Saddam's On the Clock
POSTED BY: Geezer
UPDATED: Monday, January 5, 2026 22:02
VIEWED: 13324
PAGE 13 of 16
Slick,
"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."
Lets see. As I read it, you're responding to Citizen's challenge for an honest question by nitpicking a SignyM post. What do either of those posts have to do with mine? I've been pursuing my own argument since before either one posted.
My question is how did the US support Hussein even while he was gassing Kurds?
My answer is, let me count the ways ...
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
And well, It's been fun, but I need to sign off for now.
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by Geezer:Quote:
Originally posted by SevenPercent:
Certainly. I have outrage at any form of weapons brokering, regardless which country it comes from. But the minute you and some of the other right-of-center folks hear US, you think that's the only place we're levelling criticism against.
Ignoring the "right-of-center" allegation...show me somewhere in this post where you, [edited names]... have criticized any country other than the U.S.
I don't know, how about the very first line of mine you quoted, where I said,
Quote:
Certainly. I have outrage at any form of weapons brokering, regardless which country it comes from.
You have selective reading skills, apparently.
As to the others, I don't speak for them. Here, let me say it for you, clearer this time. If the French and Russians and the Chinese and the Cubans or Mongolians or anyone else provided weaponry which was then used for the purpose of mass murder, then the governments of those countries are complicit in the crimes. Should that include the US, and in the case of chemical weapons it appears to (if you read your own link that I criticized, experts in that citation agree that the chemicals given by the US to Iraq were used in that manner). Therefore, along that logic, we too are complicit. As I believe someone else said, accessories to the crime.
I want to prevent my govt from taking actions like this in the future, as I believe it to be unethical. If you, Geezer, want to turn a blind eye to it and claim the US never does any wrong, more power to you. But I concentrate on the US because, in agreement with someone else, I live here. You can't be a shining example to the world if you're constantly covered in blood and dirt.
------------------------------------------
"A revolution without dancing is no revolution at all." - V
Anyone wanting to continue a discussion off board is welcome to email me - check bio for details.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:Well, I don’t know about that. With regard to turning an about face on Iraq, I think Poland, Italy, the UK and Australia all pretty much did a 180 (or there about) in 1991, and all of which participated in the 2003 war. Or if you mean with regard to support for the Ba’ath’s regime during the 80s, I don’t think the US is unique in that regard either. The French sold weapons and even built Hussein a nuclear plant that could have been used to produce plutonium. The Germans trained Iraq’s intelligent force. The Russians provided Iraq with almost their entire weapons arsenal. All of which I would consider demonstrating a much stronger support for Iraq then the US.
Originally posted by rue:
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.
Both Russia and France provided financial aid to Iraq in the 1980s and continued to providing financial and political support throughout the 1990s. And frankly, I have a lot more condemnation for countries that didn’t turn an about-face vis-a vis Iraq, then I do with those that did.
Nihil est incertius vulgo, nihil obscurius voluntate hominum, nihil fallacius ratione tota comitiorum.
Nothing is more unpredictable than the mob, nothing more obscure than public opinion, nothing more deceptive than the whole political system.
-- Cicero
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Finn,
The US's about face was not a conclusion that it had been wrong. Nowhere do you find the message - we did it and we shouldn't have. Instead what you find is a loud attempt to shift focus - HE was wrong ! HE was bad ! and most important, a way to eliminate the main witness.
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:Ok, so we sold them choppers with crop spraying booms that didn't happen to be used for chemical weapons. (Although based on the energy that Baldrige and Schultz put behind the deal I wouldn't be surprised if there were a few crossed fingers that would be exactly how the choppers were used.) We were just complicit in other ways. You need to make those kinds of distinctions? Huh. Sounds like Bush to me. I didn't exactly say 'imminent threat'.... {whinge} It wasn't me it was those folks {whine}.... the buck stops {points finger and spins like a weather vane}
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.
Finn- the difference between the USA and the other nations that supported Iraq in the Iran-Iraq war was that they didn't use "chemical weapons" as a pretext for invading Iraq. It goes to the issue of hypocracy and breaking international law on the issue of invading a sovereign state which was not an imminent threat.
---------------------------------
Reality sucks. Especially when it contradicts our cherished ideas.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by SignyM:
Ok, so we sold them choppers with crop spraying booms that didn't happen to be used for chemical weapons. (Although based on the energy that Baldrige and Schultz put behind the deal I wouldn't be surprised if there were a few crossed fingers that would be exactly how the choppers were used.) We were just complicit in other ways. You need to make those kinds of distinctions? Huh. Sounds like Bush to me. I didn't exactly say 'imminent threat'.... {whinge} It wasn't me it was those folks {whine}.... the buck stops {points finger and spins like a weather vane}
Ah, enter the ad hominem attack, with a side of straw man thrown in.
Back to the facts relating to Halajaba and the Al-Anfar campaign. So far we got:
- No US Helicopters involved in spraying gas. It was French and Russian made planes dropping Iraqi made bombs, and Russian made artillery firing Iraqi made shells.
- No US chemical weapons used. Per Finn's post above, Germany provided much of the know-how, and the US is way down on the list of countries which provided dual-use chemicals which could have been used to make weapons. No hard evidence is available that US sourced chemicals were ever used to make weapons.
- Few, if any, US weapons used at all. The overwhelming percentage of Iraqi weapons were sourced from Russia. France provided attack aircraft and helicopters.
- Who had the most interest in taking down Iran? The US couldn't be happy with the country which held it's embassy staff hostage for 444 days, so they wouldn't be too upset at an Iraqi victory. Russia has a stronger interest, since Iran is fomenting Islamic revolution right on the border of Russia's largely Muslim satellite states.
- Who ordered the Al-Anfar campaign? Saddam Hussein.
So it looks like the Al-Anfar campaign, including the Halajaba attack, was Saddam Hussein's idea. It was executed by Iraqi forces using weapons from Russia and France, and chemical weapons know-how from Germany.
US involvement is all post-event; turning a blind eye and suggesting that Iran might be involved. Politically expedient, but ethically wrong.
I'm voting for Saddam as the villian of the Al-Anfar story, with Russia, France, and Germany in supporting roles. The US is a bit player in the third act.
"Keep the Shiny side up"
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:Geezer, it's not an ad hominem attack because it is very much on-point, the point being that your argument focuses on supportive trivia rather than substantively addressing the issue of USA complicity with/ support of Iraq. To make a point about word-games, let me demonstrate that I too can play word-games: Nowhere in my post did I say that crop-spraying helicopters were used to spray chemical weapons on Halabja. Read my post carefuly and you will see that you've spent several posts attacking something that I never said But I would rather focus on the substance of the argument that play diddly.
You need to make those kinds of distinctions? Huh. Sounds like Bush to me.-Signy
Ah, enter the ad hominem attack, with a side of straw man thrown in.-Geezer
You've since refocused on the main point of the argument, and I will respond in-kind by saying that USA involvement was not just after the fact. In addition to providing persoanl computers, bio reactor vessels and so forth, we also provided Iraq critical intel on Iranian positions, movements, and infrastructure and on chemical weapon kill rates. I'll have to get the links later.
---------------------------------
Reality sucks. Especially when it contradicts our cherished ideas.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by SignyM:
You've since refocused on the main point of the argument, and I will respond in-kind by saying that USA involvement was not just after the fact. In addition to providing persoanl computers, bio reactor vessels and so forth, we also provided Iraq critical intel on Iranian positions, movements, and infrastructure and on chemical weapon kill rates. I'll have to get the links later.
Computers and bio reactor vessels are dual-use, just like helicopters and chemicals. They can be used for many things. We've already cleared the air about the 'copters, and no one has produced any evidence that US sourced chemicals were used in a bad way. There's no reported use of biological weapons by Iraq at any time during the Al-Anfar campaign, so the bio reactor vessels are out. Any proof of US-sourced computers being used in chemical weapons production, or just more supposition?
And, yes, the US did provide intellegence on Iranian positions, etc. Iran was considered more of a threat to the US than Iraq at the time. What providing info on Iranian military movements has to do with the Al-Anfar campaign against the Kurds escapes me.
"Keep the Shiny side up"
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:No, but why are you asking me this, I thought it was Signym you were having this conversation with?
Originally posted by Geezer:
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.
It is clear to me that Saddam's crimes were endorsed by the US amongst other nations, such as the UK, when this was convent. We know that the US, UK, France, Russia so on and so forth sold Saddam weapons. We know that the US and the UK sold Saddam chemicals that could be used for chemical weapons. A terrorist organisation buys a ton of fertiliser, people don't say "what a big garden they must have" so why do you quibble? What do you think the militant dictator wanted the chemicals for, wowy-pops? We know where they went, you know where they went and our governments know and knew where they went.
Like it or not our governments are complicit in many crimes against Humanity in the middle east, we prop up the brutal regime of Saudi Arabia and bang on about how great they are for crying out loud. Comparing Saudi Arabia to the 'evil' Iran makes Iran look like Canada, yet because Iran doesn't play the game we want them to play we vilify them and turn a blind eye to beheadings in Saudi Arabia. It was the same with Saddam, come on you know this.
You can't sell weapons or the components of weapons to a militant dictator and turn around with clear concious and say, "well how were we supposed to know they were to be used as weapons".
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.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME