• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Iran accused over Washington terror plot

Yes - mostly directed to you, but I wanted to point out that some folks are reading the links. And seriously, thanks for the links. It helps for a better quality debate.

Please look again at the quotes. Notice that Jaques Chirac says, "Today, a number of evidences may lead to think that, over the past four years, in the absence of international inspectors, this country has continued armament programs." This suggests he believed in a continuing arms program. NOT a halted program. Notice also that he says this in 2002, WELL AFTER "Clintion's people bombed Iraq."

Notice also that Al Gore's comment also happens in 2002, while Bush was gearing up to invade in 2003.

There are many comments there and MOST of them occur between 1998 and 2003, the time during which Inspectors were denied entry, and four long years during which nuclear, biological, and chemical production facilities could easily have been dismantled or converted.

If the police turn their backs to give a criminal the chance to throw away a smoking gun, they can hardly be surprised when they turn around and see the smoking gun is gone.

Chirac later says we didn't have the evidence. But, suggests isn't really enough. Continued armament progams is also not the same. If he's speaking of some convential weapons, which I think he is, he would be correct. However, we were largely talking about chemical weapons at the time. We were more concerned with Sarin gas for example and other such weapons. This Saddam did not have. He was largely contained and not the tyope of threat to justify the cost of removing him. It has to do with claims matching the intel.

Before we had left, we documented a large amount of distruction. There was likeihood that some were left over, but again, that was the claim. When we got to the intel, Bush's people ahd to reach beyond what we had. They used doubted intel to do that. They reach in and pulled out al Libi, a person who was tortured and told us what the CIA doubted he could even know. In made it into Bush argument for war. We used Curveball, who I linked was doubted. We also used Chalibi and his heros in error, someone who betrayed us once before. Remove this intel, and we had nothing.

Bush spoke as if we had the goods. He ignored doubts, from the tubes to moble labs to links to al Qaeda. He started with the answer, and tried to produce something to match his claim. He failed, so he just went with the doubt stuff.

We needed not what people thought, but what evidence they had. Despite what Chirc said he thought, he concluded we did not have the evidence to support such thinking. Shouldn't evidence be the critieria?
 
Yes, but having chemical weapons and using them on the Kurds and Iranians, is very much like being a criminal with a smoking gun.

And had we stopped him when he was using them, I'd have not objected. We didn't (you might look into Chalibi betraying us to Iran and how that played into us not backing the Kurds when we said we would).

To wait as long as we did, to let Iraqis suffer under sanctions, and then years later bring them war, well as I've said before, we simply added injury to injury.
 
France and Germany opposed the war because they were the primary suppliers of military hardware to Iraq.

Well, we sell a lot of weapons ourselves. But, you may well believe that because you want to believe that. Makes it convienent. Makes it so you don't have to question your conclusions.
 
Well, we sell a lot of weapons ourselves. But, you may well believe that because you want to believe that. Makes it convienent. Makes it so you don't have to question your conclusions.

The weaponry and goods and supplies needed to manufacture WMDs was primarily sold to Iraq by Germany (50%) and France (5%). Switzerland and Italy also provided 5% of Iraq's weaponry. The U.S. only supplied around 3.5% and that was mostly secondary electronics.

Facts are facts.
 
The weaponry and goods and supplies needed to manufacture WMDs was primarily sold to Iraq by Germany (50%) and France (5%). Switzerland and Italy also provided 5% of Iraq's weaponry. The U.S. only supplied around 3.5% and that was mostly secondary electronics.

Facts are facts.

Which disputes nothing I said. :coffeepap
 
Yes, but having chemical weapons and using them on the Kurds and Iranians, is very much like being a criminal with a smoking gun.

Like the US backed Iraq did during the Iran-Iraq War? However, isn't this getting off topic?
 
The weaponry and goods and supplies needed to manufacture WMDs was primarily sold to Iraq by Germany (50%) and France (5%). Switzerland and Italy also provided 5% of Iraq's weaponry. The U.S. only supplied around 3.5% and that was mostly secondary electronics.

Facts are facts.

"Facts are facts" and yet you provide no documentation.

The fact of the matter is that Iraq had no WMDs. (Iraq's WMD: Myth and Reality) (Report: No WMD stockpiles in Iraq - CNN) (BBC NEWS | Middle East | Report concludes no WMD in Iraq) Bush even admitted it. (President Bush Admits Iraq Had No WMDs and 'Nothing' to Do With 9/11) (Bush, Cheney admit Iraq had no WMD, take new tack | The San Diego Union-Tribune) The CIA admitted it. (CIA). Why do you insist on trying to turn a lie into the truth?
 
Like the US backed Iraq did during the Iran-Iraq War? However, isn't this getting off topic?

The U.S. had nothing to do with Iraq's gassing of the Iranians. The only thing the U.S. supplied was intelligence on Iranian troop movements.

And yes, it has gotten WAY off topic.
 
"Facts are facts" and yet you provide no documentation.

The fact of the matter is that Iraq had no WMDs. (Iraq's WMD: Myth and Reality) (Report: No WMD stockpiles in Iraq - CNN) (BBC NEWS | Middle East | Report concludes no WMD in Iraq) Bush even admitted it. (President Bush Admits Iraq Had No WMDs and 'Nothing' to Do With 9/11) (Bush, Cheney admit Iraq had no WMD, take new tack | The San Diego Union-Tribune) The CIA admitted it. (CIA). Why do you insist on trying to turn a lie into the truth?

And nothing you posted contradicted anything I claimed. Links are useless unless they pertain to the subject at hand.

If you didn't know the basic bit of information that I posted, here's the link.
 
The U.S. had nothing to do with Iraq's gassing of the Iranians. The only thing the U.S. supplied was intelligence on Iranian troop movements.

And yes, it has gotten WAY off topic.

Sure, that is the only thing the US provided. There was absolutely no US-Iraq chemical weapon link.
 
The fact of the matter is that Iraq had no WMDs.
That's not true as stated. They didn't have the WMD we were looking for though.


a.jpg
 
Absolutely correct.

Sarcasm is not your strong suit. Even if you think there was no connection, Iraq was using chemical weapons backed by US information. It was the US-backed Iraq that started that war.

This claim that Iran is a criminal for using chemical weapons on the Kurds is amusing, given the fact that our friend at the time, Saddam, was the one using chemical weapons on the Kurds backed by the US.
 
Sarcasm is not your strong suit. Even if you think there was no connection, Iraq was using chemical weapons backed by US information. It was the US-backed Iraq that started that war.

This claim that Iran is a criminal for using chemical weapons on the Kurds is amusing, given the fact that our friend at the time, Saddam, was the one using chemical weapons on the Kurds backed by the US.

Would love to see your proof of these allegations, because you are dead wrong. Daily Kos is not a good source of factual information.

Who claimed Iran gassed the Kurds?? Every one knows it was Iraq.
 
Would love to see your proof of these allegations, because you are dead wrong. Daily Kos is not a good source of factual information.

Who claimed Iran gassed the Kurds?? Every one knows it was Iraq.

Why do you lie? That is not a good way to have a conversation and already shows that you are biased with no intention of having an actual conversation, but I will entertain you this time. I never use the Kos for factual information and this whole tangent started from post #300, which in all reality was slightly ambiguous. However, since the topic was about Iran, I figured that the poster was referring to Iran.

Anyways, links
USATODAY.com - Report: U.S. supplied the kinds of germs Iraq later used for biological weapons
U.S. And Iraq Go Way Back - CBS News
Iraq and Chemical Weapons, the US Connection » Counterpunch: Tells the Facts, Names the Names
How Reagan Armed Saddam with Chemical Weapons » Counterpunch: Tells the Facts, Names the Names
Did the U.S. Help Saddam Acquire Biological Weapons
 
Last edited:
Why do you lie? That is not a good way to have a conversation and already shows that you are biased with no intention of having an actual conversation, but I will entertain you this time. I never use the Kos for factual information and this whole tangent started from post #300, which in all reality was slightly ambiguous. However, since the topic was about Iran, I figured that the poster was referring to Iran.

Anyways, links
USATODAY.com - Report: U.S. supplied the kinds of germs Iraq later used for biological weapons
U.S. And Iraq Go Way Back - CBS News
Iraq and Chemical Weapons, the US Connection » Counterpunch: Tells the Facts, Names the Names
How Reagan Armed Saddam with Chemical Weapons » Counterpunch: Tells the Facts, Names the Names
Did the U.S. Help Saddam Acquire Biological Weapons

You actually call a few newspaper articles proof ???

Surely you can do better than that.
 
That's not true as stated. They didn't have the WMD we were looking for though.


a.jpg

I'm never sure if they don't understand the difference, or if they do, but are trying to skate around the point. That applies to both sides of this debate.
 
Last edited:
Like covered in a national security decision-making class last week, that's anyone who knows anything's opinion at this point in time.

And anyone that disagrees with your opinion....is wrong? Who, exactly, came out in opposition to the available indications at the time?
 
And anyone that disagrees with your opinion....is wrong? Who, exactly, came out in opposition to the available indications at the time?

Many. I once provided a link to a panel who went to washington and clearly stated these objections. Washington and the press largely closed their eyes, ears and minds. As Powell noted, we had the fever.
 
Many. I once provided a link to a panel who went to washington and clearly stated these objections. Washington and the press largely closed their eyes, ears and minds. As Powell noted, we had the fever.

I missed that link, could you post it again please?
 
imho, the WMD are only meaningful in re the US going to war w/ Iraq if Iraq was going to use them against us.

Unless Iraq was going to attack us, what weapons it had or didn't have aren't that significant to the question whether or not we should have attacked them.

obviously, for some of you, ymmv
 
I missed that link, could you post it again please?

I'm not sure I want to search for it again. But if I get a chance later, I'll do a quick a look. Still, if you're impatient, you could do a search yourself. Up to you I suppose.
 
I'm not sure I want to search for it again. But if I get a chance later, I'll do a quick a look. Still, if you're impatient, you could do a search yourself. Up to you I suppose.

Oh, I have.
 
imho, the WMD are only meaningful in re the US going to war w/ Iraq if Iraq was going to use them against us.

Unless Iraq was going to attack us, what weapons it had or didn't have aren't that significant to the question whether or not we should have attacked them.

obviously, for some of you, ymmv

I tend to agree. Nealry every nation on the world has wmds. And it should be noted, we were not attacked by any wmds supplied by any nation. A group of men highjacked planes. They did not get weapons and use them against us. The premise was a bit of a leap to begin with.
 
Back
Top Bottom