SentientMeat: I’m not starting a GD thread about it. This is the second time this week I’ve seen a “Take it to GD” posting in the pit. What’s the world coming to?
This is old shit, but it gets revived from time to time. There’s no point restarting a debate just because someone missed it the first time.
If you want to start a debate in GD, go right ahead.
Apologies, Des, I did not intend to appear dismissive - my concerns were merely to avoid a hijack when it is clear that the US might be planning things which I think the UN should very defnitely know about before agreeing to help (firing on a crowd protesting about their preferred candidate being barred, for example).
A search doesn’t reveal much of use - do you remember where the subject was done in GD before?
RED FURY: 1st, I am not a bigot, 2nd I don’t recall insulting you, 3rd How can I be in Dubyas camp? I’m English.
GARY: You must surely be aware of the fact that Saddam gave orders for those people to be gassed, no I don’t have a cite before you ask but it was reported in God knows how many newspapers.
YOJIMBO: I am aware of what Churchill thought, fact is it was never used by us.
SM: I don’t advocate lethal force against anyone UNLESS they threaten and kill the very forces that freed them from the grip of a tyrant. Don’t nit pick, you understood perfectly well what I meant when I said Arabs.
Finally I still believe that the US was right in its decision to wage war on Iraq, nothing will sway me from this belief.
Spogga? Prove to me that Saddam Hussein gave such orders. Prove to me that Saddam Hussein would have unleashed nuclear weapons on the West, or Isreal, or the USA or Britain if he’d had them. Prove to me that Arabs in general would do such a thing.
Prove to me that you have anything concrete in that feeble miniscule world view of yours, other than a overwhelming sense of hysteria and woeful condescension towards anyone who isn’t of European ancestory.
I put it to you right here, right now - that you do indeed genuinely believe what you’ve said thus far, but that you have no proof and that further, you believe what you do because you wish to believe that it’s true.
Thank god for another bigot! Just what the Pit needed. :rolleyes:
Here is a clue, want to burn a flag? This veteran says knock yourself out, you losers. The only thing that changes is the 10 dollars you no longer have. Do you think we are so insecure we care? Nope. Oh sure a few scummy political types try to make hay over it, but this sort of thing is to be expected when your people are truly free. Sometimes they do things you don’t like.
In summary, piss off you moron.
WASHINGTON – A covert American program provided Iraq with critical assistance in its war with Iran at a time when American intelligence agencies knew that Iraqi commanders would employ chemical weapons, the New York Times reported Sunday.
American intelligence officers never encouraged or condoned Iraq’s use of chemical weapons, but neither did they oppose it because they considered Iraq to be struggling for its survival, people involved at the time said in interviews with the newspaper.
Some U.S. military officers agreed to speak on the condition that they not be identified about the nature of gas warfare on both sides of the Iraq-Iran conflict from 1981 to 1988.
The Pentagon “wasn’t so horrified by Iraq’s use of gas,” said one veteran of the program. “It was just another way of killing people — whether with a bullet or phosgene, it didn’t make any difference,” he said.
Iraq’s use of poison gas is repeatedly cited by President Bush as one of the justifications for “regime change” in Iraq.
Cite:
http://www.newsmax.com/archives/art.../18/81805.shtml
While senior officials of Reagan government revealed lately that although US intelligence institution knew clearly that Iraq would use chemical weapons, it still passed a secret program to aid Iraq.
The New York Times reporters got the news from former US officials when investigating the war’s truth during 1981 to 1988. Most of the officials declined to give names.
Anonymous former officials said that Reagan’s assistants on the one hand condemned Iraq’s behavior while on the other launched the secret program actively.
http://english.peopledaily.com.cn/2...20_101758.shtml (citing the NY Times article)
and
Second, at the termination of the Iran-Iraq war, professors Stephen Pelletiere and Leif Rosenberger, and Lt Colonel Douglas Johnson of the US Army War College (USAWC) undertook a study of the use of chemical weapons by Iran and Iraq in order to better understand battlefield chemical warfare. They concluded that it was Iran and not Iraq that killed the Kurds.
But what would the Army War College know?
http://www.the7thfire.com/Politics%...GaseousLies.htm
http://www.onlineopinion.com.au/2002/sep02/Thomas.htm
http://www.globalresearch.ca/articles/THO209A.html
Note: This does not mean the Kurds or Shites were not mistreated or killed. But given this standard there are a great many countries we would need to invade.
http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?threadid=203251
The very definition of close-minded bigotry.
You have demonstrated that you have swallowed everything fed to you without the slightest pause for critical thought. Depressingly, you are the common denominator.
Oh from the same thread for our Citeless but Certain poster:
Damn even the Cato institute is mocking the WMD misteps. This is a partically well written piece btw:
Writing in the LA Times, Max Boot of the Council on Foreign Relations ponders why Hussein was so uncooperative “in light of the postwar failure to find any WMD stockpiles.” He offers just two explanations: Either Saddam “destroyed his stockpile” or “we’ll still find it.”
A third explanation is that some weapons that were supposed to make Iraq a formidable military threat never existed, such as UAVs or missile warheads loaded with biological agents. Others, such as capacity to produce biological and chemical precursors, were never weapons. The rest, as the CIA put it, was based on “limited insight into activities since 1998,” including speculations from private analysts (Tony Blair’s dossier reportedly relied heavily on Jane’s Intelligence Report). “All intelligence experts agree that Iraq is seeking nuclear weapons,” wrote the CIA. But seeking is not having, and intelligence experts are not necessarily intelligent.
http://www.cato.org/dailys/06-22-03.html
Dang, cited to Newsmax and the Cato Institute in the same day. So much for liberal media sources.
Darn those nasty Cites ruining a witless rant.
It was unintended to Kurds. It was intended to kill Iraqis…or maybe Iranians…but not Kurds.
Let’s take a look at what you wrote, shall we?
1-Yes, you are:
**
2-And you know I’m not an ‘Arab,’ how?
3-Easy, by Shrub’s own recogning, you’re “either with him or aginst him.” And you said:
**
So there you are moron-boy. Next time, try thinking for a sec before you post; hell, you might even remember what it is you wrote afterwards.
Get lost, limpdick.
BOO BOO FOO and anyone else that cares to read:
I have no proof that Saddam would have unleashed nukes, but then again you have no proof that if he had them he wouldn’t.
Moron, Limpdick? very erudite I must say.
My rant is over.
I cannot prove that if Bertie Ahern had nukes he would not use them. This does not justify a regime-changing invasion of Ireland.
The burden of proof is on those advocating an invasion, agreed?
Then Spogga - by extension your logic and position is without merit - for it is YOU, not myself, who is taking such an aggressive stance. I’m happy to fight the good fight based on what I know to be true - but you on the other hand are happy to fight based on what you HOPE is true.
“if he had them”
He didn’t. He wasn’t even close. The African nuclear materials claim was fake. It was based on crude forgeries. He appears to not even had any WMD’s.
We have provided cites, you have not.
You rant was over before it started. BTW, nice attempt at the victim card, but bigots don’t get the use it. Crawl back under your rock.
I disagree. The regime was responsible for a genocidal campaign against the Kurds toward the end of the Iran-Iraq war called Anfal, which is a particularly sick reference taken from the Koran meaning “spoils of war.” The gas attack was likely one of many, planned and documented and we’ll be hearing more about it in the coming months.
I never set out to deliberately get anyones back up and in this respect I have to concede BBF that you are 100% right.
I never intended to come across as agressive as my posts read (yes I have re-read them) and again I concede.
My only defence is that when I fight whether it be with words or weapons I have to hope that I am right, in this respect I hope that WMD are found in Iraq thereby justifying my hopes.
My sojourn into the BBQ pit is ended.
Most of your cites deal mostly with the capture of Ali, or with the Kurdish rebellion. The first link was pretty Op-Edish as well. While nobody is denying what happened to the Kurds and Shites, that is not the claim being made. Rather the “Saddam gassed his own people” was. The links I have provided (especially the US Army War College ones) show that it seems unlikely that this is actually true. Do try and read them.
Also if the simple killing of your own people (while reprehensible) is enough for an invasion, we have a shitload of new countries to invade. Should we start alphabetically or by oil production?
Also, as the cites shown above, Reagan and Bush Sr. didn’t mind Saddam’s killing of his people too much- until he invaded Kuwait. Not to mention those nutty Contras and the whole Iran-Contra thing. Oops, I mentioned it.
This “we invaded because he was a bad man who gassed his people line” is simple grasping at straws now that the WMD and strong Al Queda ties have proven to be false claims. None of these claims were made prior to the invasion by either Bush or Blair.
Note that, by Brutus’s line of reasoning, there is nothing wrong with Iraq invading Kuwait “in order to protect and expand its interests”.
Yup. IF we had some ham we could have some ham and eggs for breakfast IF we had some eggs.
In re: the Anfal and claims that the Kurds were actually gassed by Iran (whether Accidentally r on purpose)…now I’m no forensic pathologist, but it doesn’t occur to you that a member of the U.S. military would have reason to slant an analysis of whether the Iranians (a longtime U.S. enemy) or the Iraqis (at the time, an erstwhile ally) had actually done the deed?
I can’t say for sure who did it, of course; there are numerous conflicting accounts of the chain of events. But I don’t think the possibility that the Iraqis did it should be dismissed out of hand.
Human Rights Watch report on the Anfal (don’t read immediately before or after eating):
http://www.hrw.org/reports/1993/iraqanfal/
Note that Halabja was far from the only instance of massacre of Kurds in northern Iraq, and I find it difficult to believe that the documented pattern of massacres of Kurds was anything but intentional. Reeks of genocide to me.