Korean Job Discussion Forums :: View topic - Putin said Saddam's Iraq planned attacks

Speak Korean Now!

Teach English Abroad and Get Paid to see the World!

Korean Job Discussion Forums
"The Internet's Meeting Place for ESL/EFL Teachers from Around the World!"

FAQ

Memberlist

Usergroups

Profile

Putin said Saddam's Iraq planned attacks
Goto page Previous 1, 2, 3, 4 Next

Korean Job Discussion Forums Forum Index -> Current Events Forum

View previous topic :: View next topic

Author

Message

Joo Rip Gwa Rhhee

Joined: 25 May 2003

Posted: Mon Aug 27, 2007 7:01 pm Post subject:

[quote="huffdaddy"][

Quote:

Where else did he get anthrax from, besides the UK and US?

Just having anthrax didn't make Saddam a military power in the gulf. It wasn't the main reason or even close to one of the main reasons.

Quote:

The US certainly had chemical and biological weapons. Nuclear weapons were being developed.

Bio weapons during WWII?

Quote:

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.

Winning beats losing and you may only get one chance Sorry I can't bring myself to wish the enemy well. If the enemy is out of the picture that is a good thing. Especially since the enemies of the US fight for a sinister cause. And by the way when the enemy is out of the picture innocent lives are saved too.

A chance to win if it comes about is not something that should be so casually dismissed.

It is a tough world.

Machiavellianism is better than losing or being attacked.

huffdaddy

Joined: 25 Nov 2005

Posted: Mon Aug 27, 2007 7:14 pm Post subject:

Joo Rip Gwa Rhhee wrote:

huffdaddy wrote:

Where else did he get anthrax from, besides the UK and US?

Just having anthrax didn't make Saddam a military power in the gulf

No answer to the question?

Quote:

The US certainly had chemical and biological weapons. Nuclear weapons were being developed.

Bio weapons during WWII?

Yes. Look up Camp Detrick.

Quote:

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.

Machiavellianism is better than losing or being attacked.

Once again, you show your tendency to forget the past and the impact our actions have on the future. What comes around goes around.

Joo Rip Gwa Rhhee

Joined: 25 May 2003

Posted: Mon Aug 27, 2007 7:19 pm Post subject:

[quote="huffdaddy"]

Joo Rip Gwa Rhhee wrote:

huffdaddy wrote:

Where else did he get anthrax from, besides the UK and US?

Just having anthrax didn't make Saddam a military power in the gulf

No answer to the question?

Oh probably just from the US and the UK but that wasn't what made Iraq what it was militarily.

Quote:

Once again, you show your tendency to forget the past and the impact our actions have on the future. What comes around goes around.

And often doing nothing is enough for evil to succeed .

Winning beats losing or being attacked.

Remember there are consequences for not doing anything too putting off problems doesn't make them go away.

contrarian

Joined: 20 Jan 2007
Location: Nearly in NK

Posted: Mon Aug 27, 2007 9:50 pm Post subject:

The bottom line is that Saddam Hussein was a weapon of mass destruction. He just needed killin'. He also openly bragged about having WMDs and the US had a right to believe him. Just as Ahmandinejad brags about the extermination of Israel. The US and Isreal have a right to believe him and premptively strike that nations nuclear sites.

Dome Vans
Guest

Posted: Mon Aug 27, 2007 10:31 pm Post subject:

Quote:

And often doing nothing is enough for evil to succeed

Evil, there we have it, the word, that defines anyone who doesn't support the US. The fact that you can define them in such black and white terms is testament to your blindingly blinkered outlook on US misdemeanours and foreign policy goof ups.

Many recent surveys show Bush to be the single biggest threat to world peace and safety. Isn't that saying who is the real 'evil' here, to steal your word.

Quote:

The US and Isreal have a right to believe him and premptively strike that nations nuclear sites.

This such playground stuff. 'He said he had them' does not stand up in court, but probably was all they wanted to hear for their illegal war. Why is everyone ditching them at the moment and leaving them in their own sh*t? Is it us? Are we all thick and haven't realised what a great job the US is doing?

It doubt it. Is I mentioned earlier.

Quote:

U.S. intelligence

These words don't go together.

And Israel, there's a rogue state if I ever saw one, but hell, let's give them a bomb to start their own pre-emptive strikes. And back them to the hilt. Is it any wonder anti-semitism is on the increase.

huffdaddy

Joined: 25 Nov 2005

Posted: Tue Aug 28, 2007 12:57 am Post subject:

Joo Rip Gwa Rhhee wrote:

Oh probably just from the US and the UK but that wasn't what made Iraq what it was militarily.

Go back to your first post in this thread. The one that complained about Saddam and his WMDs.

The only victory the Iraq military achieved in the last 25 years was overrunning Kuwait. Some threat.

Quote:

Once again, you show your tendency to forget the past and the impact our actions have on the future. What comes around goes around.

And often doing nothing is enough for evil to succeed .

Winning beats losing or being attacked.

How did getting involved in Iran-Iraq prevent us from being attacked? For all we know, Iran could have smashed Iraq and eliminated Saddam.

Quote:

Remember there are consequences for not doing anything too putting off problems doesn't make them go away.

And there are also consequences for doing the wrong thing.

Joo Rip Gwa Rhhee

Joined: 25 May 2003

Posted: Tue Aug 28, 2007 6:11 am Post subject:

Quote:

Go back to your first post in this thread. The one that complained about Saddam and his WMDs.

that was about Bush having some reason to believe.

Quote:

The only victory the Iraq military achieved in the last 25 years was overrunning Kuwait. Some threat.

And if Saddam been allowed kept Kuwait with all that oil money it would have been some threat.

Quote:

How did getting involved in Iran-Iraq prevent us from being attacked? For all we know, Iran could have smashed Iraq and eliminated Saddam.

They were both enemies. Iran hit the US in Lebanon killing 250 marines and they have been engaging in a low level war against the US since Khomeni came to power.

Quote:

And there are also consequences for doing the wrong thing.

Sure there are, but the chances are more in your favor - far more when your enemy is taken out.

It would be hard to find worse enemies than Iran and Saddams' iraq and the US would have been far better off today if they had destroyed each other.

You are arguing that being Machiavellian is bad. If anything the US wasn't Machiavellian enough . If it were perhaps it might have been able to bring it about.

huffdaddy

Joined: 25 Nov 2005

Posted: Tue Aug 28, 2007 3:49 pm Post subject:

Joo Rip Gwa Rhhee wrote:

It would be hard to find worse enemies than Iran and Saddams' iraq and the US would have been far better off today if they had destroyed each other.

You are arguing that being Machiavellian is bad. If anything the US wasn't Machiavellian enough . If it were perhaps it might have been able to bring it about.

Maybe it would have been better off if they destroyed each other. Or at least if one of them had been destroyed. Which may have happened if the US and other Western democracies weren't giving them military and financial support.

But the US ought not be providing the Saddams and Khomenis of the world with chemical and biological weapons. Even if they are being used against other Saddams and Khomenis.

Joo Rip Gwa Rhhee

Joined: 25 May 2003

Posted: Tue Aug 28, 2007 4:25 pm Post subject:

huffdaddy wrote:

Joo Rip Gwa Rhhee wrote:

If we can ever get it to where we can get t hem they destroy each other we ought to go for it.

but in principle I agree with you. The US decision to allow Saddam to buy such stuff was beyond foolhardy.

The_Conservative

Joined: 15 Mar 2007

Posted: Wed Aug 29, 2007 6:07 pm Post subject:

Dome Vans wrote:

[
Many recent surveys show Bush to be the single biggest threat to world peace and safety. .

They do nothing of the kind. Many recent surveys may LIST Bush to be the single biggest threat to world peace and safety...but unless they provide solid documented evidence or links to such evidence they do not SHOW anything like that...beyond their own political views.

Could you provide one such survey by a MAINSTREAM source...not a blog or anything like that? TIME, Newsweek, The Economist, CNN...et al are acceptable sources.

Joo Rip Gwa Rhhee

Joined: 25 May 2003

Posted: Wed Aug 29, 2007 7:03 pm Post subject:

[quote="Dome Vans"]

Quote:

And often doing nothing is enough for evil to succeed

Quote:

Is it any coincidence that the greatest human rights violators on the planet at about the time the war on terror started are also hostile US? Explain that you ****

Quote:

Behind Algeria, on a score of 110.55, come North Korea, Burma, Indonesia, Libya, Colombia, Syria, Iraq, Yugoslavia and China. Saudi Arabia, Iran, Afghanistan and Nigeria follow closely. The United Kingdom comes 141st; a good score on a global basis but not so admirable when compared with other rich, industrialised countries - we are seventh out of 23.

Quote:

t scores 10 out of 10 on denial of majority rights because of gassing the Kurds.

A country with a wretched record of human rights abuse could score a maximum total of 190. Saddam Hussein's Iraq proves the winner of the unmodified list - which measures human rights abuses outside of their economic context - with an unadjusted score of 155.

http://www.algeria-watch.org/mrv/mrvrap/observe4.htm

Many recent surveys show Bush to be the single biggest threat to world peace and safety. Isn't that saying who is the real 'evil' here, to steal your word.

Quote:

The US and Isreal have a right to believe him and premptively strike that nations nuclear sites.

Quote:

The war wasn't illegal Saddam never gave up his war and his war wasn't legitimate.

Quote:

U.S. intelligence

These words don't go together.

Quote:

And Israel, there's a rogue state if I ever saw one, but hell, let's give them a bomb to start their own pre-emptive strikes. And back them to the hilt. Is it any wonder anti-semitism is on the increase.

You obviously never saw a rogue state.

Well maybe I can help you.

Quote:

Saddam Hussein's government may have executed 61,000 Baghdad residents, a figure much higher than previously believed, a new study suggests.

The bloodiest massacres of Saddam's 23-year presidency occurred in Iraq's Kurdish north and Shi'ite Muslim south, but the Gallup Baghdad Survey data indicates the brutality also extended into the capital.

The survey asked 1178 Baghdad residents in August and September whether a member of their household had been executed by Saddam's regime, with 6.6 per cent saying yes.

The polling firm took metropolitan Baghdad's population of 6.39 million people, and average household size of 6.9 people, to calculate that 61,000 people were executed during Saddam's rule.

Past estimates were in the low tens of thousands. Most are believed to have been buried in mass graves.

The US-led occupation authority in Iraq has said at least 300,000 people were buried in mass graves in Iraq.

Human rights officials put the number closer to 500,000, and some Iraqi political parties estimate more than 1 million people were executed.

Without exhumations of the mass graves, it is impossible to confirm a figure.

http://www.smh.com.au/articles/2003/12/09/1070732211173.html

Quote:

Khomeini fatwa 'led to killing of 30,000 in Iran'

By Christina Lamb, Diplomatic Correspondent
Last Updated: 3:55pm BST 19/06/2001

CHILDREN as young as 13 were hanged from cranes, six at a time, in a barbaric two-month purge of Iran's prisons on the direct orders of Ayatollah Khomeini, according to a new book by his former deputy.

More than 30,000 political prisoners were executed in the 1988 massacre - a far larger number than previously suspected. Secret documents smuggled out of Iran reveal that, because of the large numbers of necks to be broken, prisoners were loaded onto forklift trucks in groups of six and hanged from cranes in half-hourly intervals.

Gruesome details are contained in the memoirs of Grand Ayatollah Hossein-Ali Montazeri, The Memoirs of Grand Ayatollah Hossein Ali Montazeri, one of the founders of the Islamic regime. He was once considered Khomeini's anointed successor, but was deposed for his outspokenness, and is now under house arrest in the holy city of Qom.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2001/02/04/wir
an04.xm

Friends of yours ?

Joo Rip Gwa Rhhee

Joined: 25 May 2003

Posted: Sat Sep 01, 2007 11:39 pm Post subject:

"Dome Vans"]

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.

ANSWER

Quote:

]A 1991 DIA report, since declassified, concluded definitively, "Iraq is known to have employed ... a blood agent, hydrogen cyanide gas (HCN) ... against Iranian soldiers, civilians, and Iraqi Kurdish civilians.

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."

The DIA said Saddam could produced that gas , futhermore.

Quote:

By the looks of it that's all the convincing you need as well.

You are losing

[/quote]

[

Quote:

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.

[/quote]

Quote:

The New Republic Online
History Lessen
by Spencer Ackerman
Only at TNR Online
Post date: 02.04.03

It is by now a well-established fact that chemical weapons claimed the lives of over 5,000 Kurds in the northern Iraqi town of Halabja on March 16, 1988. It is equally well-established that responsibility for this atrocity lies with Saddam Hussein. Indeed, there is virtual unanimity among the dozens of journalists, government delegations, and international human rights groups who have investigated the matter that Halabja was the first frightful act of Saddam's Anfal campaign, a genocide that consumed almost 100,000 Kurds in all. Yet according to a chilling and incoherent op-ed published in Friday's New York Times, Saddam had nothing to do with the massacre after all.

The author of this revisionist account is Stephen C. Pelletiere, a retired Army War College professor who served as a senior Iraq analyst for the Central Intelligence Agency during the Iran-Iraq war. Pelletiere is the co-author of the 1990 book Iraqi Power and U.S. Security in the Middle East, which concluded that Iranian gas, not Iraqi gas, murdered the Kurds at Halabja. In his Times op-ed Pelletiere recycles this argument, only this time against the backdrop of a second war with Saddam. He's no more convincing today than he was 13 years ago.

Pelletiere begins by reprising the usual facts--namely, that Halabja was the site of an intense battle between Saddam and the Iranians. He first concedes that Iraq did use chemical weapons, but argues that the Iranians did as well. The Kurdish victims of the chemicals "had the misfortune to be caught up in the exchange." Pelletiere then cites a Defense Intelligence Agency (DIA) report, issued shortly after Halabja, to support his conclusion that Iranian gas killed the Kurds. His evidence? The Kurdish corpses "indicated that they had been killed with a blood agent," which the Iraqis, "who are thought to have used mustard gas in the battle, are not known to have possessed."

But this claim is wildly implausible. First, interviews by international human rights groups with scores of Halabja survivors reveal no such confusion about who deployed the chemicals. Kurds who were outside their houses during the mid-morning attack "could see clearly that these were Iraqi, not Iranian aircraft, since they flew low enough for their markings to be legible," concluded Human Rights Watch in its 1993 report Genocide In Iraq. In any case, the argument for Iranian culpability neglects the logistics of the Halabja battle itself. The Iranians, who controlled the town on March 15, would have no reason to use chemical agents against the Iraqi counteroffensive on March 16, since the Iraqis retaliated with air strikes and placed no soldiers on the ground against whom such weapons could be used.

Second, even if the victims died of exposure to blood agents, this would be perfectly consistent with the claim of Iraqi responsibility. A 1991 DIA report, since declassified, concluded definitively, "Iraq is known to have employed ... a blood agent, hydrogen cyanide gas (HCN) ... against Iranian soldiers, civilians, and Iraqi Kurdish civilians." Nonetheless, it is far more likely, according to the standard accounts of the attack on Halabja, that mustard gas and the nerve agents sarin and tabun--and perhaps even VX and the biological agent aflatoxin, which the Iraqis were also known to possess--were the instruments of Kurdish murder. For example, Human Rights Watch noted that survivors excreted blood-streaked urine, "consistent with exposure to both mustard gas and a nerve agent such as Sarin."

Third, the 1988 DIA report Pelletiere cites to pin Halabja on the Iranians was not the end of the DIA's inquiry. The DIA's April 19, 1988 cable--a month after Halabja--took note of the fact that the Iraqis were already forcibly resettling "an estimated 1.5 million Kurdish nationals," including "an unknown but reportedly large number of Kurds [who] have been placed in 'concentration camps' located near the Jordanian and Saudi Arabian borders." This in mind, the far more plausible story is that Halabja was part of a concerted effort to settle the Kurdish problem "once and for all," in the words of an October 24, 1988 DIA report--by wiping out the Iraqi Kurdish population.

This brings us to the biggest problem with Pelletiere's argument: If the Kurds were legitimate battlefield casualties, why is it Saddam subsequently felt the need to slaughter nearly 100,000 more of them? Pelletiere writes that any other examples of Saddam's chemical deployment on Kurdish victims "must show that [the dead Kurds] were not pro-Iranian Kurdish guerillas who died fighting alongside Iranian Revolutionary guards." But even if Saddam's goal was to root out traitors, it's inconceivable that all or even most of the residents of the dozens of Kurdish villages Saddam subsequently razed were treacherous peshmerga, or that Saddam believed this to be the case. Certainly the testimony of hundreds of Kurdish refugees, who have provided remarkably consistent accounts of the genocide despite being dispersed from Iran to Turkey, refute this. So does the fact that Saddam kept gassing the Kurds after signing the August 20, 1988 ceasefire with Iran, as Samantha Power points out in her 2002 book, A Problem From Hell. And in unguarded moments, members of Saddam's regime have given lie to this rationale as well. Saddam's cousin Ali Hassan al-Majid, entrusted to carry out the Kurdish slaughter, was caught on tape at a Ba'athist meeting in May 1988 boasting about the Kurds, "I will kill them all with chemical weapons! Who is going to say anything? The international community? *beep* them!" (Human Rights Watch believes the tape is mislabeled, recording a conversation that really took place in 1987--i.e., before Halabja.)

What's perhaps most infuriating, though, is that Pelletiere is now reviving his decade-old hobbyhorse as a cynical argument against war with Iraq. "President Bush himself has cited Iraq's 'gassing its own people,' specifically at Halabja, as a reason to topple Saddam Hussein," Pelletiere writes. Considering the Bush administration's "lack of a smoking gun" in the U.N. weapons inspections, he continues, "perhaps the strongest argument left for taking us to war quickly is that Saddam Hussein has committed human rights atrocities against his own people."

Even if Pelletiere had his facts straight on Halabja, his would be a noxious and dishonest argument against war. To begin with, it is an insult to the principled antiwar critics who recognize and condemn Saddam's record of genocide but who still oppose an invasion of Iraq. One such critic is Maryland Democratic Representative Chris Van Hollen, who as a staffer for the Senate Foreign Relations Committee in September 1988 visited Kurdish refugees in Turkey to determine what had happened in Kurdistan. Van Hollen's team documented Iraqi chemical attacks on 49 Kurdish villages, leading him to conclude that "at the end of the Iran-Iraq war, all evidence pointed to the fact that [Saddam] used chemical weapons against the Kurds." More important, though, Van Hollen grasps the distinction that eludes Pelletiere, which is that while Bush invokes the Kurdish genocide in his brief against Saddam, the president does so to establish Saddam's willingness to use weapons of mass destruction, not to argue that, as Pelletiere ludicrously puts it, "we go to war over Halabja." The only one fighting a war over Halabja, it seems, is Stephen Pelletiere. And it's one he'd lost before it had even begun.
Spencer Ackerman , a former associate editor of The New Republic, is a senior correspondent for The American Prospect.

http://www.tnr.com/docprint.mhtml?i=foreign&s=ackerman020403

]A 1991 DIA report, since declassified, concluded definitively, "Iraq is known to have employed ... a blood agent, hydrogen cyanide gas (HCN) ... against Iranian soldiers, civilians, and Iraqi Kurdish civilians.

Now what do you say?

Come on.

contrarian

Joined: 20 Jan 2007
Location: Nearly in NK

Posted: Sat Sep 01, 2007 11:52 pm Post subject:

As I have said before, whether the US found WMDs or not. They fooun Saddam the Insane. Uday and Qsay. Look at Joo's quote above they were weapons of mass destruction. Darn, and its not even Bush's fault.

JMO

Joined: 18 Jul 2006
Location: Daegu

Posted: Sun Sep 02, 2007 12:03 am Post subject:

contrarian wrote:

As I have said before, whether the US found WMDs or not. They fooun Saddam the Insane. Uday and Qsay. Look at Joo's quote above they were weapons of mass destruction.

Darn, and its not even Bush's fault.

Rolling Eyes

I think they could go into several countries around the world and find guys just as bad. Go get them boys! Americaaaa F*ck yea.

Joo Rip Gwa Rhhee

Joined: 25 May 2003

Posted: Sun Sep 02, 2007 12:04 am Post subject:

Was it Iran, rather than Iraq, that used poison gas on Kurdish civilians?

Quote:

Another persistent myth in wide circulation is that Iraq never used poison gas against Kurdish civilians, a point often cited by those opposed to war. The main source of this myth is a series of articles, including a January New York Times op-ed by former CIA Iraq analyst Stephen Pelletiere (who, along with two co-authors, has also written a book on the subject). The argument centers on a 1988 attack on the northern Iraq village of Halabja in which thousands of Kurdish civilians were killed. Pelletiere contends that it was Iranian gas rather than Iraqi gas which killed the Kurds, a point he substantiates by citing a US Defense Intelligence Agency (DIA) report produced shortly after the attack which reaches that conclusion. His key piece of evidence is that "The condition of the dead Kurds' bodies, however, indicated they had been killed with a blood agent - that is, a cyanide-based gas - which Iran was known to use. The Iraqis, who are thought to have used mustard gas in the battle, are not known to have possessed blood agents at the time." In a letter to the New York Review of Books, Pelletiere and two other authors go even further, denying that Iraq ever used gas against Kurdish civilians.

Pelletiere's claims are contradicted by an overwhelming body of evidence from multiple sources. Eyewitness accounts, including those cited in a 1993 Human Rights Watch report and survivors quoted in a 2002 New Yorker article, point to Iraqis as the source of the gas. In addition, as Spencer Ackerman of the New Republic has pointed out, survivors of the gas attack had symptoms consistent with exposure to mustard gas or the nerve gas Sarin. And - in direct contradiction to Pelletiere - a 1991 DIA report noted that Iraq did, in fact, possess hydrogen cyanide gas (though it is not likely that they used it at Halabja).

Other less direct evidence also points to the likelihood that it was Iraq, not Iran, who gassed the Kurds in Halabja. Human Rights Watch obtained a tape of Ali Hassan al-Majid, the Iraq commander in charge of the campaign, telling Iraqi politicians in 1987 or 1988 that "I will kill them all [the Kurds] with chemical weapons!" Moreover, Iraq waged a brutal campaign against Kurdish civilians in 1987 and 1988, killing at least 50,000, according to Human Rights Watch. And Physicians for Human Rights has proven conclusively through chemical analysis of soil samples that Iraq used Sarin against Kurdish civilians on at least one occasion.

http://www.spinsanity.org/columns/20030320.html

Display posts from previous:

	Korean Job Discussion Forums Forum Index -> Current Events Forum	All times are GMT - 8 Hours Goto page Previous 1, 2, 3, 4 Next
Page 3 of 4

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

TEFL International Supports Dave's ESL Cafe