|
Korean Job Discussion Forums
"The Internet's Meeting Place for ESL/EFL Teachers from Around the World!"
|
| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
Joo Rip Gwa Rhhee
Joined: 25 May 2003
|
 Posted: Mon Aug 27, 2007 4:57 am Post subject: |
 |
|
[quote="huffdaddy"
| Quote: |
| Then why didn't we take on Iran mano-a-mano instead of giving weapons to Iraq? |
Oh invade Iran. All of a sudden you got real hawkish.
It would certainly seem easier to just tlit towards Iraq.
Beside the US didn't give a lot of weapons to Iraq.
What were Iraqi tanks T-72 and T -62 from the USSR . 5,700 of them and not one was from the US.
The Iraq air force had 600- 700 aircraft and not one jet was from the US. They were all mirages and migs from France and Russia.
Artillery was from China, Russia and Austria
Iraqs chemical plants came from Germany.
Iraqi Scuds came from North Korea via Egypt via the Soviet Union.
What the US gave Saddam really wasn't much and it wasn't what made Saddam's army what it was.
| Quote: |
You can try to make comparisons with WWII, but the simple facts don't add up.
Khomeni ≠ Hitler
Iran ≠ Germany
Saddam ≠ Stalin
Iraq ≠ Russia |
there are similarities by the way Stalin was Saddam's idol that is no joke look it up. |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
huffdaddy
Joined: 25 Nov 2005
|
| Posted: Mon Aug 27, 2007 5:19 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Joo Rip Gwa Rhhee wrote: |
| Beside the US didn't give a lot of weapons to Iraq. |
http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn?pagename=article&contentId=A52241-2002Dec29
| Quote: |
| According to a sworn court affidavit prepared by Teicher in 1995, the United States "actively supported the Iraqi war effort by supplying the Iraqis with billions of dollars of credits, by providing military intelligence and advice to the Iraqis, and by closely monitoring third country arms sales to Iraq to make sure Iraq had the military weaponry required." Teicher said in the affidavit that former CIA director William Casey used a Chilean company, Cardoen, to supply Iraq with cluster bombs that could be used to disrupt the Iranian human wave attacks. Teicher refuses to discuss the affidavit. |
| Quote: |
Although U.S. arms manufacturers were not as deeply involved as German or British companies in selling weaponry to Iraq, the Reagan administration effectively turned a blind eye to the export of "dual use" items such as chemical precursors and steel tubes that can have military and civilian applications. According to several former officials, the State and Commerce departments promoted trade in such items as a way to boost U.S. exports and acquire political leverage over Hussein.
When United Nations weapons inspectors were allowed into Iraq after the 1991 Gulf War, they compiled long lists of chemicals, missile components, and computers from American suppliers, including such household names as Union Carbide and Honeywell, which were being used for military purposes.
A 1994 investigation by the Senate Banking Committee turned up dozens of biological agents shipped to Iraq during the mid-'80s under license from the Commerce Department, including various strains of anthrax, subsequently identified by the Pentagon as a key component of the Iraqi biological warfare program. The Commerce Department also approved the export of insecticides to Iraq, despite widespread suspicions that they were being used for chemical warfare. |
| Quote: |
| Although U.S. export controls to Iraq were tightened up in the late 1980s, there were still many loopholes. In December 1988, Dow Chemical sold $1.5 million of pesticides to Iraq, despite U.S. government concerns that they could be used as chemical warfare agents. An Export-Import Bank official reported in a memorandum that he could find "no reason" to stop the sale, despite evidence that the pesticides were "highly toxic" to humans and would cause death "from asphyxiation." |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Joo Rip Gwa Rhhee
Joined: 25 May 2003
|
| Posted: Mon Aug 27, 2007 5:26 am Post subject: |
|
|
"huffdaddy"][
http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn?pagename=article&contentId=A52241-2002Dec29
| Quote: |
| According to a sworn court affidavit prepared by Teicher in 1995, the United States "actively supported the Iraqi war effort by supplying the Iraqis with billions of dollars of credits, by providing military intelligence and advice to the Iraqis, and by closely monitoring third country arms sales to Iraq to make sure Iraq had the military weaponry required." Teicher said in the affidavit that former CIA director William Casey used a Chilean company, Cardoen, to supply Iraq with cluster bombs that could be used to disrupt the Iranian human wave attacks. Teicher refuses to discuss the affidavit. |
Billions of dollars of credits.
Miltary intel
show me a US tank or Jet.
| Quote: |
Although U.S. arms manufacturers were not as deeply involved as German or British companies in selling weaponry to Iraq, the Reagan administration effectively turned a blind eye to the export of "dual use" items such as chemical precursors and steel tubes that can have military and civilian applications. According to several former officials, the State and Commerce departments promoted trade in such items as a way to boost U.S. exports and acquire political leverage over Hussein.
When United Nations weapons inspectors were allowed into Iraq after the 1991 Gulf War, they compiled long lists of chemicals, missile components, and computers from American suppliers, including such household names as Union Carbide and Honeywell, which were being used for military purposes.
A 1994 investigation by the Senate Banking Committee turned up dozens of biological agents shipped to Iraq during the mid-'80s under license from the Commerce Department, including various strains of anthrax, subsequently identified by the Pentagon as a key component of the Iraqi biological warfare program. The Commerce Department also approved the export of insecticides to Iraq, despite widespread suspicions that they were being used for chemical warfare. |
| Quote: |
| Although U.S. export controls to Iraq were tightened up in the late 1980s, there were still many loopholes. In December 1988, Dow Chemical sold $1.5 million of pesticides to Iraq, despite U.S. government concerns that they could be used as chemical warfare agents. An Export-Import Bank official reported in a memorandum that he could find "no reason" to stop the sale, despite evidence that the pesticides were "highly toxic" to humans and would cause death "from asphyxiation." |
[/quote]
What is the value of all that that to 5700 tanks , 650 combat aircraft and artillery?
None of that came from the US even Iraqs chemical plants came from Germany.
Fact is that the vast majority of Saddam's arsenal did not come to the US and much of what he bought from the US was not tightly controlled which meant that almost any nation could have bought it.
Only a very small amount came from the US , Even England gave much more to Saddam
And As I said Iraqs biggest suppliers by far were the USSR and France. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Dome Vans
Guest
|
| Posted: Mon Aug 27, 2007 5:38 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Quote: |
| Reporters let into the city to inspect the devastation noted, however, that most of the dead Kurds were blue in their extremities, implying that they had been killed by a blood agent, a chemical that Iraq did not use and, at this time, lacked the capacity to produce. This fact was noted in the press accounts and also by officials of several nongovernmental agencies called to inspect the scene. |
The thing I love most is that if the source given, Mr Pellitiere, is not singing from the same song sheet he is deemed incorrect and wrong. A little like Michael Moore. Dirting someone's name is one way to try and stop people believing them. Mr Pellitiere
| Quote: |
| former senior CIA analyst |
Is hardly a source to be sniffed at.
| Quote: |
A report produced by the US Army War College Institute (USAWCI), of which Pellitiere was a co-author, concluded that the gas that killed the Kurds was more consistent with Iran's known weapons than Iraq's. The conclusion was that Iran gassed the Kurds by accident, believing Iraqi soldiers to have displaced the Kurds in Halabja and that Iraq gassed them for much the same reason--a belief that Iranian soldiers were in Halabja--but that the more lethal Iranian gas resulted in the deaths.
Although several media outlets reported on this report's conclusion, the information seems to have fallen by the wayside in favor of the administration's oft-repeated claim that Hussein gassed the Kurds. Indeed, on an episode of MSNBC's Buchanan and Press, one Republican congressman--eyes almost glazed--answered every question about Bush misleading the country by waving pictures of Halabja's gassed Kurds and repeating the mantra "This is all the convincing I need." |
By the looks of it that's all the convincing you need as well.
| Quote: |
US Army War College: NO PROOF SADDAM GASSED THE KURDS!
I continue to make inquiry into the situation in Iraq, as it is likely to brew up into another crisis one of these days when the US Army War College has no choice but to conclude that Iraq is not hiding any weapons of mass destruction -- or if they are, they are so well hidden that nobody is going to find them. As you know, I'm sure, the warhawks in the United States will continue to insist that the embargo remain in place no matter what, and there will be assertions from around the world that we have not been acting in good faith. As you also know, I believe there are serious questions regarding our behavior toward Iraq that go back further. You would agree, I think, that at the very least our State Department gave a "green light" to Saddam Hussein to go into Kuwait in August 1990. The more I read of the events of the period, the more I believe history will record that the Gulf War was unnecessary, perhaps even that Saddam Hussein was willing to retreat back to his borders, but our government decided we preferred the war to the status quo ante.
In my previous correspondence with you on this matter, I had been in a quandary about the state of our relations with Baghdad during that critical period. In the months immediately preceding the "green light" given by our Ambassador, April Glaspie, a number of your Senate colleagues including Bob Dole had traveled to Baghdad, met with Saddam, and found him to be a head of state worthy of support. Even Sen. Howard Metzenbaum [D-OH], a Jewish liberal and staunch supporter of Israel, gave him a seal of approval. What disturbs me even now, Jesse, is that these meetings occurred after the Senate Foreign Relations committee had accused Iraq of using poison gas against its own people, i.e., the Kurds. Like all other Americans, in recent years I had assumed that what I read in the papers was true about Iraq gassing its own people. Once the war drums again began beating last November, I decided to read up on the history, and found Iraq denied having used gas against its own people. Furthermore, I heard that a Pentagon investigation at the time had also turned up no hard evidence of Saddam gassing his own people.
This is serious stuff, because the US Army War College tells us that 1.4 million Iraqi civilians have died as a result of the sanctions, which is 3,000 times more than the number of Kurds who supposedly died of gassing at the hands of Saddam. Many of my old Cold Warrior friends practically DEMAND that we not lift the sanctions because if Saddam would gas his own people, he would gas anyone. Now I have come across the 1990 Pentagon report, published just prior to the invasion of Kuwait. Its authors are Stephen C. Pelletiere, Douglas V. Johnson II and Leif R. Rosenberger, of the Strategic Studies Institute of the U.S. War College at Carlisle, Pennsylvania. The report is 93 pages, but I append here only the passages having to do with the aforementioned issue:
Iraqi Power and U.S. Security in the Middle East
Excerpt, Chapter 5
U.S. SECURITY AND IRAQI POWER
Introduction. Throughout the war the United States practiced a fairly benign policy toward Iraq. Although initially disapproving of the invasion, Washington came slowly over to the side of Baghdad. Both wanted to restore the status quo ante to the Gulf and to reestablish the relative harmony that prevailed there before Khomeini began threatening the regional balance of power. Khomeini's revolutionary appeal was anathema to both Baghdad and Washington; hence they wanted to get rid of him. United by a common interest, Iraq and the United States restored diplomatic relations in 1984, and the United States began to actively assist Iraq in ending the fighting. It mounted Operation Staunch, an attempt to stem the flow of arms to Iran. It also increased its purchases of Iraqi oil while cutting back on Iranian oil purchases, and it urged its allies to do likewise. All this had the effect of repairing relations between the two countries, which had been at a very low ebb.
In September 1988, however -- a month after the war had ended -- the State Department abruptly, and in what many viewed as a sensational manner, condemned Iraq for allegedly using chemicals against its Kurdish population. The incident cannot be understood without some background of Iraq's relations with the Kurds. It is beyond the scope of this study to go deeply into this matter; suffice it to say that throughout the war Iraq effectively faced two enemies -- Iran and the elements of its own Kurdish minority. Significant numbers of the Kurds had launched a revolt against Baghdad and in the process teamed up with Tehran. As soon as the war with Iran ended, Iraq announced its determination to crush the Kurdish insurrection. It sent Republican Guards to the Kurdish area, and in the course of this operation - according to the U.S. State Department -- gas was used, with the result that numerous Kurdish civilians were killed. The Iraqi government denied that any such gassing had occurred. Nonetheless, Secretary of State Schultz stood by U.S. accusations, and the U.S. Congress, acting on its own, sought to impose economic sanctions on Baghdad as a violator of the Kurds' human rights.
Having looked at all of the evidence that was available to us, we find it impossible to confirm the State Department's claim that gas was used in this instance. To begin with there were never any victims produced. International relief organizations who examined the Kurds -- in Turkey where they had gone for asylum -- failed to discover any. Nor were there ever any found inside Iraq. The claim rests solely on testimony of the Kurds who had crossed the border into Turkey, where they were interviewed by staffers of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee.
We would have expected, in a matter as serious as this, that the Congress would have exercised some care. However, passage of the sanctions measure through the Congress was unusually swift -- at least in the Senate where a unanimous vote was secured within 24 hours. Further, the proposed sanctions were quite draconian (and will be discussed in detail below). Fortunately for the future of Iraqi-U.S. ties, the sanctions measure failed to pass on a bureaucratic technicality (it was attached as a rider to a bill that died before adjournment).
It appears that in seeking to punish Iraq, the Congress was influenced by another incident that occurred five months earlier in another Iraqi-Kurdish city, Halabjah. In March 1988, the Kurds at Halabjah were bombarded with chemical weapons, producing a great many deaths. Photographs of them Kurdish victims were widely disseminated in the international media. Iraq was blamed for the Halabjah attack, even though it was subsequently brought out that Iran too had used chemicals in this operation, and it seemed likely that it was the Iranian bombardment that had actually killed the Kurds.
Thus, in our view, the Congress acted more on the basis of emotionalism than factual information, and without sufficient thought for the adverse diplomatic effects of its action. As a result of the outcome of the Iran-Iraq War, Iraq is now the most powerful state in the Persian Gulf, an area in which we have vital interests. To maintain an uninterrupted flow of oil from the Gulf to the West, we need to develop good working relations with all of the Gulf states, and particularly with Iraq, the strongest. |
SO they didn't get the report they wanted, so have dirted his name. All governments do it when they know their credibility has been shattered, by one person who used to work for them and was an EXPERT. Give me break, you really need to believe this don't you. Kinda made Americans the laughing stock of the world, all that money and firepower and 'intelligence' and they still can't get something right.
Last edited by Dome Vans on Mon Aug 27, 2007 5:40 am; edited 1 time in total |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
huffdaddy
Joined: 25 Nov 2005
|
| Posted: Mon Aug 27, 2007 5:39 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Quote: |
Although U.S. arms manufacturers were not as deeply involved as German or British companies in selling weaponry to Iraq, the Reagan administration effectively turned a blind eye to the export of "dual use" items such as chemical precursors and steel tubes that can have military and civilian applications. According to several former officials, the State and Commerce departments promoted trade in such items as a way to boost U.S. exports and acquire political leverage over Hussein.
When United Nations weapons inspectors were allowed into Iraq after the 1991 Gulf War, they compiled long lists of chemicals, missile components, and computers from American suppliers, including such household names as Union Carbide and Honeywell, which were being used for military purposes.
A 1994 investigation by the Senate Banking Committee turned up dozens of biological agents shipped to Iraq during the mid-'80s under license from the Commerce Department,including various strains of anthrax , subsequently identified by the Pentagon as a key component of the Iraqi biological warfare program. The Commerce Department also approved the export of insecticides to Iraq, despite widespread suspicions that they were being used for chemical warfare. |
| Quote: |
| Although U.S. export controls to Iraq were tightened up in the late 1980s, there were still many loopholes. In December 1988, Dow Chemical sold $1.5 million of pesticides to Iraq, despite U.S. government concerns that they could be used as chemical warfare agents. An Export-Import Bank official reported in a memorandum that he could find "no reason" to stop the sale, despite evidence that the pesticides were "highly toxic" to humans and would cause death "from asphyxiation." |
| Joo Rip Gwa Rhhee wrote: |
| "What is the value of all that that to 5700 tanks , 650 combat aircraft and artillery? |
Has anyone called Saddam a madman for using tanks or aircraft against Iran? They're normal and expected weapons of war. I'd have a lot more respect for a country selling conventional arms to Iraq than for a country selling chemical weapons.
| Quote: |
| None of that came from the US even Iraqs chemical plants came from Germany. |
Try reading it again. For the first time. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Joo Rip Gwa Rhhee
Joined: 25 May 2003
|
| Posted: Mon Aug 27, 2007 5:42 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Quote: |
| export of "dual use" items such as chemical precursors and steel tubes that can have military and civilian applications |
| Quote: |
dozens of biological agents shipped to Iraq during the mid-'80s under license from the Commerce Department,including various strains of anthrax |
Why did the US have them. Did the US have them for Biological weapons?
| Quote: |
Dow Chemical sold $1.5 million of pesticides to Iraq, |
Ohh pesticides.
the vast majority of what Saddam had did not come from the US. No if ands or buts.
The vast majorty of what Saddam had came from Russia France and Germany no ifs ands or buts. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
huffdaddy
Joined: 25 Nov 2005
|
| Posted: Mon Aug 27, 2007 6:28 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Joo Rip Gwa Rhhee wrote: |
the vast majority of what Saddam had did not come from the US. No if ands or buts.
The vast majorty of what Saddam had came from Russia France and Germany no ifs ands or buts. |
The US certainly had extensive involvement in the Iraqi weapons program. What percent of the program came from the US? I have no idea. What is an acceptable percentage? How many biological weapons from the US will you be an apologist for? Or is there no limit, as long as the US had "good intentions"?
http://www.democracynow.org/article.pl?sid=03/04/07/0315205&mode=thread&tid=5
| Quote: |
A German newspaper has obtained portions of Iraq's top secret weapons report that reveals at least 24 U.S. corporations as well as four agencies of the U.S. government illegally helped Iraq build its biological, chemical and nuclear weapons programs.
Some of the corporations include Hewlett Packard, DuPont, Honeywell, Rockwell, Tectronics, Bechtel, International Computer Systems, Unisys, Sperry and TI Coating.
The Berlin-based paper Die Tageszeitung also reports the U.S. Department of Energy delivered essential non-fissile parts for Baghdad's nuclear weapons program in the 1980s. The Departments of Agriculture, Commerce and Defense also provided assistance.
According to the paper, only one country had more business ties to Iraq than the U.S. That was Germany. As many as 80 German companies are also listed in Iraq's report. And the paper reported that some German companies continued to do business with Iraq until last year. |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Joo Rip Gwa Rhhee
Joined: 25 May 2003
|
| Posted: Mon Aug 27, 2007 6:37 am Post subject: |
|
|
| huffdaddy wrote: |
[
| Quote: |
The US certainly had extensive involvement in the Iraqi weapons program. What percent of the program came from the US? I have no idea. What is an acceptable percentage? How many biological weapons from the US will you be an apologist for? Or is there no limit, as long as the US had "good intentions"?
|
extensive involvment in the weapons Iraq had?
Show a single "biological weapon". Not something duel use. A biological weapon that is your word now show it.
http://www.democracynow.org/article.pl?sid=03/04/07/0315205&mode=thread&tid=5
| Quote: |
A German newspaper has obtained portions of Iraq's top secret weapons report that reveals at least 24 U.S. corporations as well as four agencies of the U.S. government illegally helped Iraq build its biological, chemical and nuclear weapons programs.
Some of the corporations include Hewlett Packard, DuPont, Honeywell, Rockwell, Tectronics, Bechtel, International Computer Systems, Unisys, Sperry and TI Coating.
The Berlin-based paper Die Tageszeitung also reports the U.S. Department of Energy delivered essential non-fissile parts for Baghdad's nuclear weapons program in the 1980s. The Departments of Agriculture, Commerce and Defense also provided assistance.
According to the paper, only one country had more business ties to Iraq than the U.S. That was Germany. As many as 80 German companies are also listed in Iraq's report. And the paper reported that some German companies continued to do business with Iraq until last year. |
|
Germany was more involved agreed.
All of Iraqs tanks came from Russia
All of Iraqs fighter and bombers came from Russia and France
Iraq had no US artillery. It came from Russia , China , South Africa, and Austria.
And as your article pointed out much of what Saddam did get from the US was illegally sold to Iraq.
You are tying to say the US was a major player in Iraq's military power and you can't show it. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
huffdaddy
Joined: 25 Nov 2005
|
| Posted: Mon Aug 27, 2007 7:22 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Joo Rip Gwa Rhhee wrote: |
Show a single "biological weapon". Not something duel use. A biological weapon that is your word now show it. |
So duel use is okay now? I'm sure Iran will be happy to hear that. Providing Saddam with anthrax which could be used for scientific purposes (Ha ha!) is somehow justifiable?
And now, a third source which identifies America as a source of biological weapons.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2001/10/18/wanth218.xml
| Quote: |
Iraq obtained much of its anthrax supply from the American Type Culture Collection. Between 1985 and 1989, it obtained at least 21 strains of anthrax from ATCC and about 15 other class III pathogens, the bacteria that pose an extreme risk to human health.
One strain had a British military pedigree and three of the other strains were listed as coming from the American military's biological warfare programme. |
| Quote: |
| And as your article pointed out much of what Saddam did get from the US was illegally sold to Iraq. |
Including assistance from the US government? At least until Reagan took them Iraq off of the state sponsors of terrorism list.
| Quote: |
| You are tying to say the US was a major player in Iraq's military power and you can't show it. |
No, you're just too deep in apologism to see it. Three sources identifying America as a source of chemical, biological, or nuclear weapons material. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Joo Rip Gwa Rhhee
Joined: 25 May 2003
|
| Posted: Mon Aug 27, 2007 7:33 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Quote: |
So duel use is okay now? I'm sure Iran will be happy to hear that. Providing Saddam with anthrax which could be used for scientific purposes (Ha ha!) is somehow justifiable? |
Iran is an enemy.
and it seems. Britian seemed surprised that they diverted , it might be that was the case with the US too.
| Quote: |
The anthrax strains were ordered by the University of Baghdad and then diverted to the bio-warfare effort |
The US wasn't the a main source of Iraqs military power.
The US didn't give Saddam tanks, or jets or artillery or missiles .
Even his chemical plants came from Germany.
And as I said a significant portion of what Saddam did get from the US was illegally sold to him. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
huffdaddy
Joined: 25 Nov 2005
|
| Posted: Mon Aug 27, 2007 7:51 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Joo Rip Gwa Rhhee wrote: |
The US wasn't the a main source of Iraqs military power.
The US didn't give Saddam tanks, or jets or artillery or missiles . |
And who has criticized Saddam for using tanks, jets, artillery, or missiles against Iran? It's irrelevant to the discussion.
| Quote: |
| Even his chemical plants came from Germany. |
Chemicals, including anthrax, came from the US.
| Quote: |
| And as I said a significant portion of what Saddam did get from the US was illegally sold to him. |
So that makes the US involvement in providing biological weapons justifiable? Excusable? What's your point?
And that was only until Reagan took them off of the state sponsors of terrorism list.
Yes or no - Do you defend the US providing chemical, biological, and nuclear weapons assistance to Iraq in the 1980s? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Joo Rip Gwa Rhhee
Joined: 25 May 2003
|
| Posted: Mon Aug 27, 2007 8:05 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Quote: |
And who has criticized Saddam for using tanks, jets, artillery, or missiles against Iran? It's irrelevant to the discussion.
|
It was the source of his miltary power that it is why it is relevant to the dicussion. He used what he fought with Iran with to invade Kuwait as well.
| Quote: |
Chemicals, including anthrax, came from the US. |
what is the total value of all that stuff. Remember pesticides.
| Quote: |
So that makes the US involvement in providing biological weapons justifiable? Excusable? What's your point? |
No it wasn't though it nearly understandable since Iran was an enemy of the US.
| Quote: |
And that was only until Reagan took them off of the state sponsors of terrorism list. |
Cause Iraq was fighting an enemy of the US . Like the Roosevelt said lots of good stuff about "uncle joe"
| Quote: |
Yes or no - Do you defend the US providing chemical, biological, and nuclear weapons assistance to Iraq in the 1980s? |
No (though I would answer differently if Iraq and Iran had managed to destroy each other too bad- wasted chance ) , my point is that the US wasn't a big force behind Iraq's military power. and that Saddam's Iraq was never a friend or even an ally of the US. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
huffdaddy
Joined: 25 Nov 2005
|
| Posted: Mon Aug 27, 2007 3:45 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Joo Rip Gwa Rhhee wrote: |
| Quote: |
And who has criticized Saddam for using tanks, jets, artillery, or missiles against Iran? It's irrelevant to the discussion.
|
It was the source of his miltary power that it is why it is relevant to the dicussion. He used what he fought with Iran with to invade Kuwait as well. |
They aren't WMDs and wouldn't be a reason for GWII.
| Quote: |
| Quote: |
| Chemicals, including anthrax, came from the US. |
what is the total value of all that stuff. Remember pesticides. |
You tell me. The three sources I cited said the US's assistance was significant.
| Quote: |
| Quote: |
| So that makes the US involvement in providing biological weapons justifiable? Excusable? What's your point? |
No it wasn't though it nearly understandable since Iran was an enemy of the US. |
And Iraq wasn't? They were on the state sponsors of terrorism list. Until Reagan took them off.
| Quote: |
| Quote: |
| And that was only until Reagan took them off of the state sponsors of terrorism list. |
Cause Iraq was fighting an enemy of the US . Like the Roosevelt said lots of good stuff about "uncle joe" |
Did we send Uncle Joe biological or nuclear weapons materials?
| Quote: |
| Quote: |
| Yes or no - Do you defend the US providing chemical, biological, and nuclear weapons assistance to Iraq in the 1980s? |
No (though I would answer differently if Iraq and Iran had managed to destroy each other too bad- wasted chance ) , my point is that the US wasn't a big force behind Iraq's military power. and that Saddam's Iraq was never a friend or even an ally of the US. |
You'd defend another country using US provided biological or nuclear weapons, if it wiped out an enemy of the US? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Joo Rip Gwa Rhhee
Joined: 25 May 2003
|
| Posted: Mon Aug 27, 2007 4:43 pm Post subject: |
|
|
huffdaddy
| Quote: |
They aren't WMDs and wouldn't be a reason for GWII. |
but that was one of the reasons why the US contained Saddam. Cause he would invade again if he went free.
| Quote: |
| Quote: |
| Chemicals, including anthrax, came from the US. |
what is the total value of all that stuff. Remember pesticides. |
| Quote: |
You tell me. The three sources I cited said the US's assistance was significant. |
Were they the major or a major reason for Iraq's military power?
Compared to all the billions of stuff that Saddam had before the first gulf war?
The main suppliers of Iraq's military weren't the US - not by a long shot. No ifs ands or buts.
| Quote: |
| Quote: |
| So that makes the US involvement in providing biological weapons justifiable? Excusable? What's your point? |
No it wasn't though it nearly understandable since Iran was an enemy of the US. |
| Quote: |
And Iraq wasn't? They were on the state sponsors of terrorism list. Until Reagan took them off. |
See Uncle Joe
| Quote: |
Did we send Uncle Joe biological or nuclear weapons materials? |
The US didn't have them then.
| Quote: |
| Quote: |
| Yes or no - Do you defend the US providing chemical, biological, and nuclear weapons assistance to Iraq in the 1980s? |
No (though I would answer differently if Iraq and Iran had managed to destroy each other too bad- wasted chance ) , my point is that the US wasn't a big force behind Iraq's military power. and that Saddam's Iraq was never a friend or even an ally of the US. |
You'd defend another country using US provided biological or nuclear weapons, if it wiped out an enemy of the US?[/quote]
If it meant two enemies were destroyed, that they destroyed each other . Yep. I would have said "good strategy". "Well done". Why not? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
huffdaddy
Joined: 25 Nov 2005
|
| Posted: Mon Aug 27, 2007 6:56 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Joo Rip Gwa Rhhee wrote: |
The main suppliers of Iraq's military weren't the US - not by a long shot. No ifs ands or buts. |
Where else did he get anthrax from, besides the UK and US?
| Quote: |
| Quote: |
| Did we send Uncle Joe biological or nuclear weapons materials? |
The US didn't have them then. |
The US certainly had chemical and biological weapons. Nuclear weapons were being developed.
| Quote: |
| Quote: |
| You'd defend another country using US provided biological or nuclear weapons, if it wiped out an enemy of the US? |
If it meant two enemies were destroyed, that they destroyed each other . Yep. I would have said "good strategy". "Well done". Why not? |
Because I don't consider Machiavellianism to be a good thing. And subjecting innocent people to the horrors of chemical, biological, and nuclear weapons isn't on my wish list. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
|
|
FAQ
Search
Memberlist
Usergroups
Register
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in
