Author Topic: Iraq, Bush gets an A+  (Read 950 times)

Offline Hortlund

  • Platinum Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 4690
Iraq, Bush gets an A+
« Reply #15 on: January 28, 2003, 07:12:03 AM »
Quote
Originally posted by Ping
Hortlund Maybe you should look into these allegations. They are True.
Prove it.

Offline Ping

  • Silver Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 957
Iraq, Bush gets an A+
« Reply #16 on: January 28, 2003, 07:16:38 AM »
:rolleyes:
I/JG2 Enemy Coast Ahead


Offline Hortlund

  • Platinum Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 4690
Iraq, Bush gets an A+
« Reply #17 on: January 28, 2003, 07:24:07 AM »
Then dont post rediculous BS like that. If you want to claim that something outrageous like that is "the truth" then you better be prepared to show some evidence for it too.

This is not how it works:

Person #1:
"CIA ordered Saddam to gas Kurds"

Person #2:
"Oh really? Can you prove that?"

Person #1:
":rolleyes:"

Offline Ping

  • Silver Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 957
Iraq, Bush gets an A+
« Reply #18 on: January 28, 2003, 08:14:36 AM »
I am tired of providing the links to the information for people like yourself and Grun.
I asked for you to look into it. Sometimes its more enlightening for someone to find information then it is to be handed everything.
Do you deny that the US is the government that supplied these weapons and the know how to use them? Then maybe you can prove that.
Saddam has long been guilty of mass murder and this includes the time that the US was actively supporting them and supplying them.
I merely asked you to research into it and I will stand by that. My time is worth more than using it to cast pearls before swine.

In a number of years, we will all be arguing the exact same thing, except it will be about the Saudi's, Pakistanis, or Indians after they Turn rogue (like they arent already).

My comments were made in haste earlier and failed to take into account that the Iraqis used WMD both when they were allowed to and then when they couldn't because they were no longer allies. But in the end it boils down to the same thing.

The US created that monster, as it supplied and created Osama.
I/JG2 Enemy Coast Ahead


Offline StSanta

  • Gold Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2496
Iraq, Bush gets an A+
« Reply #19 on: January 28, 2003, 08:29:17 AM »
Hortlund:

"A review of thousands of declassified government documents and interviews with former policymakers shows that US intelligence and logistical support played a crucial role in shoring up Iraqi defences 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."

Link is here

And
DONALD RUMSFELD, the US Defence Secretary and one of the most strident critics of Saddam Hussein, met the Iraqi President in 1983 to ease the way for US companies to sell Baghdad biological and chemical weapons components, including anthrax and bubonic plague cultures, according to newly declassified US Government documents.

Link here

No references to what documents this is in, but it seems unlikely that two so different sources are mistaken.

A 1994 investigation by the Senate Banking Committee disclosed that dozens of biological agents were shipped to Iraq in the mid-1980s under licence from the US Commerce Department, including strains of anthrax. Anthrax has been identified by the Pentagon as a key component of Saddam’s biological weapons programme

That should be relatively easy for you to verify.

More:
According to information obtained by the AGWVA, there is irrefutable evidence to show that the Unites States government provided and encouraged Iraq's use of chemical weapons. The United States Department of Commerce and The American Type Culture Collection (ATCC) provided at least 80 shipments of biological agents that were not attenuated (or weakened) and
were capable of reproduction. These shipments included such virulent agents as Anthrax, West Nile Virus and Clostridium botulinum (S.R.103-900, May 25, 1994, pg. 264).


Here is a link to that article.

Let me know if you want more.

The truth is what the truth is. This isn't US bashing - just a recognition of past events.

I'm glad that you require references - only way to keep it factual. Otherwise it's just opinions and accusations. Of course we may differ from how we interpret the results of facts, but there is overwhelming evidence suggesting that the US aided Iraq during the Iran/Iraq war. For a good reason, since Iran was a big enemy of the US after the revolution.
« Last Edit: January 28, 2003, 08:32:45 AM by StSanta »

Offline Hortlund

  • Platinum Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 4690
Iraq, Bush gets an A+
« Reply #20 on: January 28, 2003, 08:35:22 AM »
But I have never claimed that the US did not help arm Iraq. Who gave Iraq the weapons is completely irrelevant. There are several UN resolutions telling the Iraqis to surrender those weapons or face the consequences.

What I am objecting to is the allegations that the CIA somehow ordered or encouraged Saddam to use the weapons.

Offline CH3

  • Zinc Member
  • *
  • Posts: 29
Iraq, Bush gets an A+
« Reply #21 on: January 28, 2003, 08:46:34 AM »
Hortlund, suggest you read Said K. Arburish's biography of Saddam Hussein entitled "the Politics of Revenge" - it's all in there, including some nice juicy bits about the US giving Saddam intel whilst knowing full well that he would use that information for the targeting of chemical weapon attacks.

Offline Hortlund

  • Platinum Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 4690
Iraq, Bush gets an A+
« Reply #22 on: January 28, 2003, 08:47:48 AM »
Quote
Originally posted by GScholz
Come now Mr. Hortlund. Why do you think they gave him these weapons? For safe keeping maybe?


Why do you think the US gave Israel nukes? To use against the palestinians?

Offline Ping

  • Silver Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 957
Iraq, Bush gets an A+
« Reply #23 on: January 28, 2003, 09:43:10 AM »
http://www.multied.com/dates/1986.html

1986 Iran Contra Deal The Reagan Administration confirmed that it had been selling arms to Iran, which was fighting a war with Iraq, in an effort to obtain the release of American hostages in Lebanon. Money from the sales was used to help the Contras fighting the Sandinista regime in Nicaragua.

1987 USS Stark Hit by Exocet Missiles The USS Stark, a US frigate, was attacked by an Iraqi air-to-sea missile and severely damaged. Thirty sailors were killed in the attack, which was apparently accidental.

Isnt International politics and World Peace confusing?
I/JG2 Enemy Coast Ahead


Offline Ping

  • Silver Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 957
Iraq, Bush gets an A+
« Reply #24 on: January 28, 2003, 09:53:53 AM »
The more things change, the more they remain the same.
We will be arguing these same points another 20 years from now.
The only things that change are alliances.


http://eightiesclub.tripod.com/id280.htm

The strife in the gulf had started in 1984 when Iran and Iraq, at war since 1980, began attacking each other's ships. Inevitably, the vessels of third countries became targets. Over 200 ships had been attacked in the past three years. The Iranians were particularly keen to target the ships of Iraq's ally, Kuwait. Even though only 7% of American oil supplies came from the region, the Reagan administration insisted that U.S. strategic interests required a naval presence in the gulf. Critics complained that Western Europe and Japan, which acquired 25% and 60% of their respective oil needs from the gulf, weren't doing their part in keeping the sea lanes open. In fact, certain Western European nations had become major suppliers of military hardware to both Iran and Iraq. Damage done to the Stark had been caused by French-built missiles fired from a French-built aircraft.

The administration argued that to withdraw from the gulf would be to surrender America's role as leader of the free world, and that if oil shipments were disrupted, prices would soar, adversely affecting the U.S. economy. As one Western diplomat put it, if the U.S. backed out, it wouldn't "have enough credibility to float a teacup." Furthermore, the Soviet Union had increased its naval presence in the gulf, and the fear was that if the U.S. faltered, the Soviets would gain the upper hand in the region -- and growing Soviet influence in the region would pose a long-term threat to the West's oil supplies. "We will not be intimidated," said Defense Secretary Caspar Weinberger. "We will not be driven from the gulf." He described the attack on the Stark as a "horrible error," and Iraqi President Saddam Hussein was quick to apologize for the "unintentional incident." Evidently, the Mirage pilot had mistaken the Stark for an Iranian tanker. Iraq promised to pay compensation to the families of the 37 slain seamen, and reparations for damages to the frigate. Officially the United States was neutral in the Iran-Iraq conflict, but the administration had decided that geopolitic considerations required that Iraq not lose the war. In the aftermath of the Stark incident, the rhetoric coming out of Washington was of a forgiving nature where Iraq was concerned, while growing increasingly hostile in reference to Iran.
I/JG2 Enemy Coast Ahead


Offline Toad

  • Plutonium Member
  • *******
  • Posts: 18415
Iraq, Bush gets an A+
« Reply #25 on: January 28, 2003, 01:23:21 PM »
The reasons for the split

This from the UK's Sunday Telegraph. You have to register to access... no charge.

Point 1:

Quote
What the German Chancellor and the French President cannot plausibly argue is that their approach works as a means of keeping the peace, or forcing the hand of dictators such as Saddam. It was not the UN's deliberations, German pacifism or French diplomacy which forced the Iraqi dictator to re-admit the UN weapons inspectors: it was the threat of US military action. If the European approach to international relations had been observed in the present campaign to destroy Iraq's weapons of mass destruction, Saddam would have done precisely nothing.[/u]





Point 2:

Quote
There are heads of government who talk the language of idealism but act in response to the imperatives of domestic politics: Gerhard Schröder is driven by opinion polls more than an affinity with the moral high ground. Jacques Chirac will, in the end, do what he thinks will strengthen his rapport with the French people - and, more particularly, with French businessmen. Behind the mask of high principle, realpolitik still dictates European strategy.
« Last Edit: January 28, 2003, 02:18:17 PM by Toad »
If ye love wealth better than liberty, the tranquility of servitude than the animated contest of freedom, go from us in peace. We ask not your counsels or arms. Crouch down and lick the hands which feed you. May your chains sit lightly upon you, and may posterity forget that you were our countrymen!

Offline Rude

  • Platinum Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 4609
Iraq, Bush gets an A+
« Reply #26 on: January 28, 2003, 01:59:05 PM »
Quote
Originally posted by Dowding
You have a short memory. Bush didn't want to go the UN route and he certainly didn't want to go with the inspectors thing.

He was persuaded otherwise by Blair and others. Given the choice, Bush would be in Iraq now.



15 years ago the only language that seemed to coming out of Washington et al included a blank cheque book, crates of arms and access to biological and chemical weapons development.

My, how times have changed.


Ya know, since I found out you're just 24, your posts have made perfect sense...idiolistic rantings of youth....20 years from now your perspective will have changed greatly:)

Offline Thrawn

  • Platinum Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 6972
Iraq, Bush gets an A+
« Reply #27 on: January 28, 2003, 02:14:00 PM »
Quote
Originally posted by Rude
Ya know, since I found out you're just 24, your posts have made perfect sense...idiolistic rantings of youth....20 years from now your perspective will have changed greatly:)


What a bunch of crap.  At least his posts have actual substance, compared to your sanctamonious one liners.

But thanks for the brilliant example of Ad Hominen.  You might want to judge the posts their actual content next time.
« Last Edit: January 28, 2003, 02:16:08 PM by Thrawn »

Offline Tumor

  • Platinum Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 4296
      • Wait For It
Iraq, Bush gets an A+
« Reply #28 on: January 28, 2003, 02:20:18 PM »
Quote
Originally posted by Dowding

 Given the choice, Bush would be in Iraq now.
 


That is speculation and it's wrong.... think logistics.
"Dogfighting is useless"  :Erich Hartmann

Offline AKS\/\/ulfe

  • Platinum Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 4287
Iraq, Bush gets an A+
« Reply #29 on: January 28, 2003, 02:40:06 PM »
So wait... the US armed Saddam with all these bio/chem weapons?



Then why can the US not DISARM Iraq? They should have by now, and they still haven't.

12 years of "diplomacy" and UN resolutions has gone full circle... and arrived back at square 1.

A new way of dealing with Saddam is desperately needed, and the only language he understands is "kabooommmm".
-SW