- Joined
- Jun 23, 2009
- Messages
- 133,631
- Reaction score
- 30,937
- Location
- Bagdad, La.
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Very Conservative
I'm glad someone got the joke.
Slow down, boys. Wiseone ain't in the mood.
I'm glad someone got the joke.
That's quite a serious charge. Exactly how did the United States 'aid and abet' Saddam Hussein in genocide?
"On June 9, 1992, Ted Koppel reported on ABC's Nightline, "It is becoming increasingly clear that George Bush, operating largely behind the scenes throughout the 1980s, initiated and supported much of the financing, intelligence, and military help that built Saddam's Iraq into" the power it became",[5] and "Reagan/Bush administrations permitted—and frequently encouraged—the flow of money, agricultural credits, dual-use technology, chemicals, and weapons to Iraq."
United States support for Iraq during the Iran
"The National Security Archive at George Washington University has published a series of declassified U.S. documents detailing the U.S. embrace of Saddam Hussein in the early 1980’s. The collection of documents, published on the Web, include briefing materials, diplomatic reports of two Rumsfeld trips to Baghdad, reports on Iraqi chemical weapons use during the Reagan administration and presidential directives that ensure U.S. access to the region's oil and military expansion."
"the documents we recently posted on the Internet demonstrate that the administration had U.S. intelligence reports indicating that Iraq was using chemical weapons, both against Iran and against Iraqi Kurdish insurgents, in the early 1980s, at the same time that it decided to support Iraq in the war. So U.S. awareness of Iraq's chemical warfare did not deter it from initiating the policy of providing intelligence and military assistance to Iraq. There were shipments of chemical weapons precursors from several U.S. companies to Iraq during the 1980s, but the U.S. government would deny that it was aware that these exports were intended to be used in the production of chemical weapons."
"I believe that when the U.S. became aware of Iraq's chemical weapons use it should have used what influence it had to stop it. Doing so was actually incumbent upon the U.S. under international law. I believe the U.S. should have used its international influence, which is enormous, to do everything it could to end this war. It was an atrocity, resulting in hundreds of thousands of casualties."
"The U.S., which followed developments in the Iran-Iraq war with extraordinary intensity, had intelligence confirming Iran's accusations, and describing Iraq's "almost daily" use of chemical weapons, concurrent with its policy review and decision to support Iraq in the war [Document 24]. The intelligence indicated that Iraq used chemical weapons against Iranian forces, and, according to a November 1983 memo, against "Kurdish insurgents" as well [Document 25].
Washingtonpost.com: Live Online
I am torn on this. Maybe firing a few cruise missiles into Libya is OK, but I have a bad feeling that this is going to lead to "advisers", which are really boots on the ground. Why in hell do WE always have to be the world police? Arab nations were begging for us to do this. So why the hell didn't they take care of their own damn problem, and send in their own military? After all, it's THEIR back yard.
Is that how Saddam got all those Soviet weapons? Bought them from the United States?
I am torn on this. Maybe firing a few cruise missiles into Libya is OK, but I have a bad feeling that this is going to lead to "advisers", which are really boots on the ground. Why in hell do WE always have to be the world police? Arab nations were begging for us to do this. So why the hell didn't they take care of their own damn problem, and send in their own military? After all, it's THEIR back yard.
The only time a nuclear bomb was used was when a Democrat ordered it. And of course the Democrats also declared both World Wars.
At least when the Republicans get involved in wars it's all about oil. The Left can't even use that excuse.
You have nothing to say about the US building Saddam's Iraq into the power it became, in full knowledge of their chemical weapon use against Iran and its own people?
The best you can offer in defense is the Russians were doing it too?
According to several here, Khadafi is just too powerful for the world too handle without the US. :roll:
Indeed a PEOPLE'S REVOLUTION STARTED by the socialist left and the Internet. Funny this all started as a protest against Capitalism and the Military Industrial Complex....but WHO YOU GONNA CALL ON when the PROTESTING begins to shed blood? The Good old USA and its Mititary Industrial Complex purchased through the doctrine of Capitalism. Do you think that WAR is any different simply because you wish to spin a supposed HUMANITRAIAN sphere of propaganda around it? Its the HYPOCRISY that I am pointing out and the ILLOGICAL EXTREMES that the non critical thinking left will go to in burying themselves simply to prove they know how to use a shovel. It all started from the NET from a place headquartered in NY and funded by the PROGRESSIVE MOVEMENT.
I would be the first to agree that this megalomanic should be removed from power, but don't be HYPOCRITIAL in the nature in which ALL DESPOTS must be removed.....there are no PEACEFUL full scale protest movements, i.e., REVOLUTIONS....its VIOLENCE period, Just as we are finding out when push comes to shove. What, did you characters really expect these theolgicial and secular despots alike were going to simply lay down their scepters because of a political movement regardless of the numbers involved? There is NOTHING HUMANE about war.
There is documented evidence that some of these events where planned and executed with the help of certain US GOVERNMENT agencies and with the help of funding by George Soros' "Open Society Foundations".
It's not war. There have been no formal declarations of war. They are safeguarding the interests of the civilians of Libya. Again, it's not war.
With no troops on the ground this is a waste of time and money. No one is planning to put troops on the ground in Libya, so we aren't supporting anything. This is just a very expensive exercise in futility.
"On June 9, 1992, Ted Koppel reported on ABC's Nightline, "It is becoming increasingly clear that George Bush, operating largely behind the scenes throughout the 1980s, initiated and supported much of the financing, intelligence, and military help that built Saddam's Iraq into" the power it became",[5] and "Reagan/Bush administrations permitted—and frequently encouraged—the flow of money, agricultural credits, dual-use technology, chemicals, and weapons to Iraq."
United States support for Iraq during the Iran
"The National Security Archive at George Washington University has published a series of declassified U.S. documents detailing the U.S. embrace of Saddam Hussein in the early 1980’s. The collection of documents, published on the Web, include briefing materials, diplomatic reports of two Rumsfeld trips to Baghdad, reports on Iraqi chemical weapons use during the Reagan administration and presidential directives that ensure U.S. access to the region's oil and military expansion."
"the documents we recently posted on the Internet demonstrate that the administration had U.S. intelligence reports indicating that Iraq was using chemical weapons, both against Iran and against Iraqi Kurdish insurgents, in the early 1980s, at the same time that it decided to support Iraq in the war. So U.S. awareness of Iraq's chemical warfare did not deter it from initiating the policy of providing intelligence and military assistance to Iraq. There were shipments of chemical weapons precursors from several U.S. companies to Iraq during the 1980s, but the U.S. government would deny that it was aware that these exports were intended to be used in the production of chemical weapons."
"I believe that when the U.S. became aware of Iraq's chemical weapons use it should have used what influence it had to stop it. Doing so was actually incumbent upon the U.S. under international law. I believe the U.S. should have used its international influence, which is enormous, to do everything it could to end this war. It was an atrocity, resulting in hundreds of thousands of casualties."
"The U.S., which followed developments in the Iran-Iraq war with extraordinary intensity, had intelligence confirming Iran's accusations, and describing Iraq's "almost daily" use of chemical weapons, concurrent with its policy review and decision to support Iraq in the war [Document 24]. The intelligence indicated that Iraq used chemical weapons against Iranian forces, and, according to a November 1983 memo, against "Kurdish insurgents" as well [Document 25].
Washingtonpost.com: Live Online
I can't disagree. The rebs can't win the war on the ground and we can't win a war from the air. The reality of the battlefield.
I have to disagree, as the rebs have people who are willing and ready to fight, they just don't have the weapons that the government does.
Saddam bought his weaponry from the Soviets. Now, that being a fact, where does it make the most sense as to where he got his chemical weapons? thiiiiink about iiiiiiit!
Still sticking with the Russia did it too defense I see.
"On May 25, 1994, the U.S. Senate Banking Committee released a report in which it was stated that "pathogenic (meaning 'disease producing'), toxigenic (meaning 'poisonous'), and other biological research materials were exported to Iraq pursuant to application and licensing by the U.S. Department of Commerce." It added: "These exported biological materials were not attenuated or weakened and were capable of reproduction."[30]
The report then detailed 70 shipments (including Bacillus anthracis) from the United States to Iraqi government agencies over three years, concluding "It was later learned that these microorganisms exported by the United States were identical to those the UN inspectors found and recovered from the Iraqi biological warfare program."
United States support for Iraq during the Iran
Actually Egypt is arming rebels
I have to disagree, as the rebs have people who are willing and ready to fight, they just don't have the weapons that the government does.
With no troops on the ground this is a waste of time and money. No one is planning to put troops on the ground in Libya, so we aren't supporting anything. This is just a very expensive exercise in futility.
Are they training them, too? Without the training, the weapons are almost useless.
Even if that is there intention is not to put troops on the ground they should not have told Gadaffi. It's safe to say that was a sop to any potential critics who feel that a war should be fought without anyone getting hurt.
Have they announced their 'exit strategy' yet?