The NY Times article has the declassified bits in pdf, and a link to the original release point at http://www.dni.com/
The later site is down or overloaded just now.
Good bet. Real good bet. Mike Tyson vs. Carrot Top good bet.
Well, he didn’t say he pulled the pin on the gas cannisters, but he clearly implied that he was responsible (apparently, the reason Hussein gassed the Kurds is “because Reagan let him”). In fact, he said that Reagan aided Hussein in gassing the Kurds. Here’s his quote:
Surely saying that Saddam only acted because we let him, we aided him in his efforts to gas the Kurds, and then we rewarded him for it implies that we’re partly to blame for it. Or did I misunderstand? Maybe madmonk was saying that Republicans should worship Reagan because he was absolutely not responsible for Hussein’s activities. :rolleyes:
Why? What if Reagan didn’t publicly condemn the attacks? Surely you’re not arguing that Reagan would be … responsible for the attacks if he didn’t condemn them, are you? Surely you’re not arguing that failing to take action to prevent human rights violations makes you complicit in those violations, are you? Because if you are, then you’re pretty much agreeing with HCG’s argument.
No, a mere condemnation wouldn’t make any difference. madmonk’s post would still be deceptive and inflammatory, and he’d still be criticizing someone else for something that he/she had done.
But it would have been very difficult to do more than condemn Hussein for his attacks on places like Halabja, in part because we had a hard time determining if Iraq was actually doing the gassing, or if it was Iran:
So I’m not sure exactly how Reagan could have condemned and sanctioned Iraq for an attack that we thought was committed by Iran.
But eventually, the Reagan admin condemned Iraq’s use of chemical weapons. (Surprisingly enough, there aren’t a heck of a lot of newspaper articles from the early 80s on the web. However, I managed to find a support for this proposition in an article that is not at all favorable to the Reagan admin, so hopefully it’s still trustworthy):
Just goes to show that Bush administration can act with lightning swiftness when the security of the nation is at stake! 
Age Quod Agis,
Since, after all is said and done, we’re here to fight ignorance, I figured a little refresher course of that time in history was in order. Won’t take long. In fact, just read the following quote.
Bolding/underlining mine.
Feel a bit more informed? Great. Glad I could be of service.
Excellent. Another guy who agrees with HCG.
To elaborate, I was aware of that, RedFury, although I was under the impression the bill was defeated in the House, probably in large part because of the Reagan admin’s opposition – See here:
That’s hardly complimentary of the Reagan admin. But it doesn’t contradict anything that I said. If you think I’m wrong about that, please elaborate.
But you can’t say Reagan was responsible for the chemical attacks because all he did was condemn them, and also ignore the argument that Democrats effectively opposed democracy because all they support was condemning it. Again, if I’m missing something, please elaborate.
Moreover, we’re getting pretty far afield from my original argument, which was simply that madmonk’s post was overly dramatic, inflammatory, deceptive, and hypocritical.
I stand by my statement that Ronald Reagan did, in fact, enable the gassing of Kurds in Iraq. He did this by selling Saddam equipment that was used in the gassing and by allowing others to sell him the chemicals he used to make the gas. When it was revealed what Hussein did with that gas, Reagan then increased military aid to Hussein. There is ample evidence of this.
My point is that Republicans who are suddenly outraged by an event that happened decades ago, must surely also be outraged by Reagan’s actions. I mean, how could they condemn the attacks and not condemn the man (Ronald Reagan) who helped enable them? It is not inflamatory to say that Reagan enabled the attacks, his role in the affair is well documented. So I can only assume anyone who is appalled by the gassing of the Kurds (as I am) is equally appalled at the hypocrisy of the party of Reagan suddenly condemning the attacks while still lionizing a man who helped make them possible.
Again, there is ample evidence that Afghanistan is adopting tactics learned in Iraq. These tactics differ from the kind used against the Soviets which were more along the lines of classic Maoist guerrilla tactics.
Here is one link
I can tell you as someone who has worked in both Iraq and Afghanistan that there has been a sea change in Afghanistan. In the past, even during the worst of the Taliban, aid workers were largely allowed to do their work (as long as they didn’t try to convert Muslims to Christianity). The use of suicide bombers targeting civilians and the targeting of non-military aid workers is a new and troubling development for the nation. A simple google search will reveal many articles and papers on this subject.
Has the Iraq war increased the threat of terrorism? No, because Reagan helped Saddam gas the Kurds. Got it.
I don’t, no. This CNN story includes the following:
I admitted that my calling Republicans out on their hypocrisy regarding thier new-found outrage of Saddam’s gassing of the Kurds and their lionizing of Reagan (the man who enabled the gassing) was off topic. I never said that Reagan gassed the Kurds, I said he enabled it, which it is very clear he did. I also never said that is why we are less safe. I was merely pointing out the hypocrisy of Republicans who bring up the gassing of Kurds without acknowledging the minor (but important) role Reagan’s foreign policy played in it.
On the subject of the OP I think the fact that Iraq is now a terrorist training ground where fighters learn skills they will take with them when they go to other countries is proof that we are less safe. More terrorists = less safe for the targets of terrorism. The same thing happened in Afghanistan. People who fought the Soviets learned skills that they then used to stage terror attacks against the US. Osama bin Laden is one such person.
When OBL, using Afghanistan as a base, attacked the US, we invaded Iraq. In so doing, we not only did not eliminate one training ground for terrorists (Afghanistan); we created a second training ground (Iraq).
We are less safe because we have entered an ill-advised and unwinnable war that will creat a failed state in the heart of the Middle East that will likely destabilize the enitire region and possibley spread to the slums of Europe. We have also completely discredited ourselves in the eyes of the world and undermined the cause of democracy.
Moderate Arabs who once could agitate in their own nations for democratic reform and now seen as nothing by American puppets. The reformation movement has taken a huge step back in the region, and Bush has given a rallying cry to those opposed to democratic reform.
Terrorist attacks happen for a reason. The terrorists are trying to provoke a reaction. It isn’t just a crazy man trying to kill people, it is a tactic designed to provoke a reaction. When Bush invaded Iraq, he did exactly what OBL wanted: he over-reacted, made this not a war on those who attacked the US, but on Muslims in general (or at least he gave it an appearance of that, which is enough for the OBL propaganda machine), and set out recruiting more terrorists than a thousand OBLs could have done on their own. Bush also undermined the general global sympathy that the US had generated on 9/11. Had he stuck to Afghanistan, most of the world (certainly all of our NATO allies). Would have stayed committed. After 9/11, you might recall that NATO met and agreed that 9/11 constituted an attack on a NATO ally and thus warranted a response from all NATO members.
Conclusions of the report were declassified by the administrations. Among them are that the leadership of Al Qaeda has been seriously crippled but that the overall, worldwide terrorism threat has increased.
I suspect that not all of the crippling of that leadership is a result of the Iraq war. Some is probably from elsewhere, such as Afghanistan and other captures around the world.
We can expect the administration speech machine to bear down hard on the crippling of the Al Qaeda leadership, as if Al Qaeda is the only threat from terrorism.
After Desert Storm there was a discussion on TV that was about why the Senior Bush didn’t go into Baghdad. The reason given was that doing so would open a hornets nest in the Arab countries.( As it has)I heard that the Senior Bush and Scroforth wote a book on the subject. I am going to try to get the book.
People that are suffering as many do in the Arab states and the leaders blame it on the West, it is no wonder that they can easily recuit insurgents and suicide bombers. The people see only what they can get as news from Arabic stations and they are allowed to print anything that can incite hatred for the West. The little good that came is over shadowed by the killings of the families. The Iraqi people live with death every day.
If we had first taken care of the situation in Aphganistan we could have had more support from the world community, then if it looked like Iraq was a problem we coulfd have dealt with it then. But Bush had to play the Macho Man and didn’t ask his father for advice,but said he consulted a higher father.
I do not see why we are surprised at the out come of the invasion of Iraq.
Monavis
Recently I’ve been suggesting we might as well leave Iraq now, since our sockpuppet regime there is destined to vaporize whenever we do.
But if we do (and whenever we do), the folks whom we’ve inspired to learn the gentle art of terrorism will tell themselves that they ran us off (as did the jihadists [including a feller named Osama bin Laden] who “ran” the Soviets out of Afghanistan,) and be emboldened to kick some Yankee butt wherever they may find it. If we stay in Iraq we encourage terrorism; if we leave Iraq we encourage terrorism. Damned if we do. Damned if we don’t. God damn the neocons who got us into this lose-lose situation
As GW said. That’s for the next president to worry about. (Well, he didn’t actually say that but I couldn’t resist.)
Sure we are wrong either way. However by staying we are wrong plus losing one or two or three soldiers a day and as you say, terrorists will strike whenever they get a chance. A better option is to leave which will also be seen as wrong but only mean terrorsits strike, which they will try to do in any case, but we are not losing soldiers.
The worst part is that I don’t think you can defeat terrorism by retail killing or grabbing off individual terrorists, even leaders. I don’t think Isamic terrorism can be solved by outsiders. We need the cooperation and assistance of Islamic leaders and GW’s plan has thrown that away. Not to mention that right after 9/11 he said that we were going on a crusade against terrorism. That statement alone probably set us back a couple of years.
embrace the ideals of democracy as we understand them and vote for a government that we would have voted for.
Would you support torture to protect us against the Republicans?
No, because I refuse to sink to their level.
I do, however, agree with Der Trihs that one should never underestimate how low the Republican Party will go in order to stay in power. Campaigning against the modern-day GOP with an antiquated notion of politics being a “gentleman’s sport” is as stupid as bringing an epee to a gangland shootout.
Nope. It won’t work, it goes rather beyond a “dirty trick”, and it would just make me into them. If I support torture, I might as well vote Republican anyway and let them do it.
More importantly, they have no information to divulge.
{'luc in medievil torturer drag, cranks up the amperage on the Torment-O-tron to eleven while the Republican writhes in pain…}
“Talk! All your dark secrets! Now!”
“Aaaaarrgh! All right! All right! We are winning the war in Iraq! Which is central to the War on Terror! Hilary had Vince Foster killed to cover up her lesbo affair with Madeline Albright! Ann Coulter is sane, and sensible…”
“Awww, Jesus, never mind, just shut the fuck up!..”
{Turns dial back to zero in disgust, looks for closest place to get really drunk…}