MSNBC, but i bet those leftie student types are up to no good anyway though.

http://www.webactive.com/pacifica/demnow/dn20020819.html

i admit i did get the date wrong though sorry. it was in 1983 that rummy met saddam.

http://www.fas.org/spp/starwars/congress/1992/h920731g.htm

Would you call transcripts of House of Representatives leftie propaganda?

lili

the US meddel in every country and then they later go and 'clean up' all the intentional mess they left behind.

Sand

Oh, I hadn't realised you were an eyewitness to the entirety of the Troubles. That must have been rough on you.

Okay, lets just skip the rest of the rant cos this pretty much sums it up. "If a tree falls in the forest and no - one sees it fall does it really fall?"

Well seeing as the IRA ACCEPT and CLAIM RESPONSIBILITY for their acts of terrorism I can safely say they are responsible for acts of terrorism, even leaving aside the OVERWHELMING evidence of over 30 years of mayhem and murder from all sides of the disagreement they have up there.

So unless the US stands up and say " Yeah we wasted them and buried them out there- all for a good cause though" or there is at least a credible level of evidence then its as likely as the faked moon landing- i.e. reported.

Thanks for your concern though.

So, about the first point raised by Disco Stu, if that really is his name. The claim that the US provided chemical weapons to Saddam and intelligence on where best to employ them is detailed in those bastions of lefty conspiracy theories, the New York Times , USA Today and the Buffalo News .

Hell I must go back to school- I seem to be having trouble with the old reading here, or at least me and you seem to be having different reads.

From New York Times:

Unidentified senior US military officers say covert US program during Reagan administration provided Iraq with critical battle planning assistance at time when US intelligence agencies knew Iraqi commanders would employ chemical weapons against Iran;

Okay, unidentified sources make a fairly credible claim that the US was aiding the Iraqis with strategy/tactics whilst they knew Iraq would use chemical weapons.

Powell denies account

An identified senior US milatary officer and political figure denies this - putting his neck on the line, something the unidentified have refused to do. Dont blame you for missing this as its hidden away in the middle of the text.

On to USA today,

The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention sent samples directly to several Iraqi sites that U.N. weapons inspectors determined were part of Saddam Hussein's biological weapons program, CDC and congressional records from the early 1990s show.

Those SOBs!!!!! The UN has confirmed the sites where weapons labs as well!!!!

"I don't think it would be accurate to say the United States government deliberately provided seed stocks to the Iraqis' biological weapons programs," said Jonathan Tucker, a former U.N. biological weapons inspector.

But now the UN says they didnt (knowingly) send them to weapons factories - well now I dont know what to think.

Except the US was incredibly stupid to provide anything to the Iraqi regime - but such "enemy of my enemy" and tolerance of dictatorships have guided Western policy in the middle east, especially the USs - foolish, and short sighted as events now reinforce.

its only copy of an article by MSNBC, but i bet those leftie student types are up to no good anyway though.

Okay, reads as newsweek to me but minor detail.....

America’s past stumbles, while embarrassing, are not an argument for inaction in the future.

Sing it sister.

From the beginning, U.S. officials worried about Saddam’s taste for nasty weaponry; indeed, at their meeting in 1983, Rumsfeld warned that Saddam’s use of chemical weapons might “inhibit” American assistance.

Hmm this doesnt sit right with the "Here Saddam take these nerve gases, and drop on Tehran- weve found a orphanage you can use for testing" account of things.

After Rumsfeld’s visit to Baghdad in 1983, U.S. intelligence began supplying the Iraqi dictator with satellite photos showing Iranian deployments. Official documents suggest that America may also have secretly arranged for tanks and other military hardware to be shipped to Iraq in a swap deal—American tanks to Egypt, Egyptian tanks to Iraq. Over the protest of some Pentagon skeptics, the Reagan administration began allowing the Iraqis to buy a wide variety of “dual use” equipment and materials from American suppliers. According to confidential Commerce Department export-control documents obtained by NEWSWEEK, the shopping list included a computerized database for Saddam’s Interior Ministry (presumably to help keep track of political opponents); helicopters to transport Iraqi officials; television cameras for “video surveillance applications”; chemical-analysis equipment for the Iraq Atomic Energy Commission (IAEC), and, most unsettling, numerous shipments of “bacteria/fungi/protozoa” to the IAEC.

Ah now this sounds more credible- Its well known the US supported Saddam, and whilst this fills in a lot of the blanks the only really disturbing items are the computerised database and the bacterial samples - though a UN weapons inspector claims that the US could not be said to have knowingly given them for weapons research.

When Saddam bombed Kurdish rebels and civilians with a lethal cocktail of mustard gas, sarin, tabun and VX in 1988, the Reagan administration first blamed Iran, before acknowledging, under pressure from congressional Democrats, that the culprits were Saddam’s own forces. There was only token official protest at the time.

Evil SOBs eh, at least theyll be toppling the scumbag this time - still a good few of the then administration should see the inside of a jail cell for that alone.

Then Democracy Now:

The covert program was carried out at a time when President Reagan's top aides, including Secretary of State George P. Shultz, Defense Secretary Frank C. Carlucci and Gen. Colin L. Powell, then the national security adviser, were publicly condemning Iraq for its use of poison gas, especially after Iraq attacked Kurds in Halabja in March 1988.

Secretary of State Powell, through a spokesman, said the officers' description of the program was "dead wrong," but declined to discuss it.

Mr. Carlucci said, "My understanding is that what was provided" to Iraq "was general order of battle information, not operational intelligence."

"I certainly have no knowledge of U.S. participation in preparing battle and strike packages," he said, "and doubt strongly that that occurred."

Later, he added, "I did agree that Iraq should not lose the war, but I certainly had no foreknowledge of their use of chemical weapons."

Would you call transcripts of House of Representatives leftie propaganda?

Id call it dry reading but hey:)

Reading though it, the speaker is describing an illegal offbooks method a Italian Bank used to provide funds and items to the Iraqis.

And in the second-to-the-last previous order I placed in the Record, the documentation showing that during that period of the Iraq-Iran war we, the United States,

together with some of our so-called friends in Europe, and even China, sent 47 billion dollars worth of armaments to Iraq.

So the UNITED STATES, europe and china all provided armaments to the Iraqis. I dont see you railing so much against the other two, despite the fact living in Europe youve got a much greater degree of control on the situation in europe. Oh well.

Summary - from what ive read

1- The US supported Iraq in its war against Iran becuase they definitly disliked Iran.
2-The US provided intelligence to the Iraqis, along with milatary equipment, and several dual use items- including bacterial samples. It is probable the US was aware the Iraqis were using chemical weapons but the leadership denies this ( as of course they would, regardless).

Indeed Rumsfled , the villain of the piece, apparently tells Saddam that his dreams of WMD could inhibit the alliance with the US.

3-The USs support of Iraq continued after the Iran war when they arranged several programs to allow western lending to Iraq. Much of the 47 billion dollars raised from American, European and chinese firms was used to fund Iraqs milatary programs, with the knowledge of the US.

4-UN weapons inspector strates it wouldnt be accurate to say the US provided Saddam with WMD, the very claim made by Disco Stu.

5- Most of the stories ( that i noted anyway ) are dated August or September, 3 or 4 months ago - as such there appears to have been no followup that has spread any further light on Disco Stus claims:

The New York times it *seems* hasnt found anything in the story to be worth following up on.......




P.S. Lads, Ive wasted a lot of time here reading up on stuff I already know for the most part searching for that line which says "supply of chemical weapons and the intelligence reports on potential iranian targets handed to saddam in 1988 by donald rumsfeld. " - All ive found is the above.

Please, Im slow witted and dont have the time needed to analyse your evidence for you. Help me out and directly quote the evidence that Donald Rumsfled handed over chemical weapons to Saddam along with intelliegence reports on where best to use them.

P.P.S Christ almighty, the post is scarily long - mustve been reading Occys too much:|

Zombrex

Who cares, one less dictator in the world?

I think the thousands of Iraqis the US will have to kill might.

The question isn't "is Saddam a bad man?" Saddam has always been a bad man. The question is "should American be the police of the world?"

My take on the whole thing is that the American government lacks both the moral authority and the moral judgement to carry out a war against Iraq.

If America really cared about a better world there are a thousand and one things they could do that don't involve killing lots and lots of people.

Bush doesn't care about the Iraqi people one bit. He didn't care about the "evil" Saddam before 9-11, just like he didn't care about the "evil" Taliban before they refused to give up Al Qaeda troops to the Americans.

This is simply an exercise by the Bush government to prolong the "war" on terrorism as long as is humanly possible, to deflect all criticism from Bush. As long as he is "protecting" America from the evil Sadam he can do any stupid thing he likes and still have hoards of gullible Americans voting him into office again. American governments have always played on the naive fears of the American people, the belief that they are constantly under-threat, even though in the last 100 years, there has been 2 major attacks by foreign groups on American soil (and one of them was on an island in the middle of the fecking pacific).

Though for yah all ... The American government (i.e. Bush) claims that the Iraq government (i.e. Saddam) is a serious threat to America, and therefore he is justified in a first-strike invasion, with the help of allies such as Britain. But America is clearly, beyond any doubt a serious and major threat to Iraq. Hell they say they are going to invade this country! Does that justify Iraq (with Bin Ladan’s help) attacking America first, to defend themselves??

Can someone explain the difference?

daveirl

This post has been deleted.

DadaKopf

Originally posted by daveirl
I agree fully as I have done day one. Saddam has always been an evil man, supported a lot of the time by the US. Sure the US didn't care until post 9-11 but now they do. The fact they didn't care or created the problem doesn't mean it shouldn't be dealt with now.

The vast majority of the people here seem to agree that Saddam is a menace to his people and the world would be better without him. So why not support UN sactioned action on Iraq. So what if Bush is only doing it to avoid confronting Home issues! It's the RIGHT THING. Not for the right reasons but it's the RIGHT THING.

Without deflecting the argument, I think it's important to say something about the use of the word 'evil'. Personally, I've never liked the term - I think it's nebulous - and especially now, we should be mindful of the way in which the term has re-emerged post-9/11. In its own way, the Bush administration's constant reiterations of the word 'evil' indicates America's own return to religious puritanism. That makes the American government as bad as those they're fighting. We're not puritans and we shouldn't be drawn into that language of political propaganda.

To call something or someone 'evil' stifles debate and obscures facts amid an opaque shroud of superstitious obscuratinism. But this is America's intention.

I wouldn't mind if Saddam was replaced by the UN with a healthier government system that was meaningful to and accepted by the people of Iraq. So long as people can live productive and happy lives, I'm for it. This, however, isn't a UN mission, it's an American mission that will, no doubt, have massive and dire consequences. A multilateral action powerd by global democracy - yes. A unilateral action powerd by the global hegemon - no. Any regime change will be the fruit of American unilateral action which, itself, will subvert the very reasons this war is allegedly going to be fought for. It's wrong for you to say that ousting Saddam is the 'RIGHT THING'. Unless you're a fascist.

DiscoStu

Okay my memory might have been clouded by time and alchohol but the simple fact of the matter is that after rumsfeld visited iraq in 83 a large quantity of intellegence reports, american military technology and the raw materials for bio/chem weapons began heading to iraq from the united states. Donald Rumsfeld may not have handed a photo of a milk factory that was just waiting to be bombed in terahn but rummys report to the regan administration was the catylst to these items being sent to saddam and in a more reasonable administration rumsfeld would have never set foot in a government building again. Proff of that is in the the appointment of john poindexter, convicted of lying to congress over the iran contra affair who was pardoned in the last week of bush seniors reign and is now director of the pentagon's Information Awareness Office. a convicted criminal and known liar yet is now in control of the most important big brother type program in the us.

the paper trail uncovered has proved about 90% of my claims but i am sure i seen the report and i know that it is buried somewhere on the michaelmoore.com board.

however the us position is nothing about disarment, human rights or setting pervious wrongs right. its oil. it conviently allows them to get the right outcome for them no matter what iraq does.

1. WMDs are found and US/UK forces invade.
2. no WMDs are found and the us is vindicated saying that the iraqis are lying and US/UK forces invade.

either outcome also undermines the un's authority to giving the us more and more precedence to act as the worlds moral police, which so far has not clear direction other than its ok to bomb, gas or displace people as long as no us interests are disrupted.

daveirl

This post has been deleted.

Ajnag

Sure the US aren't doing it for the right reasons, but why is that necessarily a bad thing. The advantages to US intervention are massive. Sure there are disadvantages. I know they only want in because of the oil but is the deposing of Sadamm not a good side effect

Because Iraq will only become another **** tourist destination for ignorant western tourists.A whore of a country without a soul.If the u.s go's in the Iraqi people will have the affluence of Norway stolen from under their noses.Simple as that!.We fought like ****, just for a rock with some moss on it, and the freedom of determination.Iraq deserves no less.

Sand

I think the thousands of Iraqis the US will have to kill might.

The Iraqis rose to overthrow Saddam just after the Gulf War - they were betrayed then. They have shown they want to be rid of Saddam and they have already shown they are willing to take huge risks to do so - all they need is concrete support on the ground to end the reign of that thug and his cronies.

The question isn't "is Saddam a bad man?" Saddam has always been a bad man. The question is "should American be the police of the world?"

No, the question is why is the world saying "Saddam is a bad man" but isnt willing to do *anything* meaningful about it? Take a look at the memebership of some of the UNs committees and youll find your answer.

Bush doesn't care about the Iraqi people one bit. He didn't care about the "evil" Saddam before 9-11, just like he didn't care about the "evil" Taliban before they refused to give up Al Qaeda troops to the Americans.

Makes no difference to the end result tbh - one less dicatator, plus one democratic country. Would it better if we had Clinton faking a tearful ode to the iraqi people and their suffering, playing it up for the cameras? Only difference would be Clinton being a better actor.

Hell they say they are going to invade this country! Does that justify Iraq (with Bin Ladan’s help) attacking America first, to defend themselves??

Does it justify a milatary attack or a terrorist one? Milatary yes, terrorist no - nothing ever justitifes a terrorist attack.

Donald Rumsfeld may not have handed a photo of a milk factory that was just waiting to be bombed in terahn but rummys report to the regan administration was the catylst to these items being sent to saddam and in a more reasonable administration rumsfeld would have never set foot in a government building again.

Thanks for finally clarifying your position regarding Rumsfeld and the handing over of WMD to saddam.

Because Iraq will only become another **** tourist destination for ignorant western tourists.A whore of a country without a soul.

Why , have the Iraqis got soul now? Reminds me of good old Ireland back in the 80s when everyone was so bloody poor and youd literally have to get down on your knees to beg for a loan, when we were getting taxed to the gills - but we had soul dammit. Given the fact the Iraqis are poor AND opressed, they must have some hell of a soul- stop the invasion, they dont need democracy, human rights etc etc when they have soul.

We fought like ****, just for a rock with some moss on it, and the freedom of determination.Iraq deserves no less.

EXACTLY. And the guys who played a significant role in driving out the British from the Republic werent exactly all ( plenty of forefathers of the modern IRA were in evidence ) sweetness and light were they? Would you reject your freedom of determination now because you werent rescued by a bunch of square jawed superheros?

daveirl

This post has been deleted.