Saddam's On the Clock

POSTED BY: Geezer
UPDATED: Monday, January 5, 2026 22:02
VIEWED: 13324
PAGE 15 of 16

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

GEEZER

Tuesday, January 2, 2007 8:55 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by SignyM:
I noticed you didn't respond to my comment about the "level of proof" needed to implicate a nation, and how it seems to become more or less stringent depending on who it's applied to.

How perceptive of you. I could find no way in which it relates to the Al-Anfar issue, so I ignored it. When you go back and answer all the questions I've asked you, maybe I'll consider it.

Quote:
Nor did you rebut the Senate Report detailing our support of a nation actively using chemical warfare agents.

You mean this? http://www.counterpunch.org/dixon06172004.html
Hardly a Senate report, more like the usual "could have, might have" editorial. Also not germane to who was behind Al-Anfar.

Quote:
Does this mean that you concede that we supported Saddam with dual-use materials, intel, and money while he was gassing Iranians and Iraqis? Does this mean that you now think that the level of proof that we applied to Saddam in 2003 was too harsh?

Neither.

Do you still stand behind your suggestion of starving the Iraqi population in hopes that Saddam would have a change of heart? Would you apply this strategy to other countries?

But you won't answer.

Saddam's dead, Reagan's dead, this thread has turned into another dead horse of America-hating which has already been beat enough in countless other threads. Enjoy your spite.

"Keep the Shiny side up"

CHRISISALL

Tuesday, January 2, 2007 9:46 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by Geezer:
show me somewhere in this post where you, Rue, SignyM, PirateJenny, Citizen, Chrisisall, HKCavalier, Bagherra, or Yinyang have criticized any country other than the U.S. We've already established that other countries have provided chemical/biological weapons precurser chemicals and know-how to Iraq, often in much greater amounts than the U.S. However, until I brought it up, no one mentioned them. So maybe my supposition that your criticism is limited to U.S. actions has some basis.

Geezer, the U.S. is MY country. I worry about what MY country does. When MY country stops frakking around, THEN I'll worry about other's culpability in the same geo-political messes.

This is the same "Clinton did bad stuff" crap we get when we critize Bush.
Next time I hear what I don't want to hear, I'm gonna say "Well, God LET the Devil temp Eve with the apple!!!! God did bad stuff worse than him/her/it!!!!".

Who s**t in the sandbox Chrisisall

RUE

Tuesday, January 2, 2007 10:12 PM

And I'm still waiting for a reply to my list:

True or False

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

SIGNYM

Tuesday, January 2, 2007 10:15 PM

Quote:
Does this mean that you concede that we supported Saddam with dual-use materials, intel, and money while he was gassing Iranians and Iraqis? Does this mean that you now think that the level of proof that we applied to Saddam in 2003 was too harsh?-signy

Neither.-Geezer

Why not? Do you have reason to say that we were NOT supporing Saddam while he was gassing folks during the Iran-Iraq war? Do you have reason to say that we should apply a different test to the USA than to Saddam?

---------------------------------
Reality sucks. Especially when it contradicts our cherished ideas.

CHRISISALL

Tuesday, January 2, 2007 10:19 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by rue:

True or False

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

The picture says: "True".

That picture is EVERYTHING that's wrong with American foreigh policy.

Chrisisall

RAZZA

Tuesday, January 2, 2007 10:39 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by rue:
And I'm still waiting for a reply to my list:

True or False

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:

I'm sure you have them, so could you please provide some sources for these assertions. I don't doubt their veracity, but it would be nice to have more than your word that they are true and the context in which you assert them. Anyone can post a list of things to support their position without context and make them appear absolutes. Thanks!

Chrisisall:

Foreign policy decisions are among the most difficult to make and even more difficult to defend once made. The fact is that the world is everchanging and often faster than any sane human can keep up with. Politics truly makes strange bedfellows and expediency is often the dirty whore we'd rather not have to sleep with, but find ourselves soiled by. This is especially true of foreign policy decisions.

-----------------
"There is not such a cradle of democracy upon the earth as the Free Public Library, this republic of letters, where neither rank, office, nor wealth receives the slightest consideration."
---Andrew Carnegie

"Doing research on the Web is like using a library assembled piecemeal by pack rats and vandalized nightly."
---Roger Ebert

GEEZER

Tuesday, January 2, 2007 11:07 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by SignyM:
Quote:
Does this mean that you concede that we supported Saddam with dual-use materials, intel, and money while he was gassing Iranians and Iraqis? Does this mean that you now think that the level of proof that we applied to Saddam in 2003 was too harsh?-signy

Neither.-Geezer
Why not? Do you have reason to say that we were NOT supporing Saddam while he was gassing folks during the Iran-Iraq war? Do you have reason to say that we should apply a different test to the USA than to Saddam?

---------------------------------
Reality sucks. Especially when it contradicts our cherished ideas.

Nope. I'm out of this bash-fest.

But a question in parting. No response required.

If the US had responded to Iraqi use of chemical weapons when first used in late 1983 as you suggested: dropped all support and diplomatic recognition of Iraq, embargoed any imports, put them back on the "supporters of terrorism" list, attempted to try Saddam for war crimes, what would have happpened?

Most likely things I can see are starvation for the Iraqi people, defeat of the Iraqi military by Iran, occupation of Iraq by Iran, massacres of Iraqi Sunnis, and the beginnings of a fundimentalist Islamic empire run from Tehran. Yeah, that's much better.

"Keep the Shiny side up"

SIGNYM

Tuesday, January 2, 2007 11:59 PM

Quote:
Why not? Do you have reason to say that we were NOT supporing Saddam while he was gassing folks during the Iran-Iraq war? Do you have reason to say that we should apply a different test to the USA than to Saddam? -Signy

Nope. I'm out of this bash-fest. But a question in parting. No response required. If the US had responded to Iraqi use of chemical weapons when first used in late 1983 as you suggested: dropped all support and diplomatic recognition of Iraq, embargoed any imports, put them back on the "supporters of terrorism" list, attempted to try Saddam for war crimes, what would have happpened?

Most likely things I can see are starvation for the Iraqi people, defeat of the Iraqi military by Iran, occupation of Iraq by Iran, massacres of Iraqi Sunnis, and the beginnings of a fundimentalist Islamic empire run from Tehran. Yeah, that's much better. -Geezer

So, it's okay to support the use of chemical and (one assumes) biological and nuclear weapons, as long as it's important enough that a particular nation win? That seems to be what you're saying. IS that what you're saying?

BTW- I don't think I'm "bashing" anyone. All I'm doing is asking questions.

---------------------------------
Reality sucks. Especially when it contradicts our cherished ideas.

FINN MAC CUMHAL

Wednesday, January 3, 2007 2:23 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by rue:
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.

So what? HE was wrong. HE was bad. And the whole eliminating the main witness’ nonsense is just conspiratorial drama.

Quote:
Originally posted by SignyM:
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..

I have yet to see any argument that convinces me that the 2003 war broke international law. I also don’t think there’s anything hypocritical about the Bush II administration taking a different interpretation of events then the Reagan administration. That’s not hypocritical, that’s just two people coming to different conclusions, with over a decade between them; it’s two administrations following different theories of foreign policy.

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

GEEZER

Wednesday, January 3, 2007 2:31 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by SignyM:
So, it's okay to support the use of chemical and (one assumes) biological and nuclear weapons, as long as it's important enough that a particular nation win? That seems to be what you're saying. IS that what you're saying?

No. I'm saying that sometimes, no matter which decision you make, even if it is to make no decision at all, bad things ensue. Sometimes not being involved is not the best choice of a limited number of bad choices. If Iran had prevailed in the Iran-Iraq war, I can't see the world being better off now.

"Keep the Shiny side up"

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