“Article I, section 8, paragraph 3 of the United States Constitution”
Huh? The constitution says that new legislation is required to close every single loophole in export-control measures? Source?
About the issue of lobbying Congress I think Litost’s point that the administration actually lobbied against efforts to tighten the export-control regime is sufficient .
"We said ““Hey Saddam! Knock that shit off!” And he did.”
. What public statements were made? When? When did Saddam stop his chemical attacks and his campaign against the Kurds?
“Although the campaign against the Kurds lasted for quite a while, Saddam apparently only used chemical weapons one time in that campaign: When the fight started with a chemical attack on the city of Halabja in March 1988.”
Wrong again. This link has a timeline which says that the first chemical attacks against the Kurds started in 1987. Besides why should only chemical attacks count? What about the mass murders of civilians by other means. Shouldn’t the US have spoken out against that and put pressure on Iraq to stop?
http://www.pbs.org/wnet/wideangle/shows/saddam/
“You’re claiming we shouldn’t have sold anything to Iraq because Saddam’s a nasty S.O.B., and the Japan example shows that we sell stuff to nasty S.O.B.'s all the time”
This is just pure BS. I have never claimed such a thing.
You brought Japan into it by saying:
“We smacked the shit out of Japan in WWII because they attacked us, but you’d better believe we went to town in the propaganda war due to the Japanese atrocities in China, which the U.S. had condemned long before we got into the war. Same deal here.”
I have merely been refuting this analogy by making the obvious point that the US-Japan relationship in the 30’s was completely different from the US-Iraq relationship in the 80’s. Now you are trying to confuse the issue.
Nah, you’re still off, Olentzero. According to the Energy Dept., the Kuwaiti constitution forbids foreign ownership of Kuwaiti mineral resources. Foreign participation is limited to technical assistance and maintenance contracts…all at a fixed price. The Kuwaiti government has full ownership of the oil reserves.
The Neutral Zone is a different story. Texaco can have a piece of that because technically it’s not in Kuwaiti territory, but in a shared territory with the Saudis. But in any case, neutral zone production is nothing compared with what’s in Kuwait and off limits to foreigners. Kuwait itself has 96.5 billion barrels of oil in it’s own nationalized oil fields, while the neutral zone contains a mere 5 billion to be split between Kuwait and the Saudis.
So anyways, we established that foreign companies only have access to about 5% of Kuwaiti oil, and only then because those fields aren’t technically part of Kuwait as they are in the neutral zone. Foreign companies have no access to oil fields located in Kuwaiti proper.
I had indeed mentioned in my post that the main reason stipulated for the proposed war is not the fact that Saddam is a monster. But, I am surprised at how you claim that it is a valid additional reason now.
He was always a monster with the only difference that now he is acting against US interests. So, the reason to attack him is not related to the fact that he is a monster who has gassed innocents, because the US has all along fed and worked alongside the monster! May be it is a matter of semantics but it looks clear to me. You cannot use the monster rhetoric to get the public riled up against him when he once thrived on US support. To me, that is hypocritical propaganda. Simple enough.
Article I, section 8, paragraph 3 gives CONGRESS the power to regulate trade with foreign countries, as you would know if you’d bothered to read the darn thing. Sheesh.
So you prefer to remain in a state of ignorance? Your prerogative, I guess.
(a) What, you think I’ve got the text sitting right here in front of me? Go look it up yourself. As for when he stopped gassing the Kurds, I mistakenly figured you would be able to work that out for yourself when I stated that he only used chemical weapons against the Kurds one time. I’m not in the mood to explain the blatantly obvious, CP.
[/quote]
This link has a timeline which says that the first chemical attacks against the Kurds started in 1987.
[/quote]
Oooh, a completely unsourced timeline. That straightens me out, don’t it? :rolleyes:
Because them’s the terms of the debate, CP. We’ve been talking about chemical weapons since the very first post of the thread. Heck, you’ve been talking about chemical weapons the whole time. It’s just that, once again, you’re getting your factual assertions rebutted all over the place, so you’re trying to change the subject. Keep it up, maybe if you change the subject enough times you’ll get it right.
Yes you bloody well did. You’ve been whining incessantly about how the government should have closed loopholes, changed the export laws, etc. etc. ad infinitum. Unless, of course, you’re just constructing a strawman for the sake of cheap rhetorical points re: alleged government hypocricy, and in reality you believe we should have just sent Saddam tankers full of nerve gas as a birthday present? Somehow, I’m just not seeing that as your real position.
No, YOU are trying to confuse the issue. The point, dear fellow, is that the United States sells goods and materials to bad countries all the time, even when we know that those goods and materials are likely to end up helping the purchaser do nasty, brutish, and unpleasant things to other people with them. 1937-1941 Japan is a perfect example of that. The fact that we disliked 1937-1941 Japan way more than we disliked 1980-1990 Iraq by no means disproves the principle just stated. To wit, we like making money off assholes, as long as they don’t screw with us, our interests, or our allies.
You’re faling into the same fallacy once again. “The reason to attack him” does not exist. In fact, there are many reasons to attack him, one of which is that he is a monster to his own people. That is not a sufficient reason to attack Saddam’s Iraq, but it is one legitimate reason among many others.
Good god, won’t some Iraq-hater show hurry up and take this over for me? I’m getting very tired of explaining the gigantic fallacies here, especially since I personally believe that there are not sufficient grounds for an attack on Iraq anyway.
“Article I, section 8, paragraph 3 gives CONGRESS the power to regulate trade with foreign countries…”
I see and this is supposed to mean that the executive branch has to go back to Congress to close every single loophole in already existing legislation? Where exactly does it say that?
“So you prefer to remain in a state of ignorance? Your prerogative, I guess.”
Does this even mean anything or is this just some random crap your brain spews out? Read Litost’s post again and see what he says about the administration and Congress wrt. Iraq.
“What, you think I’ve got the text sitting right here in front of me? Go look it up yourself”
No that’s not how it works. You claimed that US public statements made Saddam stop his chemical attacks. You bring the evidence for this claim. You don’t even seem to know what public statements were made.
“Oooh, a completely unsourced timeline”
The source is sufficient to refute your claim.
Also from the WP:
“In late 1987, the Iraqi air force began using chemical agents against Kurdish resistance forces in northern Iraq that had formed a loose alliance with Iran, according to State Department reports. The attacks, which were part of a “scorched earth” strategy to eliminate rebel-controlled villages, provoked outrage on Capitol Hill and renewed demands for sanctions against Iraq”
Can you find a single source which backs up your claim that Saddam used chemical weapons against the Kurds only once? That’s a challenge thought I fully expect you to try to weasel out.
“Yes you bloody well did”
OK get me the quotes where I say that the US shouldn’t have sold “anything” to Iraq. Another challenge.
“No, YOU are trying to confuse the issue.”
Sorry but as is immediately apparent from the quote I just put up, you brought up Japan as an example of using past atrocities as propoganda. Your initial point had nothing to do with selling it oil and you only brough that up later as a BS argument for claiming that the US was working to help Japan win the war in the same way it was helping Iraq.
Unfortunately, we have a communication problem! My point (which I will be repeating again — sorry!) was rather simple, actually.
That, the fact that he is a monster cannot be touted by the administration as one of the many (yes, many) legitimate reasons because it is inherently hypocritical. Simple enough? The truth is that it is one of the most frequently mentioned reasons (along with WMDs) because it has been difficult to establish an Al-Qaeda connection or to establish an immediate threat to US strategic interests.
Yes, yes, a thousand times YES. Congress, not the President, regulates foreign trade. If there is a “loophole” (which you have STILL failed to identify) in legislation regarding foreign trade, it is CONGRESS that must close that “loophole,” if it so desires.
No, I claimed that the US made public statements condemning the chemical attacks–and in fact, you made the exact same claim until it became convenient for you to demand the precise text of those statements because you were getting your facts kicked around all over the place–and that Saddam subsequently stopped the chemical attacks. I made no claim as to any causal connection, since I can’t read Saddam’s mind any better than you can.
Bwahahahahahahahahahahhahahaha! Oh, that’s rich! A completely unsourced timeline is supposed to convince me that Iraq was targeting civilians with chemical weapons in 1987? Not very likely, CP.
Emphasis added for pretty obvious reasons. To wit, chemical attacks against “Kurdish resistance forces” aren’t even remotely the same thing as chemical attacks on Kurdish civilians. Try again, CP.
Also, the WP conflates separate incidents here. Congress didn’t get riled up until after the attack on Halabja in March '88, when Iraq targeted civilians for (apparently) the first time with chemical weapons.
Nope, but that’s not my bag. Though I can’t find any indication that Iraqi chemical attacks actually killed any Kurdish civilians until Halabja, Iraqi forces did launch such attacks on small villages beginning in late 1987. It appears, however that the early attacks were in fact aimed at hitting Kurdish resistance fighters in the villages–though gas is, of course, a rather indiscriminate weapon. Nevertheless, the focus of international outrage against Saddam, then and now, was the targeting of civilians with chemical weapons–and that means Halabja, not mustard gassing rebel fighters.
Oh so, you’re just nitpicking on “anything”? Way to work yourself out of that corner, CP.
Sure, that’s what I originally brought it up as. Then YOU attempted to distinguish it by claiming we weren’t “allies” with Japan when they were slaughtering people in China, while we supposedly were “allies” with Iraq during the 80s. I merely rebutted your distinction by pointing out that, for not being allies, we certainly sold Japan plenty of the oil it needed to engage in its conquest of China, making the implicit comparison with the stuff we sold to Iraq during the 80s. Either way, it was still legitimate to appeal to the past abuses as a reason for war even after other, sufficient reasons for war manifested themselves. So don’t get all huffy with me for bringing sales of goods into it–you’re the one who tried to distinguish the examples.
Simple, but false. The government condemned the actions cited in this thread back in the 1980s when they became known. It would only be hypocritical to condemn them now if the government had approved of those actions way back when. Clear enough?
The link you cited proves that I wasn’t really wrong. Let’s not quibble here. The administration first downplayed it, and then denounced the use of the gas. But, what did they do afterwards?
From the link you cited:
“On August 20, 1988 Iran and Iraq ended their war. Within days Iraq again gassed the Kurds. A front-page story in the New York Times summed up the purpose of the latest assault: “Iraq has begun a major offensive [meant to] crush the 40-year-long insurgency once and for all.” After a delay of weeks Secretary of State George Shultz condemned the assaults. But the United States again failed to act, even as hundreds of thousands of Kurds were being uprooted from their homes and forced into the mountains, tens of thousands killed. By 1989, says Powers, 4,049 Kurdish villages had been destroyed.”
A second attack which after a delay of weeks receives a condemnation. But, again, apart from vocal condemnations, what did the US do?
Since, I couldn’t find the NYT link, here’s an article by Peter Galbraith of Boston Globe: http://www.boston.com/globe/magazine/2002/1215/coverstory.htm
This is September 1988
“…Before we left for Turkey, Senators Pell, Al Gore, and Jesse Helms had introduced legislation to impose comprehensive economic sanctions on Iraq for its use of chemical weapons. The Prevention of Genocide Act of 1988 unanimously passed the US Senate just one day after being introduced”
<snip>
"Secretary of State George Shultz denounced Iraq’s use of chemical weapons, but others in the administration seemed more concerned about the Iraqi reaction should the sanctions become law. (Senate passage of the Pell legislation produced the biggest anti-American demonstration in Baghdad in 20 years.) Working with the Republican House leadership and some House Democrats, the administration was able to water down and ultimately defeat the Prevention of Genocide Act. "
He states that even the supposed delayed denouncement (after the second attack) that came from Schultz was not seen favorably within the administration and the actions attempted by a few legislators afterwards were thwarted. Both your cite and my article mention reasons why the US did not take any serious action. But, that is the not the issue of debate here.
Why is it false to claim that the US Govt. condoned (not approved, I never used that word) the monstrous actions taken by Saddam and hence has little moral credibility to use the he-gassed-own-people rhetoric as one of the many legitimate reasons now?
They don’t have to do anything afterwards. “Hypocrisy” is generally regarded as saying one thing and doing another. If the government had said “This is nothing” or “This is no kind of reason to go to war” in 1988, then you could claim hypocricy. As it stands, the U.S. condemned the gas attacks in 1988, and its proposed actions today are in no way inconsistent with those condemnations. So where are you getting your charge of hypocricy?
Do also note the distinction between gassing resistance fighters and gassing civilians–rather important, given that the consistent complaint of the U.S. government then and now regards teh use of gas on civilians at Halabja, not the gassing of Iranian and Kurdish soldiers. Your cites above discuss attacks against resistance fighters, not civilians.
It seems to me saying “The gassing is horrible” but then turning around and 1) killing a sanctions bill passed by the Senate and 2)actually increasing military aid to Iraq falls quite neatly into the “hypocrisy” category.
Neurotik - If you read that article carefully, you’ll see that Kuwait is considering how it can increase foreign investment to promote development while still holding formal ownership of the resources. That’s nationalization in name only. Full nationalization means complete elimination of foreign ownership and investment - bringing the industry under the control of the nation. That’s what Arab nationalists support and what the US finds extremely unpalatable.
You’re misreading, Olentzero. The “attracting additional foreign investment” is refering to other sectors of the economy like ports and telephone services. The oil sector currently has no foreign investment outside of the Neutral Zone. To quote:
So currently no foreign investment is allowed, but Kuwait is considering allowing it. Except that no one wants to allow it.
Basically, currently the oil fields are completely nationalized, but now the Kuwaitis think that it might be more economical to allow foreign investment. So we’ll see.
It’s rather pathetic how when you lose a point you change your story and try to weasel out. Perhaps you don’t realize that your earlier post are there for anyone to check your ever-changing positions?
Take for example the Kurds:
This is what you said:
“You recall incorrectly. Although the campaign against the Kurds lasted for quite a while, Saddam apparently only used chemical weapons one time in that campaign”
Absolutely nothing about civilians, just Kurds. Then when I show this statement is false you try to weasel out but talking about civilians. Pathetic.
As it happens even if we stick to civilians you are wrong. From the Boston Globe:
“A few months later, I encountered the survivors of what proved to be the final gas attacks on the Kurds. On August 25, 1988 - five days after the Iran-Iraq war ended - Iraq launched a massive attack on Kurdish villages along its border with Turkey”
Thanks for the quote though since it refutes your own point:
“We did put public pressure on Iraq to stop”
From your own quote:
"But as Power observes, “The United States issued no threats or demands.” "
I am curious what kind of “public pressure” are you talking about which doesn’t involve either threats or demands? And why exactly do you believe it stopped Saddam from carrying out further chemical attacks?
“Oh so, you’re just nitpicking on “anything”?”
Very nice. Can’t substantiate what you claimed. Now you accuse me of “nitpicking”. Tell you what ; why don’t you thinkbefore making bogus claims you can’t back up.
As for the Japanese analogy let me make it cut and dry so that even you can understand:
1)You made a comparison between US propoganda against Japan in WW2 and its propoganda against Iraq today.
2)The analogy only works if the US-Japan relationship in the 30’s was comparable to the US-Iraq realationship in the 80’s.
3)The latter is not true because the US had an explicit policy of promoting an Iraqi victory; which was not the case with Japan. The two relationships were completely different.
“Oh, how terrible that the U.S. supported Iraq back in the 80s! They never should have supported a regime that was doing such monstorous things! They should have done something about it!”
But on the other they are saying:
“Oh, how terrible that the U.S. is considering doing something about Iraq! They didn’t do anything in the 80s, they are hypocrites to consider attacking now!”
You can’t have it both ways.
As to the rest…well minty green has done such a good job of deflecting the “arguments” that the oposition is running around siezing quibbling semantic arguements in desperation. I couldn’t do half so well, so I’ll not even try.
Um the inconsistency is between today’s moral outrage and yesterday’s policies not with anything I or Olentzero have said. I don’t think I have said anything about not supporting Iraq in the 80’s. Like your hero, mintygreen you seem to have some problems understanding arguments and getting your facts straight. For the record I am an agnostic about Iraq policy in the 80’s; I would have to examine the issue more closely to make up mind.
What do you think I was referring to by hypocrisy? I said they condoned it by not doing anything after the gassing except a proclamation from someone which actually made the administration uncomfortable. By not doing anything, I was directly referring to how they killed a sanctions bill. You quibbled on the definition of hypocrisy in response to me but accept the above!
Also, the attack referred to in my cite was on Kurdish villages. They could have been aimed at resistance fighters but clearly a much larger population was targeted, and many villagers were uprooted.
Weird Dave
If you are trying to address some of the things I have said, you have mis-interpreted them. All I am saying is that he-gassed-his-own-people moral outrage cannot be switched on and off at different points in time. IOW, that cannot be used as one of the many (note many) legitimate reasons to attack him without either admitting to past mistakes or practising hypocrisy. OTOH, if you are addressing someone else, please ignore this and enjoy the rest of the day!