Wow, is this true???? Iraq related

The thing about politics are as followed. For every news article that someone says is correct, I am sure there are 100 more that will prove that one wrong.

My point? Do we ever know the truth? We just have to believe what is out there. and of course people will believe what they want too.

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.

At the same time the Reagan administration was facilitating the supply of weapons and military components to Baghdad, it was attempting to cut off supplies to Iran under " Operation Staunch." Those efforts were largely successful, despite the glaring anomaly of the 1986 Iran-contra scandal when the White House publicly admitted trading arms for hostages, in violation of the policy that the United States was trying to impose on the rest of the world.

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.

The fact that Iraq was using chemical weapons was hardly a secret. In February 1984, an Iraqi military spokesman effectively acknowledged their use by issuing a chilling warning to Iran. " The invaders should know that for every harmful insect, there is an insecticide capable of annihilating it . . . and Iraq possesses this annihilation insecticide."

Thanks LuLu

The thing to consider about the circumstances, is that many of the decisions in the 80' s were based on cold war alignment strategy so it is difficult to judge the actions based on today' s circumstances no one knew how events would unfold.

The United States was very friendly with Germany, in fact
we sold them steel and had a good trade relations as we did to Japan oil and steel so the same argument could be used that we helped to arm them and prepare them for the war which is true.. because circumstances were different before the war.

ORIGINAL: deaddrahma

The key here is to stick to your guns. Repeat your facts over and over and over. Consistency is his enemy, steadiness his bane. Keep your arguments short, factual, and always cite your sources, and he will slowly drop the arguments he knows he' ll lose. Eventually, all that will be left is a personal attack, the kernal of his intent. Once you have stripped him to this state, point and laugh at him, and he' ll go away.

Ah yes deaddrahma, right now I see that he has already dropped the Iraq argument, taken me to Iran, and is now telling me about the dictatorship of Shah. For personal attacks, he' s already sarcastically accused me of being anti-american on multiple occasions.

I guess I' m supposed to point and laugh at him now, but then I would be vulnerable to more personal attacks, possibly even worse than being accused an anti-american.

ORIGINAL: Phylum Tardigrada

Thanks LuLu

you are welcome.

ORIGINAL: Phylum Tardigrada



I get sick and tired of people blaming the US for taking part in what is reality survival, something that countries all around the world do.

I agree with you on this one. Countries have a right to do this. But, why have we turned into the country that feels that everyone has to abide by our rules.

If we have a right to arm ourselves, why don' t the people of Iraq have the same right? How would we feel if weapons inspectors came onto our shores and nothing was sacred while they were here? Are we all of a sudden the " police" of all other countries?

When it comes to weapons of mass destruction, can any of us honestly say that our govenment has nothing to hide from us or the rest of the world?

Peace would be nice. The people if Iraq feel threatened at this point. Can you blame them? I don' t. I feel threatened everytime GW gives a speech.

Iraq does not have the same right as virtually the rest of the world to arm themselves because they told the rest of the world in the past that they wouldn' t.

Although, the true meaning of disarmament (sp?) is Lulu' s smile. Call me a sap or whatever, but I hate to argue against you dude!

I agree with you on the W. Bush speeches. " God is on our side" opens up an entire new can o' worms, and I can' t believe how easily the media let him get away with that. That can so easily be misconstrued as religion vs. religion, no matter what the true intent was.

ORIGINAL: CarletonBComm

Iraq does not have the same right as virtually the rest of the world to arm themselves because they told the rest of the world in the past that they wouldn' t.

Although, the true meaning of disarmament (sp?) is Lulu' s smile. Call me a sap or whatever, but I hate to argue against you dude!

I agree with you on the W. Bush speeches. " God is on our side" opens up an entire new can o' worms, and I can' t believe how easily the media let him get away with that. That can so easily be misconstrued as religion vs. religion, no matter what the true intent was.

Why, thank you sir. Have we met?

I' m not in the mood to argue either. The compliment was nice.

His speeches are something else. Glad someone else is paying attention to what this man is saying, along with, " we are going to bomb Iraq."

ORIGINAL: Phylum Tardigrada

I get really tired of the lack of truth in some of these posts.
First we did not arm Saddam Hussein in the war between Iran and Iraq.

Well wot aboot this then

Among the people instrumental in tilting U.S. policy toward Baghdad during the 1980-88 Iran-Iraq war was Donald H. Rumsfeld, now defense secretary.

Thats the vision that I saw or should I say eye sore. Its like trying to take a bat on both opposing teams - sooner or later your gunna wear that bat across your scone.

Personally I' m glad I' m south of the equator as you guys all seem to be duking it out.

LuLu -

I agree with you on this one. Countries have a right to do this. But, why have we turned into the country that feels that everyone has to abide by our rules.

Because Iraq isn' t led by a free system of government, they' re led by a dictatorship, a man who has no qualms about using weapons of mass destruction. We exist in a time where countries who could not even consider having nuclear technology can. Think about at the start of WWII when the USA was using Horses as it' s form of moving equipment and warfare still, but Germany had mechanized war machines... we had to scramble to try and produce technology to fight the war. Now there are countries who in the 80' s and 90' s still used middle WWII and end of WWII technology because countries like the Soviet Union sold off a lot of what they had, of course they' re not the only ones, not to mention a lot of stuff was abandonded by countries since expense to move equipment wasn' t worth the cost.

Now how ever we' re entering an age where us the USA can use advanced methods of warfare, such as sound waves, lasers, ect.. and the older technology that not long ago seemed so impossible to have if you weren' t a super powers is not possible. Imagine what happens if Iraq successfully builds nukes, they have mass produced chemical and biological weapons, they have used them to kill millions in the time frame Saddam has been in power. Now can you not imagine Saddam Hussein if approached by a terrorist group that lets say... wants to buy one of those Nukes to hit Isreal with, or the United States? Or someplace in Europe? Do you seriously think Saddam will say no?

If we have a right to arm ourselves, why don' t the people of Iraq have the same right? How would we feel if weapons inspectors came onto our shores and nothing was sacred while they were here? Are we all of a sudden the " police" of all other countries?

The United States doesn' t make it policy to simply go around and invade others for no reason, how ever Dictators like Saddam don' t follow the same rules. What do you think Hitler, or Stalin would have done with nukes? Do you think they' d just have them to have them? Or do you think they' d use them? Saddam is no better.

When it comes to weapons of mass destruction, can any of us honestly say that our govenment has nothing to hide from us or the rest of the world?

Please show me one Government that gives all information about all its actions freely, you' ll not find one.

Peace would be nice. The people if Iraq feel threatened at this point. Can you blame them? I don' t. I feel threatened everytime GW gives a speech.

Of course peace would feel nice, just like I' m sure the people of Iraq would think it' d be nice if they didn' t have entire family' s of women and children slaughtered because one person is claimed a political prisoner, or thousands being gassed by their own leader. Do you think that in Desert Storm Iraqi soldiers that surrendered by the thousands to news reporters did so because they were feeling as if they loved their country and their leader?

I hate it when people use the knowledge of the now and the environment of the now to try and insult the history. The Soviets would litterally throw men in front of German machine gun positions and force them to charge or they would shoot them themselves, pretty damn harsh, but the Soviets didn' t fall to Germany did it, no, it held it at a heavy price and eventually drove the German lines back. I could point out so many things in history that in the now seem like contradictions, or seem wrong but at that point in time it was the best course of action or the right choice.

Okay, there are quite a few things I REALLY don' t agree with you on here, but I' m not going to argue with you after you flamed me.

Consider yourself the victor!

ORIGINAL: Phylum Tardigrada

jimboxxx -

Why instead don' t you provide a list of military equipment that Iraq has that was made by the United States, why don' t you show that the United States specifically intended to arm Iraq in order to crush Iran, why don' t you give evidence that shows our goal was to help the Soviet Union in it' s campaign to assist Iraq against Iran... instead of posting simply gremlins.

Because it' s not as readily available on the internet:
Following Desert Storm, the Iraqi Air Force was estimated to include:
http://www.fas.org/nuke/guide/iraq/agency/af.htm


The Shah' s military listened to Carter. All of them
were murdered in one of the Ayatollah' s first acts.
http://www.newsmax.com/archives/articles/2002/5/12/164726.shtml

PT is what' s known as a forum monger. It' s like a war monger, but instead of missles, he uses words.

No PT is a Plagiarist!

I " love" when people just shout out all this rhetoric as if it were their own words. Make an argument and support your argument by " cut & paste" ! Wow, I' m impressed!

ORIGINAL: Phylum Tardigrada
The thing to consider about the circumstances, is that many of the decisions in the 80' s were based on cold war alignment strategy so it is difficult to judge the actions based on today' s circumstances no one knew how events would unfold.

Funny how just 1 page ago, you were CERTAIN, I mean you couldn' t have been clearer! Your words:

First we did not arm Saddam Hussein in the war between Iran and Iraq. We armed the Iranians. The Soviet Union supported the Iraqi Government and Military forces

So, if there was a cold war going on, and the USSR was arming Saddam, why was the US arming saddam too?

Again, your words:

Again, the concept we armed Iraq is false

But then, faced with overwhelimg, and well documented evidence, you choose to now play the card " Well, that was long a go, how were we supposed to konw" . I like how good of a figure skater you are. Get your facts straight, then argue.

Tell me, if the US can' t be held reponsible for it' s actions 15 years ago, why are you still wating to fight Iraq 10 years after the origial war?

Gerald -

Okay, there are quite a few things I REALLY don' t agree with you on here, but I' m not going to argue with you after you flamed me.

Consider yourself the victor!

It' s a debate of ideas, an exchange of information, thoughts, and you take it too personally when it' s not.

Perot -

But then, faced with overwhelimg, and well documented evidence, you choose to now play the card " Well, that was long a go, how were we supposed to konw" . I like how good of a figure skater you are. Get your facts straight, then argue.

Tell me, if the US can' t be held reponsible for it' s actions 15 years ago, why are you still wating to fight Iraq 10 years after the origial war?

We didn' t arm Iraq, Soviet Union and France did. The link above over and over show that all the military equipement used by Iraq was not US made. I think that in this the point is missed, did the US offer support to Iraq should be the question you pose, not did we " arm" them. Of course we offered a small amount of assistance, very miniscule in comparision to the Soviet Union, the reason being is we were providing Covert Aid to Iran in their war, it was a cat and mouse game, a tool used to spend the Soviet Union right out of the Cold War, and not any different then what took place from Cuba, Dominican Republic, Korea, Vietnamn, Afghanistan, and many other countries in the world where Soviet Expanionism would have changed the face of the world as we know it.

The biggest issue I take is the position that some have in regards to what happened in history as a tool to some how blacklist and bash it with out also giving the reasons for it at that time.

The point of the argument isn' t " Well it was long ago." The point of the argument is that circumstances change over time and different methods are used to approach different problems based on a desired outcome. Many of the greatest moments in history were done on huge risk or strange purpose, but at that time it was the needed course of action. The argument isn' t the fact whether or not the history happened, by why it was happening and that you can' t simply dice it anyway you choose to give a false supported argument.

STRAT -

No PT is a Plagiarist!

I " love" when people just shout out all this rhetoric as if it were their own words. Make an argument and support your argument by " cut & paste" ! Wow, I' m impressed!

Well, judging by the insults, I must be doing something right. Amusing how using real information and not just made up beliefs can be construed as negative. It is likely that no thought or words you' ve ever spoken have not been gotten from your own experiences and those written about by others, it' s called information, and is provided for the reading of others to see a different point of view.

The link is not working.

acos2 -

Which link?

Forget it. I was clicking the link, and it didn' t work. I tried to copy/paste the whole link and it worked fine.

ORIGINAL: Phylum Tardigrada
Snip....all of the above is obsolete and fiction at times.

Imagine what happens if Iraq successfully builds nukes, they have mass produced chemical and biological weapons, they have used them to kill millions in the time frame Saddam has been in power.

Still waiting for proof that your government promised months ago about there current possession of WMD. But as you are saying they used them, we ' ve got that problem solved.

Now can you not imagine Saddam Hussein if approached by a terrorist group that lets say... wants to buy one of those Nukes to hit Isreal with, or the United States? Or someplace in Europe? Do you seriously think Saddam will say no?

He probably will, because no country wants to diminish it' s defenses in such a significant way.
If a terrorist group wants nukes, they' ll probably steal them from a country that does not have the means to defend and guard it' s nukes. BTW, do you really believe any terrorist group need nukes, or even wants them? Plastic knives sufficed 2 and a half years ago.

The United States doesn' t make it policy to simply go around and invade others for no reason, how ever Dictators like Saddam don' t follow the same rules. What do you think Hitler, or Stalin would have done with nukes? Do you think they' d just have them to have them? Or do you think they' d use them? Saddam is no better.

How many countries actually used nukes?

Of course peace would feel nice, just like I' m sure the people of Iraq would think it' d be nice if they didn' t have entire family' s of women and children slaughtered because one person is claimed a political prisoner, or thousands being gassed by their own leader. Do you think that in Desert Storm Iraqi soldiers that surrendered by the thousands to news reporters did so because they were feeling as if they loved their country and their leader?

So why is an american opposing this we-must-bomb-iraq issue unamerican? why can' t there be no critique?
I' m guessing they surrendered because they would die if they didn' t.

I hate it when people use the knowledge of the now and the environment of the now to try and insult the history. The Soviets would litterally throw men in front of German machine gun positions and force them to charge or they would shoot them themselves, pretty damn harsh, but the Soviets didn' t fall to Germany did it, no, it held it at a heavy price and eventually drove the German lines back. I could point out so many things in history that in the now seem like contradictions, or seem wrong but at that point in time it was the best course of action or the right choice.

Your point being? War is good? All problems should be solved by the military?
I' m certain that the Germans did the same. You stated before that warfare was not the same half a century ago, this is how things were. I doubt there were a lot of people who were eager to die, and not going to war and disobeying orders in times of war are capital offenses. They still are.

DawnOfNone -

Are you Flemish or French?

First of all, they are called Walloons, not French.
Secondly, use a map.

Preparing for a personal attack, are you? Remember that you stated before that history is of no importance.

Its called determining why you have the positions you have. Thought you' d just tell me what you were, and if you were in the North or the South, but never mind, I' ll just assume you' re french.

Not too good at reading a map, are you?

My political opinions are not determined by geography, as I do not limit myself to local press, as far as the news is concerned. I watch the English, Dutch and French news broadcasts regularly , and the German news occasionally, in addition to the Belgian press, both Flemish and Walloon, and CNN.
My opinions are based on the fact that I do not necessarily take what my prime minister says as truth. I try to know what the rest of the world thinks about certain issues.
My opinions are also based on my own judgement and my own morale (which are represented in the Christian values and virtues, and ironically in the moderated muslim' s values and virtues as well).
On the issue of Iraq, I do believe all men are created equal. I do not see why thousands of Iraqi' s should die because of the dictator that oppresses them in the first place. I do not see proof that could justify such a war. My most recent information is that the White House will not provide this proof today as they had promised. This is what I base my opinions on, not where I live.
BTW, 80% of all Europeans are against a war with Iraq, I do not see the importance of my location at all.

The French aren' t 80% of europe. I also don' t believe that 80% of Europe is against the war, first I know for a fact Italy and Spain are behind us as well the US also has from what Bush has said 40 countries who are following and agree.

80% as a number from a survey taken in ALL of europe.
Think about this: 53% of all Britain is against a war. Blair does not speak for the majority of his people on that issue. Berlusconi is critised by the majority of the Italians. It is not because one person says something, all of the nation he represents agrees with him.

ORIGINAL: Phylum Tardigrada
first I know for a fact Italy and Spain are behind us as well

And who was Italy bakcing in WW II?

ORIGINAL: Perot

ORIGINAL: Phylum Tardigrada
first I know for a fact Italy and Spain are behind us as well

And who was Italy bakcing in WW II?

Better yet, who was Italy AND Spain backing in WWII? lol!

PEACE...

Jesus Christ, Phylum. I' ve never seen someone so nebulous and simply out to incite bullshit as you.

Sorry, man, but you don' t even know what you' re talking about, yet you have some preconceived notion that you' re this mastermind of information.

I highly recommend that no one even bother reading anything he has to say with regard to politics. Considering that' s all he even seems to talk about here... *shrugs*

I just get a kick out of how Perot spanked your ass, and then you turned around and went back to your original arguement. First, you argue that we never supplied Iraq, then you concede that we only did it because of cold war alignment, then you return to the never supplied arguement.

" That never happened, except that once, but that doesn' t count!"

What? Man, your logic is as twisted as DNA.

In regards to Italy.

Perhaps you should know something about history before you open your mouths. Italy had no choice in who they were to support, all those so called " supporters" had soldiers with Machine Guns pointed at them... gee sounds a lot like the Iraq of today.

And for your Spain comment:

http://www.ku.edu/~kantext/espora-l/msg00380.html

http://www.yale.edu/lawweb/avalon/wwii/spain/sp01.htm

In short, Spain did not enter the war, Hitler failed to recruit them, Hitler also intended to recruit Mexico... so what' s your point?


KorgX3 -

Perhaps before you open your mouth and get your pom-poms out of whack and attempt to slam me you should get your facts straight.

ORIGINAL: Phylum Tardigrada
Perhaps before you open your mouth and get your pom-poms out of whack and attempt to slam me you should get your facts straight.

Gimme an I! Gimme a D! Gimme an O! Gimme an I! Gimme a T! What' s that spell?!?!? PHYLUM!!!

LOL@Korg!!!

Phylum - Dare you even suggesting that Spain wasn' t openly sympathising with Germany? BTW I liked your remark about having to sympathise with Germany. It applies more to the current situation where half of Europe, and Britain not in the least, is economically dependent of the US.

Phylum - Dare you even suggesting that Spain wasn' t openly sympathising with Germany? BTW I liked your remark about having to sympathise with Germany. It applies more to the current situation where half of Europe, and Britain not in the least, is economically dependent of the US.

Well, I find it interesting that the French would try to evade the Germans by crossing into Spain, that even though Spain was assisted by Germany they did not enter the war.

So, out of curiousity, are you suggesting that Spain and Italy are backing the US now only because they support the likes of the Nazi Party in WWII? What exactly is the rational thought with the above statements?

The reality is, someone attempted to make some obscure point in regards to Italy and Spain and WWII, I posted the facts about it, and thats called not posting the facts? uhu.

I just said that it applies more to the now than to then.
The facts are that Italy and Spain, especially Italy, had extreme right-wing leaders at the time. They were pleased to see a rise of a right-wing dictator as Hitler.
Today, Berlusconi is very right-wing (he even made several racist remarks on several occasions), and him supporting a right-wing leader is not much of a surprise. I think the main motivation for most US supporting governments is found in economic laws.

Tired of the constant insulting and slamming, enjoy the *ahem* talks boys and girls I' m done.