Saddam's On the Clock

POSTED BY: Geezer
UPDATED: Monday, January 5, 2026 22:02
VIEWED: 13324
PAGE 12 of 16

PREV PAGE 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 NEXT PAGE

GEEZER

Tuesday, January 2, 2007 1:14 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by rue:
Slick,

Currently, tribunals have to be sponsored by an organization like the U.N. or a national government.

Neat. If only we'd done this pre-Iraqi Freedom, we'd have been all legal then.

Quote:
"And no one else on the planet can request such a tribunal?" They did try. The US blocked it at the UN.
http://www.globalpolicy.org/security/issues/iraq/history/2003/0117gas.
htm
However, in 1988 the US worked to prevent the international community from condemning Iraq's chemical attack against the Kurdish village of Halabja, instead attempting to place part of the blame on Iran.

But you just proved that any national government could convene a tribunal. Don't need the UN to do it. Would the then-Soviet Union have folded to US pressure?

Still not sure what this has to do with SignyM's as-yet-unproven allegation that US sourced helicopters were used to spray chemical weapons on Halajaba, or other folk's unverified allegations that US chemicals were used to make Iraqi weapons. Or maybe it's just mis-direction, since no one has been able to provide any verification.

"Keep the Shiny side up"

GEEZER

Tuesday, January 2, 2007 1:22 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by citizen:
However your question was loaded, it is attempting to prove people have only been blaming the US, if I have not blamed countries other than the US it is irrelevant to the purpose of the question if I have not criticised the US either.

If you ask an honest question, you will receive an honest answer.

After reviewing this thread, I have to apologize. Your posts have consisted of sarcastic one-liners and quibbles about the meaning of "moot". Thanks for your contributions to the discussion.

"Keep the Shiny side up"

CITIZEN

Tuesday, January 2, 2007 1:39 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by Geezer:
After reviewing this thread, I have to apologize. Your posts have consisted of sarcastic one-liners and quibbles about the meaning of "moot". Thanks for your contributions to the discussion.

Come on Geezer, I expect better of you than a temper tantrum when you're proven wrong. You asked a loaded question, which does little to contribute to this discussion, except dishonestly attempt to swing it in your favour by erroneously and dishonestly attempting to paint anyone who disagrees with you as merely an anti American. You asked where certain posters have blamed other countries to that end, well if they haven't criticised other countries then the point you attempt to raise really is moot (note the correct usage of the word moot) if they haven't criticised the US either.

Further more I have lent comments that reach to the heart of the discussion, for instance exposing certain other posters comments as merely ad Hominems or Strawman arguments does help the topic, far more than a loaded question built on a false or misleading premise, I may add. I have also rebuked certain assertions, such as it is not important what part any third party (whomever that party may be) to do with the gassing of the kurds, since it was Mr Saddam what done it, so to speak.

If you care to notice I have contributed to this discussion, and I am further contributing to it by calling you on a dishonest question, though I am sure you do not ask it for that purpose, more you did not consider the wording, an honest answer to it would well lend it self to a dishonest conclusion, so by pointing it out I merely help ensure that the discussion is kept reasonably open and honest, and free of mere argumentative tactics that lend little to the subject discussed.

So maybe you can ask an honest question, to which I promise you you will receive an honest answer, or you can attempt to attack me personally and erroneously again.

Thank you.

More insane ramblings by the people who brought you beeeer milkshakes!
No one can see their reflection in running water. It is only in still water that we can see.

GEEZER

Tuesday, January 2, 2007 1:52 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by citizen:
So maybe you can ask an honest question, to which I promise you you will receive an honest answer, or you can attempt to attack me personally and erroneously again.

Thank you.

OK. Do you have any evidence of US-made helicopters spraying chemical weapons on Halajaba, or in fact on any Kurds, during the Al-Anfal campaign? Any evidence that US-made chemicals were converted by Iraq into chemical or biological weapons? I've been looking for an answer since this was brought up, but don't seem to be getting much back that relates to these questions.

"Keep the Shiny side up"

RUE

Tuesday, January 2, 2007 2:22 AM

Slick,

"Neat. If only we'd done this pre-Iraqi Freedom, we'd have been all legal then."
Yes, wouldn't it have been much better for the US to involve itself legally rather than start an illegal war? And now it's such a mess, there is no way the US can either stay in or get out with good results.

"But you just proved that any national government could convene a tribunal. Don't need the UN to do it. Would the then-Soviet Union have folded to US pressure?"
At issue was "who was the perpetrator?" The US government knowingly and officially pretended to have information that took Hussein off the hook (ie it lied to protect Hussein). In the face of those claims it would have been impossible for another government to have proven otherwise.

"Still not sure what this has to do with SignyM's as-yet-unproven allegation ..."
And SignyM and I are different people. My posts are not referenced to SignyM's posts. Why you're asking the question is unfathomable. And pointless.

RUE

Tuesday, January 2, 2007 2:39 AM

So Slick,

Is any of this untrue?

the Reagan Administration removed Iraq from the list of terrorist states
the Reagan Administration began providing intelligence for use in the Iran-Iraq war
Rumsfeld’s missions in 1983 were followed by the restoration of diplomatic ties
the Reagan Administration gave Iraq billions of dollars in loan guarantees
the Reagan Administration approved the sale of technology useful for weapons of mass destruction
the Reagan Administration winked when other countries supplied US military equipment
the Reagan Administration later shared highly sensitive satellite intelligence (to allow Hussein to better target his victims)
in 1988 the US squelched attempts to punish the Iraqi regime
the Bush Administration in 1990 defeated several measures in both Houses that would have restricted U.S. sales credits, loan guarantees, insurance support in international lending institutions, and trade preferences for Iraq

FINN MAC CUMHAL

Tuesday, January 2, 2007 2:43 AM

Perspective?

The US contributed almost nothing to the Iraqi/Hussein arsenal, and when Hussein finally stepped over the line and attacked a US ally, the US, unlike those countries responsible for the bulk of the Iraqi/ba’ath arsenal, took a hardline position against Iraq. Some of those countries continued to support Iraq with oil contracts and weapons even after 1991 to such a degree that they ended up compromising the integrity of the UNSC. That’s the big picture.

France and Russia have been the major supporters, in the West, for the Ba’ath’s regime, not the US.[1] And the Russia and China were the major providers of weapons to the Ba’ath regime. In fact, the only significant weapon’s transfer to the Iraqi/Hussein regime that the US made between 1975 and 2003 were transport helicopter during the 1980s, and that constituted a whole 0.36% of the weapons transfers to Iraq. The bulk of Hussein’s arsenal came from Russia (93.575% between 1957 and 2003), and the largest contributors above the US in order of contribution were Russia, China, France, Italy, and Yugoslavia, with eight other nations below the US. [2]. So while it is true that the US is the largest supplier of weapons in the world, they are not the largest supplier to rogue regimes, that auspicious title falls on Russia and China.

I’m not sure what the US weapon’s contribution has to do with Iraqi chemical attacks on the Kurds though, since such attacks are routinely carried out by airplanes or munitions, not helicopters. I’m also not sure it is real good idea to go dispersing chemical weapons by helicopter, since they tend to be relatively tactical not strategic vehicles and given their nature of propulsion would seem to strike me as not excellent at dispersing an airborne weapon. Also according to Kurds who were at Halabja, the chemical attack was carried out by sorties of 8 warplanes, not helicopters (and of course that makes more sense from a military standpoint.) [3] The US never sold Iraq any war planes, so the planes being used in this case were most likely Soviet MiGs or Sukhoi, but may have been French Mirages. What they were not was American. [2]

The chemical weapons, themselves, could have come from a variety of direct or indirect sources, including the US, but by far largest contribution came from Germany, which provided Iraq with everything from weaponized agents, such as Mustard Gas, precursors and equipment (including in some cases, installation and plant construction.) [4] Nerve agents, like GA, GB and VX were never sold to Iraq in weaponized form to my knowledge, but Iraq developed the means of manufacturing both GA and GB, and probably VX using precursors imported largely from German companies. Soil samples obtained from bomb crater in the Anfal province in 1992 indicated the existence of Sarin (GB) and Mustard contamination with a chemical structure consistent with the chemical composition of Mustard gas developed in East Germany. [5][6]

Now it would be one thing, when critics say that they don't agree with the US’s support for Iraq during the 80’s. There is some sympathy among reasonable people, because a lot of people, including myself, don’t like the US support for Iraq, as meager as it was. However, the reason why people supported Iraq in the Iran/Iraq war was a beleif that the status quo in the Middle East should be maintained. The US foreign policy with regard to the Middle East, before Bush, was about maintaining the status quo. Many people, including many who are now criticizing Bush in this thread, wanted to leave Hussein in power in 2003, which is in fact, a continuation of that very status quo policy. So I’m not sure that such positions are even internally consistent much less carrying any degree of perspective.

However, instead of simply disagreeing with the US foreign policy with regard to Iraq some people make asinine comments that equate Bush to Hussein or implied threats of assassination. And what I’m seeing here is not disagreement; it’s fanaticism, and it’s far more consistent with the r

GEEZER

Tuesday, January 2, 2007 2:51 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by rue:
Slick,
"Still not sure what this has to do with SignyM's as-yet-unproven allegation ..."
And SignyM and I are different people. My posts are not referenced to SignyM's posts. Why you're asking the question is unfathomable. And pointless.

Just though it was germane since you originally responded to a post of mine asking 7% if he had any alternate info about the Halajaba attack. This after I had questioned SignyM's allegation that US choppers were used. Which she has never responded to, BTW.

"Keep the Shiny side up"

GEEZER

Tuesday, January 2, 2007 2:59 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by rue:
So Slick,

Is any of this untrue?

the Reagan Administration removed Iraq from the list of terrorist states
the Reagan Administration began providing intelligence for use in the Iran-Iraq war
Rumsfeld’s missions in 1983 were followed by the restoration of diplomatic ties
the Reagan Administration gave Iraq billions of dollars in loan guarantees
the Reagan Administration approved the sale of technology useful for weapons of mass destruction
the Reagan Administration winked when other countries supplied US military equipment
the Reagan Administration later shared highly sensitive satellite intelligence (to allow Hussein to better target his victims)
in 1988 the US squelched attempts to punish the Iraqi regime
the Bush Administration in 1990 defeated several measures in both Houses that would have restricted U.S. sales credits, loan guarantees, insurance support in international lending institutions, and trade preferences for Iraq

Rue. You're the one who brought this all up, and it has no relation to what I was talking about, i.e. SignyM's "whose choppers" remark. Still looking for evidence of US-sourced helicopters or chemical weapons being used in the Halajaba attack or the Al-Anfar campaign.

"Keep the Shiny side up"

RUE

Tuesday, January 2, 2007 3:00 AM

Finn,

The LARGER perspective is that the US was complicit in supporting Iraq financially, technically, legally, diplomatically, and yes, militarily during the war; while knowing Iraq was using chemical weapons on civilian populations.

The US then did an about-face, condemning Iraq for what it had previously supported, and invaded Iraq on that pretext.

I don't think you can find a similar international record re Iraq from any other country. That's what makes the US such an outstanding case.

PREV PAGE 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 NEXT PAGE