The United States has found 500 chemical weapons in Iraq since 2003

*sigh* You got your wars confused. The people he gassed were the insurrectionists Kurds who sided with the Iranians during the Iraqi-Iranian war, a war that we urged on to spite the Iranians.

In the first Gulf War, no gas was used. In the second one neither. Kuwait was slant-drilling into the Iraqi oilfields. The US was informed before Kuwait was invaded. Our ambassador at the time, April Gillepsie, said something to the effect, "We are not interested in quarrels between brothers". Then, of course, we became interested.

He thought he did. He is not well-loved by his well-armed neighbors.

Saddam was not a good man, he had his little ways
Sometimes no one spoke to him for days and days and days
And men who came upon him while passing through the square
Gave him a supercilious stare and passed with noses in the air
While poor Saddam stood dumbly there blushing beneath his crown.

(apologies to A.A.Milne)

Yes he was. Reluctantly, but cooperating. Bush pulled them out so he could attack.

Did you read the report to the UN from the inspectors in 2003?

 

Can you say that with a straight face while looking in a mirror?

 

If anyone is truly interested in hearing experts from the CIA, and scientists in their field, about these issues, I highly recommend you find a copy of Robert Greenwald's film, "Uncovered: The War on Iraq".

Trailer at http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0rBpo7JEDGA

From the film, Peter Zimmerman said:

Complete transcript with all interviews at http://www.truthuncovered.com/UNCOVEREDtranscript.pdf

 

We don't know whether other inspectors accepted the bribes or not. We only know about them because Ekeus spilled the beans in his own case.

***

"If Saddam Hussein is unwilling to bend to the international community's already-existing order, then he will have invited enforcement, even if that enforcement is mostly at the hands of the United States, a right we retain even if the Security Council fails to act." -- John Kerry, Sept. 6, 2002, The New York Times.

***

"It would be naive to the point of great danger not to believe that, left to his own devices, Saddam Hussein will provoke, misjudge or stumble into a future, more dangerous confrontation with the civilized world. He has as much promised it . . . He has supported and harbored terrorist groups, particularly radical Palestinian groups such as Abu Nidal, and he has given money to families of suicide murderers in Israel . . . We should not go to war because these things are in his past, but we should be prepared to go to war because of what they tell us about the future." -- John Kerry, Oct. 9, 2002, Congressional Record.

***

"Without question, we need to disarm Saddam Hussein. He is a brutal and murderous dictator, leading an oppressive regime. And we all know the litany of his offenses. The reason I think we need to really think about him is because he presents a particularly grievous threat through the consistency with which he is prone to miscalculation. He miscalculated an eight-year war with Iran. He miscalculated the invasion of Kuwait. He miscalculated America's response to that act of naked aggression. He miscalculated the result of setting oil rigs on fire. He miscalculated the impact of sending scuds into Israel and trying to assassinate a former American President. He miscalculated his own military strength and he miscalculated the Arab world's response to his misconduct. And now he is miscalculating America's response to his continued deceit and his consistent grasp for weapons of mass destruction. That is why the world, through the United Nations Security Council, has spoken with one voice, demanding that Iraq disclose and destroy its weapons programs. So the threat of Saddam Hussein with weapons of mass destruction is real, but it's not new. Since the end of the Persian Gulf War we've known this." -- John Kerry, Jan. 23, 2003, Georgetown University.

 

Double post

 

Is that the same CIA whose evidently faulty intelligence led us into a war in Iraq?

 

The same CIA that didn't listen to its own agents. The intelligence system is obviously very broken.

 

While on the topic of revisionism did anyone see the link I posted further up the thread?

Google search results for > Dual-use exports USA Iraq <

While the U.S. wasn't anywhere near old Saddam Insane's biggest supplier, the fact that successive administrations allowed anything worse than a plastic knife through to him at all is a worry.

All through the 80s Insane was gassing, torturing, killing, burying & starving his own people and Iranians. After each event the U.S. promptly came to the defense of the victims with their "Stretch and Yawn" campaign. "Sure Saddam may not make our Christmas card list, but at least he is fighting Iran." Various web sites list "The enemy of my enemy is my friend" as being an Arab proverb, as a proverb it may be ok, but as a foreign policy it's a disaster.

When Gulf Wars I & II finally happened America showed that it had the power to easily deal with Saddam's army any time it wanted to...Hard part was getting it to want to. For years U.S. governments just shrugged off Saddam's treatment of the Iraqi people and the war with Iran. When U.S. oil interests were threatened via Kuwait though before you can sing "Here I come to save the dayyyy" they were in there.

If the first Gulf War was just about protecting America's oil interests, fair enough. If this new one is a continuation of the first, and if the alleged link between Saddam & Osama is genuine, doubly fair enough. But I don't buy for a second the claims made about it being "for the good of the Iraqi people", unless of course if after the war someone one day asks those who were in charge in 80s and did nothing a few serious questions.

We all know Mr Rumsfeld was lurking around back then, it got me wondering about how many other current members and senators were around at the same time. A bit of a web surf later and we have 28 senators and 71 members of the house who have been there since at least '86 (source congress.org).

I don't think this is a situation that should be just swept under carpet...Even "oopsie" doesn't cover it...

 

Gas was used in the Iraqi-Iranian war, on both sides, iirc.

Try reading up on the Kurds and their lack of a Kurdistan. After WWI, the Ottoman Empire was divided somwhat arbitrarily into Arab nations, Iran and Turkey. The Kurds were not given a Kurdistan, but they still want one. They are insurrectionists in Iran and Turkey as well as in Iraq. Turkey allowed us limited use of their land for the Iraqi invasion on the condition that we did NOT give Iraqi Kurds their own land (for fear that Turkish Kurds would be in a better position to secede. We agreed.

Who has called Saddam a victim? Strawman, for shame. Is it honest of you to imply that I have?

He also kept civil order and provided water, electricity, working sewers, hospitals, schools (for girls as well as boys), and kept the brigands at bay. Christians, Jews and Moslems lived in Iraq.

He was not a threat to the whole world. That is a totally unsupported statement. Iran and Iraq have had long running border disputes - the US supported Iraq in that war. As for Kuwait, it was slant-drilling into the Iraqi oilfields. The US was informed before Kuwait was invaded. Our ambassador at the time, April Gillepsie, said something to the effect, "We are not interested in quarrels between brothers". Then, of course, we became interested. I've repeated that as you didn't seem to get it before.

The great majority of his chemical weapons were destroyed in the first Gulf War. Bush sr. is not given enough credit.

The inspections were largely effective. If Bush had been content to let the inspectors do their job, he might have been hailed as the hero who brought stability to the area instead of being decried as the bumbler who further destabilized it. I think we people are concerned with the deaths of Iraqi people now because we are causing it. It's on-going.

Oddly, those are the tools that you use.

I'm sorry you think I've twisted your words as I don't believe I have. If you're going to call me dishonest, you should either back it up or apologize.

 

Chemical warfare agents were used on Kuwait by Iraq.

Im really not entirely sure what some of your are defending. The right for Saddam to wontonly decide that an entire population of people must die because he perceived them drilling for oil on his side of the border? (Now *that* war was about oil).

Or that an entire group of people must be put to death by experiencing the horrible throes of chemical exposure because they were too outspoken or wanted to decide to worship the way they wanted?

Please explain.

The facts are that Saddam did some things the whole world noticed and didnt like. He was warned, heavily opposed, and pushed back to his own country. Then he signed an agreement that he would disarm and allow inspectors in to ensure this was done. He thumbed his nose at that. His word was worth nothing. Then he suffered sanctions, which he claimed he didnt need the world's trade if it came from the great satan nation. And in the same turn he tried to make everyone feel bad for the children of Iraq that were dying because of no access to medicine.

When that didnt work, he threw out the few inspectors he allowed in (those that likely took bribes) and made midnight back door deals with other countries willing to agree to something on paper with the UN, but do something entirely different. When that didnt work out so well in regards to his cash flow, he heard al queada was shopping.

I ask what proof do some of you have that weapons were sold from the US to Saddam in the early days....and when exactly were those early days?

Id also like to see the proven documentation that the President knowingly told any lie to the American people. Some of you like a challenge, so there you go.

Id also like to know what you would do if these things, as old and useless as they are were being stored in a warehouse, close to your favorite grocery store or the local school?

 

Evidence?

In any case, the reference was to Revmitchell's, "This is just nonsense. Talk about revisionism. I suppose you missed the first Gulf War because Saddam invaded another soveriegn nation. He has gased his own people..."

So you're maintaining that the Kuwaitis were "his own people"?

Yeah, I couldn't help noticing that.

What makes you think that he was going to kill the entire population of Kuwaiti? It seemed to be a regular war, vicious and bloody as usual.

Huh? Now who are you talking about?

I'm trying to defend accuracy and the idea that there may be more than a single correct POV.

Al Qaeda didn't like Saddam as his government was secularist. Hamas liked Saddam, not al Qaeda.

The "knowingly" is a problem with Bush where it wouldn't be with other presidents who have a more active role in crafting their own speeches. It can be argued convincingly that Bush was merely ignorant of basic facts rather deceitful.

Now that's a little fib - no film clips of the first plane hitting the tower was aired until the next day. And we know he wasn't "whisked" out of there - he kept listening to the kid read "My Pet Goat" for another ten minutes. That's on film. I suppose you could argue that he forgot where he was when he learned the news of the attack.

The State Dept torture report came out in March 2005, but maybeeee Bush didn't read it.

Well, maybe he believed it even though a Pentagon factfinding group unanimously declared otherwise two days beforehand (link to WP article).

Are those the sort of things you mean?

Red herring.

 

:laugh:

Rev...it appears you are correct, as I suspected all along.

Fell short of every single subject thrown up there.

The cusp of the meaning of the original article (or why this is such a big fat deal):

Some quotes from the volumes of reports on chem weps in Kuwait used by Iraq (there is also tons on the calling cards Iraq left for the Kurds if youre interested, however I suspect that youre not):

Kuwait and Iraq are both countries with exorbinant amounts of environmental issues, one needs only to go outside to smell the air to know that. I havent been to Iran, but I suspect the same there.

I believe that Rev by mentioning the use of chem wpns "on his own people"...is possibly referring to the Kurds...which I dont think the Kurds would agree totally with that assessment, but whatever. Youve been wrong on Iraq many times, but nobody is putting you in the stocks for it. :smilewinkgrin:

Not many of us got the warm fuzzy that Saddam thought the people of Iraq were more than just subjects, evidenced by the fact of how such a country that could be experiencing an economic boom live in vile conditions. Id post a pic of that...but it would clearly violate the terms of this website, and make you all either incredibly sick or incredibly grateful of the mercy of our Lord that we werent born there.