Revmitchell said:
I didnt say there was gas used in any war. I wasnt trying to make a chronological list. But I will be more specific so one does not get lost.
Gas was used in the Iraqi-Iranian war, on both sides, iirc.
RM said:
Saddam was a dictator who forced his way into power. The insurrectionsts as you say were those who Saddam was abusing on a regular basis. If you were not of the same origin as saddam you were treatd very poorly.
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.
RM said:
Those graves were not just the folks who stood against him. They were his people which he had killed almost daily for many reasons. Saddam is not a victim but an evil dictator that commited hundreds of thousands of needless murders.
Who has called Saddam a victim? Strawman, for shame. Is it honest of you to imply that I have?
RM said:
He ruled with an Iron fist through fear, murder, terror, and chemical weapons.
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.
RM said:
So as a result of this and his willingness to invade other soveriegn nations he was a threat to the whole world. Not just Isreal, Not just his surrounding countries.
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.
RM said:
He was being forced to give up his chemical weapons because he had a history of using them not just for defense but for agression. He murdered hundreds of thoudands of people most of which the rest of the world chose to ignore. It wasnt until it became politically beneficial did any one have any concern for dying Iraqi people.
The great majority of his chemical weapons were destroyed in the first Gulf War. Bush sr. is not given enough credit.
RM said:
Bush moves in after 12 years of a failed strategy of UN Inspections. Now people are concerned for the deaths of Iraqi people.
Why? Because it is an opportunity to bash the President of the United States who is a conservative that cares not for communism.
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.
RM said:
You see I understand the concern and reluctance for war. And I understand that there are those who will never agree to it under any circumstances. I disagree that war is never necessary. But I respect those who disagree with me. Until they use politics, demonization, revisionism, and hate mongering as tools to fight against what they disagree with.
Oddly, those are the tools that you use.
RM said:
I dont mind debating issues but working to twist my words to win a point is intellectually dishonest.
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.