War On Iraq

daveirl

This post has been deleted.

shotamoose

I don't support invading Iraq, because it's not justified in terms of the threat posed by Saddam versus the human costs (in the short and long terms) of invading with the intent of overthrowing the regime. Nor is it consistent with principles of international conduct or previous practise. The obvious hypocrisy is not in itself a reason for not invading but will definitely inflame opinion against the invaders and provide more support for terrorism. If America installs itself in Iraq I think they'll eventually turn their attentions to Iran, and I wouldn't even like to think about when that happens.

The US and UK will probably bomb the hell out of the country for a good while before invading. As for their tactics, I'd speculate that they'll try to take over large swathes of the countryside very quickly, overwhelming villages and small to medium sized towns with massive force. So they'll be able to block all supply routes and surround cities. What'll happen then is anyone's guess, as I don't know how firm the patriotic resolve of Iraqi soldiers will be when faced with imminent destruction.

daveirl

This post has been deleted.

DeVore

I'm not sure what their reasoning is behind attacking?

Have the inspectors found something ominous? Weren't they sent there to investigate? Surely we should be listening only to them... not Americans baying for blood.

I have no trouble with a preemptive war to prevent that nutter getting his hands on nukes etc but I think I'll want to be hearing it from the neutral people on the ground first... that is, after all, why we sent them.

DeV.

Xterminator

I agree with Dev there that 'neutral' weapons inspectors shoukld have the final say on whether Iraq is coming clean.#

If there not, then i think a UN sanctioned force should be sent in to topple him.

i alos think that a lot of people who oppose using force on saddam, gloss over the fact that a form of apartheid is in place in Iraq, where the the Saddam rules with brute force ., and those who oppsoe him, either politically, or who are unfortunate enogh to be born of the wrong tribe (eg Kurdish) have to suffer under the yolk of this man.

And this does not even touch on the opression of the women of iraq saw several women buried up tot he wiast and stoned to death recently) suffered daily in the name of Islam.

You am not agree with the reasons why the world community are will in to invade (OIL) but that does not make it wrong or immoral
to do so.

X

Link to site which discusses this topic in depth

X

Drazhar

George W Bush is the most corrupt man on EARTH. The only reason that he is invading Iraq is so he can get quicker access to the worlds oil.

The only reason he invaded Afghanistan was so he could build a pipeline across it. A Pipeline he was in negotiation with the Taliban to build a few years earlier when he was CEO of some Texan oil company. For feck sake, one of the former chairmen of the company is the Ambassador to afghanistan. The war on terror is a sweet excuse to get a strangle hold on the diminishing oil supplies.

Bush aint as dumb as everyone thinks. He's a sly, manipulative swine, unfortunately for him (funny for everyone else) he has the common sense of a turnip.

Now fair enuff, Iraq has violated a few UN accords. But has America not. America has a sh1t load of Nukes, Chemical and Biological weapons, plus the best propaganda machine ever (Hollywood).

The sooner the EU sorts itself out, and gives America the proverbial finger the better. George Bush will start a war, that war will kill us all.

DadaKopf

And this does not even touch on the opression of the women of iraq saw several women buried up tot he wiast and stoned to death recently) suffered daily in the name of Islam.

This isn't exactly true. Up until the late 80s, the Gulf War and sanctions, Iraq was one of the most progressive states in the middle east. Furthermore, Iraq is not a Muslim state; the Iraqi government is not the Taliban. Women are not legally discriminated against by the Iraqi state and women have and do occupy high positions in Iraqi business, education, health and government. That said, I'm not saying Iraq isn't a mysoginistic society, I'm merely pointing out the fact that the oppression of women is not state policy. Neither am I saying that human rights abuses don't happen in Iraq (many of which are commited by arms of the state).

What's going to happen is that there's going to be a war by February but America's strategy is still undecided since there's currently a disupute between State and Defence about how many troops to commit (100,000 versus 250,000). I do think it's unlikely, however, that the US is going to present its 'evidence' of a material breach to Hans Blix. Also, America is going to get restless waiting for a full report from a deliberately under-funded and understaffed weapons inspections team - this has always been a classic US strategy. America will use these two points to undermine the UN (again) and anyway, they've already got half their force over there now, anyway.

daveirl

This post has been deleted.

shotamoose

Originally posted by daveirl
Well I think the dogs on the street know that the man has Chem + Bio weapons. The inspectors of course are being hampered not by the Iraqi's but by the British/Americans. If they both *know* where the WMD's are then why won't they tell the Inspectors?

Indeed. And what exactly happens if and when the weapons inspectors find some WMD, say some stores of chemical weapons? Previously they destroyed them, but I keep getting the impression that the Americans would simply like them to find them, report it and pull out, so that the US can invade. Which seems rather absurd.

bugler

Originally posted by daveirl
If they both *know* where the WMD's are then why won't they tell the Inspectors?

I'm not sure if you are genuinely asking this question, but unfortunately over the last two days I've heard it plenty..and anyone who has to ask it just doesn't get it.

daveirl

This post has been deleted.

miju

Personally I think Iraq should be left well alone. To use part of a qoute after the 9/11 attacks

"...all they have done is awaken a sleeping giant..."

This is what America are going to do to Iraq plus if they do overthrow Sadam who comes in next, his son?

He's a certified GRADE A LUNATIC.

I also can't help but feel there is a certain amount of bullying going on by the US & UK in what they are saying is that we're allowed have weapons but your not.

Now this may sound selfish but I don't care about any UN resolutions he's not doing anyone any harm outside of his own country and besides that he must have alot of support because

[NOTE] I may be wrong on this point so correct me if I am[/NOTE]
you can't seriously expect him to control the population by terror there would have been some kind of coup long ago. He must have the majority of the Iraq's support so if they are happy and don't want change why try to change it?

As well as that god knows that there is a large proportion of them who hate the west so by going into Iraq all your going to be doing is add more fuel to their hatred and I think I can safely predict that when war happens it won't be long before something like 9/11 happens again.

Also, I get another feeling that G Bush is doing a thing of well my daddy didn't get the bastards but I'll avenge him and show em all who's the boss.

Finally to close I am of the VERY,VERY strong opinion that Bush poses a much.much, much [can't emphasise enough muchs] bigger threat to world peace, security than Sadam and the Taliban or whoever else Bush will have you believe is bad. America has no respect he's already said in a roundabout way that he's going in with or without the UN

NOW HOW DANGEROUS AND IDIOTIC AND PHSYCOTIC DOES THAT SOUND TO YOU?

Alot of you may disagree with me and yor prob right but I'd thought I'd add my 2 cents anyway

daveirl

This post has been deleted.

miju

that was a different situation the world knew they were getting ready for one big f*uck off war.

But have you heard of anything about Iraq preparing to take on the world? Besides that Sadam is one smart f*uck he's not cocky enough nor dumb enough to try it.

DadaKopf

Originally posted by the-raptor
But have you heard of anything about Iraq preparing to take on the world? Besides that Sadam is one smart f*uck he's not cocky enough nor dumb enough to try it.

Actually, he was cocky and dumb enough pre-Gulf War. He's deluded by his own psychopathy (á la Nixon). After his defeat in the Mother of all Wars, he's much less ambitious. He knows his place as far as American aggression goes, now. He's simply turned his obsessions inward toward the Iraqi people. He's not really a threat.

Ironically enough, this comment may be seen as a support for military action. It's not, it's a justification for UN resolutions and containment.

GavinS

Daveirl -

The trouble with supporting the war is that it is entirely a US/UK endeavour. Whatever about UN mandates and resolutions, the UN remains a flawed organisation. As such it can be used be certain powers, namely the permanent members, for their own purposes.

This is what is happening with Iraq. The UN is being used by the US to pursue its own agenda. And its already stated aim is the very removal of Saddam, with our without UN approval. The UN is only used for certain things, and when its not needed it can go to hell. Just like the US has ignored international law in the past, when it suits it.

The invasion of Iraq is nothing more than colonial type invasion. The US sees what it wants, namely strategic influence and ecomonic resources in the region, and will do whatever is needed to get it. That is it.

I cannot support the invasion of Iraq, it sets a dangerous precedent, and will leave the region more destabilised than anything else.

Chaos-Engine

I'm more worried about Saudi Arabia, Kuwait and Qatar... These countries don't even have parliaments but guess what they are all bigger allies to the US than NATO in the Gulf.
Why are they intente on destroying a country were the people CAN elect a representiative to government(a single party one I know). But yes they can elect representiatives. It would see some for of democracy verus Saudi/16th century England style Monarchy....

Its all about Oil

hallelujajordan

Originally posted by daveirl


. Why? Because Iraq are clearly in violation of several UN resolutions.

There's a been a lot bandied around on this forum, by those in support of an attack on Iraq . . .. about how Saddam Hussein is guilty of breaches of several UN resolutions . . . . people pointing out that Iraq definitely has WMD both chemical and biological . . . But not one poster has provided any evidence to support their assertions (much like George Bush). I am a democrat and a pacifist. I recognise and support the need for international powers to exercise control over certain regions around the world to prevent the possibility of another World War. But I'm also intelligent enough to be able to look around the world and determine where I think this control is required . .

Even if you accept the argument that Saddam has WMD's my question is "Whats the rush?" Whay are we now . . . 12 years after the Gulf war suddenly in a tremendous hurry to wage war on Iraq. What has Saddam done in the last year that is so bad that he has come under the world spotlight again ? ? Now that we have weapons inspectors in the country what potential has Saddam Hussein to wage war on his neighbours or anyone else ? ? Where are the WMD's that messrs Bush and Blair keep talking about ? ? What is the problem with allowing the weapons inspectors, under UN control to complete a full inspection in Iraq . . . one that lasts a number of years rather than just a couple of months. Inspections that are focused on identifying and removing a threat rather than finding some small piece of "independent" evidence to support Bush's war. Incidentally, one wonders whether George Bush would be willing to open the USA's defence program up to UN inspector scrutiny . . I think not . .

Even if you use the alternate argument that Iraq may not have posed a threat to his neighbours over the last 10 years but his brutal, tyrannical regime have tortured the populous :

i alos think that a lot of people who oppose using force on saddam, gloss over the fact that a form of apartheid is in place in Iraq, where the the Saddam rules with brute force ., and those who oppsoe him, either politically, or who are unfortunate enogh to be born of the wrong tribe (eg Kurdish) have to suffer under the yolk of this man.

Again, no evidence is put forward to support this assertion . . . It has, however been shown that UN/US enforced sanctions against Iraq over the last 10 years have been responsible for the deaths of over half a million Iraqi children under the age of 5.

http://www.oneworld.org/news/reports/may96_iraq2.html

How many more Iraqi children will die when the US/UK combined force launch a full scale ground assault against Iraq ?

This war will not be about WMD's . . . it's not about saving the Iraqi children from a brutal dictator and it's not about ensuring world peace . . . .

This war will be about OIL . . . . .

Xterminator

Even if you use the alternate argument that Iraq may not have posed a threat to his neighbours over the last 10 years but his brutal, tyrannical regime have tortured the populous :

Again, no evidence is put forward to support this assertion . . .

This war will be about OIL . . . . .

I guess when you quoted my text, you missed the link i provided?
And on that site there are links to offical UN documents etc, which also corroborate the facts. The kurds have been ethnicalaly cleansed, and thats an internationaslly recognised fact.

I question your motives for glossing over this! (Along with the use of Chemical weapons in the Iran-Iraq war, and the unprovoked invasion of Kuwait. ).
Of course pehaps its ok for saddam to start a war for oil, but not ok, to be on the other end of one?
Perhaps the saying live by the sword, die by the sword comes to mind?

X

hallelujajordan

Originally posted by Xterminator
I guess when you quoted my text, you missed the link i provided?
And on that site there are links to offical UN documents etc, which also corroborate the facts. The kurds have been ethnicalaly cleansed, and thats an internationaslly recognised fact.

I question your motives for glossing over this! (Along with the use of Chemical weapons in the Iran-Iraq war, and the unprovoked invasion of Kuwait. ).
Of course pehaps its ok for saddam to start a war for oil, but not ok, to be on the other end of one?
Perhaps the saying live by the sword, die by the sword comes to mind?

X

On the contrary . . . I did look at your link and have looked at all of the evidence against Saddam Hussein with regard to activities against his own people, and I accept everything that has been proven about SH's activities against the kurds BUT all of this happened pre-GULF war I . . . . that was 12 years ago . . . . had we not drawn a line under that ?? . . . . why have we had sanctions against Iraq for the last 12 years and the deaths of over half a million children if the endgame were always going to come to this ??

. . . and why would you question my motives. I'm as abhorred by ethnic cleansing as I'm sure you are and I'd love to see this issue being addressed all over the world, but it isn't and it won't be because the motive behind all of this is not the greater good . . .

the motive is oil !

halkar

Originally posted by hallelujajordan
. . .
the motive is oil !

Absolutely. America turned their back to Kurds in Iraq after the Gulf war leading Saddam to drive them out of Iraq. They were promised help from America after fighting against Saddam and they were left alone and vulnerable in region. Just as it happened in Afghanistan when Afghans were fighting against Russians with the helps and promises of America and fight over they are left alone with no other help .

What will happen if bringing Saddam down fails? What will happen to the Kurds in the region? If there were no Oil, do you really think US would care about the people there? After all it tooks months and maybe years to do something about Kosova and it was with Nato not America alone. Why didn't they care about ethnic cleansing in that case and yet when it comes to Iraq attitude is "We are going in". It was them that was selling the ingredients for chemical weapons when Iraq was in war with Iran and of course just like Kurds and Afghans , Iraq was supported by US while fighting against Iran. It was them that created Saddam after all

What goes around comes around!!! I don't beleive all that reason US given the world to rush for the battle. If anyone is going against in UN , it is US not Iraq. This makes me wonder is UN really what it suppose to be anymore? :rolleyes

bonkey

Originally posted by hallelujajordan
why have we had sanctions against Iraq for the last 12 years and the deaths of over half a million children

Im curious about this whole sanctions == dead children issue.

On one hand, people tell us how Saddam oppresses his people to an incredibly brutal extent. On the other hand, when Saddam attempts to fight against the sanctions by oppressing his people even more, its the West's fault for retaining the sanctions.

IIRC, all of the deficiencies (food, medical care, etc) that have caused these deaths are of resources that Saddam specifically can obtain under the sanctions but chooses not to.

In other words, he is effectively saying that while the west will not let him sell his oil for whatever he wants, then he will not sell his oil to keep his people alive.

The purpose of the sanctions was manyfold, but amongst its aims was to keep Iraq on a short leash. While it is clear that the sanctions had devestating side-effects in terms of loss of civilian life, one must first ascertain what the alternatives were.

Also, one must acknowledge that the UN are no more guilty in this endeavour than Hussein himself, and arguably less so. Should they allow themselves to be held to ransom by any dictator who says "do X, or I starve my people"? Are they to blame if they do not bow to such threats? Perhaps we can criticise them for letting the situation go on for so long before dealing with it in an alternate manner, but given the current opposition to invasion, it is unlikely that any earlier attempt to resolve the issue would have gotten anywhere.

At the end of the day, its a lose-lose situation. Had the UN acted in short order, the world would have cried out that the UN has no business ousting leaders etc. etc. On the other hand, because it tried to deal with the situation in an alternate manner and failed, it is now being criticised for wasting 12 years when the outcome was always going to be invasion.

I also find it interesting that on one hand you ask "why wait so long", and yet on the other hand ask "after 12 years, whats the rush"? Surely, if you are so opposed to the sanctions, you would be fully in favour of the recognition that they have singularly failed, and that the next chosen alternative is being taken with all due haste. Surely you should be lamenting that we didnt have the coming war 11 years ago, rather than asking why its so important all of a sudden. Or, if you are opposed to both the sanctions and invasion, then offer a thrid alternative, rather than just pointing at the two existant options and saying "I dont like these".

jc

hallelujajordan

Originally posted by bonkey


I also find it interesting that on one hand you ask "why wait so long", and yet on the other hand ask "after 12 years, whats the rush"? Surely, if you are so opposed to the sanctions, you would be fully in favour of the recognition that they have singularly failed, and that the next chosen alternative is being taken with all due haste. Surely you should be lamenting that we didnt have the coming war 11 years ago, rather than asking why its so important all of a sudden. Or, if you are opposed to both the sanctions and invasion, then offer a thrid alternative, rather than just pointing at the two existant options and saying "I dont like these".

jc

I'll answer your final point first, regarding the timing of this 'likely' attack, but first I want to ask that if you are going to quote me, you do so correctly. In your post above you attribute the comment "why wait so long" to me . . . if you review my posts you will find that i did not make this comment or support these views. With regard to me questioning the sudden urgency after 12 years I believe this is a hugely valid argument. I challenge you to point toward something that has happened over the last year that would merit this level of urgency? Messrs Bush and Blair would have us believe that Iraq suddenly poses an increased threat to world peace, or at the very least regional stability, but they have failed to prove this. Saddam Husseins hands are tied . . . He must be under the most extreme surveillance possible . . . I doubt that he could wipe his ass without the CIA knowing about it, let alone prepare for any attack. The no-fly zones are rigidly enforced and he must surely know that any use of bio / chem weapons will result in a rather large nuclear bomb being deployed into the heart of Baghdad. My question is that under these conditions, how can one justify launching a full-scale war against Iraq? Now that weapons inspectors are back in the country, is it not better to allow them to do their work and if this work takes them years, so be it !

With regard to sanctions, again you have misinterpretted my views . . . going back to the early 90's and looking at what happened, my view is that sanctions, cobined with weapons inspections were the most appropriate way forward . . .but the weapons inspections quickly became corrupted by the americans and sanctions can only work if there is a plan for them to be lifted . . . . Sanctions with a view to returning Iraq to a normal business relationship with the rest of the world were a good idea at the time, but this is not what happened !

With regard to the deaths of half a million Iraqi children during the last 12 years I urge you to examine UNICEF's view on the Iraqi sanctions !!

"if the substantial reduction in child mortality throughout Iraq during the 1980s had continued through the 1990s, there would have been half a million fewer deaths of children under-five in the country as a whole during the eight year period 1991 to 1998" Unicef, 12 August 1999.

"We are in the process of destroying an entire society. It is as simple and terrifying as that. It is illegal and immoral." Denis Halliday, after resigning as first UN Assistant Secretary General and Humanitarian Coordinator in Iraq, The Independent, 15 October 1998

Ask yourself this question . . . . where in the world at this very moment requires US / UK intervention to save lives and restore stability..... if the answer you come up with is not Iraq, then the conclusion you must draw is that Bush / Blair have another motive for pursuing Saddam with such vigour . . . . . Bonkey, I've read your posts, I know your a reasonable man . . . surely you can see that this motive is oil !

Zaphod B

I'll comment on this in depth later but for now just a quick rant.

Does anyone really believe Bush is concerned with the well being of the Iraqi people? Do you think the people of Afghanistan are singing and dancing and praising the wonderful Northern Alliance? Now do you think if Saddam is replaced it will be by a humanitarian? Not fvcking likely. It will be whoever is willing to kiss Bush's ass. If they happen to enjoy the odd bit of torture and oppression now and then, well that's OK.

And so my country is sending men to kill and be killed. Why? Because a mentally deficient Texan wants to, and therefore it must be a brilliant idea. Let's go join him... right.
What the flying ****? Is there no one with a drop of common sense left in the world? Anyone? Hello?

daveirl

This post has been deleted.

Sand

Does it matter if Bush and Co topple a corrupt regime because they reckon they can get a cut price deal on Oil? Honestly? People never do anything for love of their fellow man....

The US jump started the European economies after WW2, not because it had a soft spot for ignorant french people but because it needed a strong ally against communism. Did that make the money any dirtier?

As for the War and its timing - It honestly cannot come soon enough- If Bush Snr had the moral courage to finish off Saddam when he was on the ropes then the region would be far more stable and wed have a functioning Iraqi democracy now. If the sanction regime has proved anything its that dictators give exactly feck all about sanctions that hit their people.

Regarding the morality of it - Civillians will die in the war, that is guaranteed by any milataries inability to predict where exactly every civillian is at any point in time and Saddams love of human shields. So war is not going to be a wonderful option.

So theres two other options - keep going as normal and watch the civillians die in their millions as they are doing so now, or pack it all in and give saddam what he wants giving encouragement to all other brutal dark age throwbacks. And when Saddam eventually dies, his son , or another general, will take over - Saddams son is a delightful individual, one of his pet pleasures being kidnapping wives of Iraqi officers, raping them and then perhaps killing them if they dont act like they enjoyed it, his hobbies also include spreading democracy, upholding human rights and working to improve the average Iraqis standard of living.

Theres no Right Choice here - so you can only ask yourself is a 6 month war going to be as harsh as another 40-50 years of Saddam and company? And while you might despise George Bush and the USs policies if you honestly believe theyre worse than Saddam then you need to pick up a sense of perspective on your christmas shopping.

Ajnag

moral courage

And who are you to define such things?

You advocate war over peace, and speak of moral courage, but of what courage? to sit in your bubble as civilians die.To rabble like a budding Ian paisley as others go to war?

Sanctions stoped the importation of antibiotics and wait for it ..... wheelbarrows :rolleyes: Arguing that westen sanctions did not play a part in the genocide of 1/2 a million children is ridculous.Did 1/2 million children die in the Halocoust even?

John Pilengers article on Iraq in his latest book lays out with reference to u.n publications the extent of maddness in relation to Iraq.

Its Neo colonisim, and If you say as an Irish person You wouldnt have supported britian in her colonial dreams(remember those punch cartoons the 'savage nig-ger' and 'Idiot Irish') a hundred years ago, then you not find it a little Ironic that you whole heartedly support the modern day equivilent.

As was memtioned already, prior to gulf war 1 Iraq had some of the highest living standards in the area.When sad broke his leash master got mad.Simple as that.Jnr holds a grudge.

To quote "That man tried to kill my father" :rolleyes:

Oh and as for the Kurds, America has Ignored turkeys human rights violations when bombing kurdish villages in northern Iraq, Also not much has been said of turkeys military excercise's in the north bearing a striking resemblence to an invasion force.This war aint doin the kurds any favours either.

moral courage

Ha!

Von

Originally posted by Sand
People never do anything for love of their fellow man....

Awww...Another christmas and not a single card eh? Boo bleeding hoo.

Sand

And who are you to define such things?

Obviously not as qualified as you.

Its Neo colonisim, and If you say as an Irish person You wouldnt have supported britian in her colonial dreams(remember those punch cartoons the 'savage nig-ger' and 'Idiot Irish') a hundred years ago, then you not find it a little Ironic that you whole heartedly support the modern day equivilent.

Yes and youd have been standing on the beaches in 1798 waving at the French navy, "Go home, we want no part of your imperialist dreams - even if it means getting rid of a rather less than benevolent British regime". Pffft.

If you want to argue Im supporting neo colonialism by hoping the US topple Saddam then by default youre supporting good ol fashioned despotism and dark age attitudes to human rights. Oh sorry, thats right- blanket generalisations and wild finger waving are only strong debating points when the left are doing it:| Duly retracted.

Oh and as for the Kurds, America has Ignored turkeys human rights violations when bombing kurdish villages in northern Iraq, Also not much has been said of turkeys military excercise's in the north bearing a striking resemblence to an invasion force.This war aint doin the kurds any favours either.

Yes they have - I would hope they stand up to the Turks on this when they stop needing them to hem in Saddam, not that I think its a good reason but its their reasoning no doubt.

You advocate war over peace, and speak of moral courage, but of what courage? to sit in your bubble as civilians die.To rabble like a budding Ian paisley as others go to war?

Yes and you advocate peace at any cost, so long as the ordinairy Iraqi pays the cost. The Iraqis rose after the Gulf War to overthrow Saddam because they believed the West would help them- shamefully they didnt and just stood by. The Iraqis have already shown theyre willing to overthrow the regime- they just need solid milatary support which wasnt there in the early 90s, not people who claim to have their interests at heart whilst selling them out to Saddam.

Ask yourself this- If a creature such as saddam ruled a European country would your views change? The West has already proven itself willing to topple dictators like Hitler, Mussolini and Milosevic. Why is Saddam, who has access to weapons Hitler could only have dreamt of be any different? Oh, silly me- Hes in the middle east- them silly

'savage nig-ger'

dont deserve democracy as much.

As was memtioned already, prior to gulf war 1 Iraq had some of the highest living standards in the area.When sad broke his leash master got mad.Simple as that.Jnr holds a grudge.

Poor Saddam, the champion of the working people standing up to The Man. Pfft.

Sand

Originally posted by Von
Awww...Another christmas and not a single card eh? Boo bleeding hoo.

Bitter and mean spirited sniping Von? Whats brought this on?

Open your heart to the christmas spirit you scrooge you:D

Ajnag

Originally posted by Sand
Obviously not as qualified as you.

I Never claimed to be moraly superior, nor Moraly qualifiyed.I dont trust those who push Morals on people, as they usualy are intent only on pushing their view of how things should be and not looking out for their fellow man.Often was the lecture of morality recieved from the pulpit while the same people Helped protect paeodophiles.

Originally posted by Sand

Yes and youd have been standing on the beaches in 1798 waving at the French navy, "Go home, we want no part of your imperialist dreams - even if it means getting rid of a rather less than benevolent British regime". Pffft.

Lol Its not as if I dont like the french or anything Good example, But werent the french on a whole democracy buzz, having just become the first modern democracy since the greeks? Maybe it was idealism on their part, or is my time line wrong?

Originally posted by Sand

If you want to argue Im supporting neo colonialism by hoping the US topple Saddam then by default youre supporting good ol fashioned despotism and dark age attitudes to human rights. Oh sorry, thats right- blanket generalisations and wild finger waving are only strong debating points when the left are doing it:| Duly retracted.

No Im supporting due process and the recignition of soverign states within a U.N frame work.Depotism is the U.s claiming that she is not accountable for the Human Rights(=common decency ?).

Originally posted by Sand

Yes they have - I would hope they stand up to the Turks on this when they stop needing them to hem in Saddam, not that I think its a good reason but its their reasoning no doubt.

Yeah but their being sold out all over again! and now this war on terror bull threatens to mis-classify a fight for freedom.Also whos gonna give the means to fight?. Turkeys already the u.s ho, and the russians are on best behaviour given the wot.

Originally posted by Sand

Yes and you advocate peace at any cost, so long as the ordinairy Iraqi pays the cost. The Iraqis rose after the Gulf War to overthrow Saddam because they believed the West would help them- shamefully they didnt and just stood by. The Iraqis have already shown theyre willing to overthrow the regime- they just need solid milatary support which wasnt there in the early 90s, not people who claim to have their interests at heart whilst selling them out to Saddam.

Given that there are enough Nukes to cover the planet twice over, I think peace at any cost is reasonalble reality.Makes for a far nicer alternative then the pandoras box of Nuclear war.Lets make the Inspectors a Respectable Standard Globally so that future despots never get such a chance.

And who from the Iraqi dissidents will lead? another suharto, hussain or dingh(sp?) .It appears to be the norm in western intervention to put in power people without loyalty to their fellow country men and an obsession with greed.Iraq was a socalist democratic state before the enlightened west installed the ba-rath with which followed saddam.It hasnt worked before to any countrys benifit, why do you think it will start now?

The only people to do well out of this war already own upward of 4 house's and cars.Oil.

Originally posted by Sand

Ask yourself this- If a creature such as saddam ruled a European country would your views change? The West has already proven itself willing to topple dictators like Hitler, Mussolini and Milosevic. Why is Saddam, who has access to weapons Hitler could only have dreamt of be any different? Oh, silly me- Hes in the middle east- them silly

Dont ever hear much about regime changes in Africa either do we :rolleyes:

Originally posted by Sand
dont deserve democracy as much.

???? dunno what you mean, but the attitudes havent change from those day's.the only difference is news speak.

Originally posted by Sand

Poor Saddam, the champion of the working people standing up to The Man. Pfft.

I never said he was the good guy, and I would like to see him gone some day.But as current conditions stand, Not much better will replace him, and the Iraqi people are going pay a very big price just to see the oil that could make them as affluent as norway be stolen by an already affluent theif.

Sand

I Never claimed to be moraly superior, nor Moraly qualifiyed.I dont trust those who push Morals on people, as they usualy are intent only on pushing their view of how things should be and not looking out for their fellow man.Often was the lecture of morality recieved from the pulpit while the same people Helped protect paeodophiles.

Grand- I respect your view on that , my own view being that Saddam is an abberation and we shouldnt tolerate him or his ilk. The US and Russia have done in the past, using such butchers as pawns in the Cold War, which is wrong. Id dread living under such a regime - and if nations are willing to topple such regimes in exchange for a deal on oil, then grand imo.

Lol Its not as if I dont like the french or anything Good example, But werent the french on a whole democracy buzz, having just become the first modern democracy since the greeks? Maybe it was idealism on their part, or is my time line wrong?

Slightly - The Americans were the first "big" modern democracy ( Though I *think* the Dutch also had a bit of a stab at democracy of a sort too ) - and they could not have won their freedom without the milatary and financial aid of the French, who were at this time under an oppressive aristocracy which held, literally in many cases, the power of life and death over their serfs. Did the Americans reject aid in creating their democracy from these less than democratic individuals? no. Did the French help the Americans because they loved democracy- no, they did so to get back at Britain and hopefully regain Canada. The good guys arent nessassarily square jawed clean shaven, captain america types- much as the americans would love to portray themselves as such. Even selfish reasoning can lead to beneficial actions.

As for the French revolutionaries they proved themselves to be extremely ruthless in dealing with threats to the revolution - Their "crusade of freedom" was rooted in the revolutionaries fight for survival against the Austrians and Napoleons dreams of glory. Selfish reasoning again, but they shook up the establish european order and set the stage for peaceful reforms - due to the ruling orders fear of another revolution. Like the americans are today, the average Frenchie was wholly confused as to why their German and British counterparts would fight for their oppressive overlords instead of joining the revolution:|

No Im supporting due process and the recignition of soverign states within a U.N frame work.Depotism is the U.s claiming that she is not accountable for the Human Rights(=common decency ?).

Thats the thing for me- I view Saddam and his army of thugs as mere crinimals, the UN should only respect democratic governments, being supported by the US or the USSR does not make you legimate in my eyes - it should work to topple non-democratic regimes. the problem is though that the UN is ironically plagued with non-democratic memeber who have no incentive to provide precedents for tackling non-democratic regimes. Iraq today, Sudan tommorrow?

And who from the Iraqi dissidents will lead? another suharto, hussain or dingh(sp?) .It appears to be the norm in western intervention to put in power people without loyalty to their fellow country men and an obsession with greed.Iraq was a socalist democratic state before the enlightened west installed the ba-rath with which followed saddam.It hasnt worked before to any countrys benifit, why do you think it will start now?

I would hope having learned their lesson about sometime allies in Afghanistan and Iraq they may go for establishing democratic regimes- which they have seem to have done in Afghanistan ( The last "next vietnam" ) they would learn the value of having a friendly, democratic regime in place - France for example has proven a far more useful ally in the long run than Saddam, despite France being full of French people and having an attitude to match.

Dont ever hear much about regime changes in Africa either do we

Well they had a go in Somalia at nation building, disarming and combatting local warlords and generally trying to help a democratic state to emerge but got shot up, ridiculed, called nasty names like "imperialists" and so on and left soon after. BTW does Somalia have a lot of oil under it? Im not sure, but I guess it must have with the whole underlying philosphy of American intervention - bar kosovo of course.

I never said he was the good guy, and I would like to see him gone some day.But as current conditions stand, Not much better will replace him, and the Iraqi people are going pay a very big price just to see the oil that could make them as affluent as norway be stolen by an already affluent theif.

Unless the Americans and the west in general are the ones deciding how Iraq qill be governed in the future the most probable succession is Saddams son or other General. If the americans are in control they pretty much set the ground rules ( though not the result given the nature of democracy) like they did in Germany, Japan and recently, in Afghanistan. The basis for a working democracy is much greater in Iraq imo than it was in afghanistan.

Lennoxschips

Perhaps Ireland should issue a resolution to the Security Council, requesting that the UK cease all nuclear developments (including Sellafield) and destroy all their weapons of mass destruction, overseen by a team of UN Weapons Inspectors. If they choose to ignore this resolution, then the Republic of Ireland will be faced with no other option than to launch a pre-emptive attack on London and initiate a regime change.

Sounds ridiculous, doesn't it? So why can they do it to Iraq?

Sand

UK=Democratic State
Iraq=Warlords fiefdom

DiscoStu

Originally posted by Sand
UK=Democratic State
Iraq=Warlords fiefdom

Why not Israel then?
It fits the bill nicely. Possible war criminal at the helm, large US supplied nuclear/chemical/biological arsenal, openly aggressive to all its neighbouring states, violently opresses people, illegally occupies large areas of land and has violated more UN resolutions that Iraq.

Despencing justice is fine, hypocracy is not.

One last question. How many UN workers have been killed by the Iraqi authorities? Now compare that to Israel's record.

bonkey

Originally posted by DiscoStu
One last question. How many UN workers have been killed by the Iraqi authorities? Now compare that to Israel's record.

Here's one more. How many UN bases of operations have been destroyed by either the Iraqi or Israeli's in the past 2 years?

What about by the Americans?

Are you now going to imply that the US is somehow worse than Iraq because of this?

While I dont necessarily agree with Sands position, direct comparisons show absolutely nothing.

jc

DiscoStu

bonkey the direct comparisons were just to illustrate the hypocracy of the United States position regarding the UN and human rights. It is fine for Israel, a western country to flaunt international law as it sees fit yet another country, Iraq, one that does not play ball by the american rules is a target for sanctions and no fly zones(of very dubious legality, but hey who abides by international law these days.). They were not to prove who was wrong or right or to justify anything.

Sand, you position seems to be that the ends justify the means. Apply that same logic to the IRA terrorisim(remember one persons terrorist is anothers freedom fighter and vice versa) campagin and its perfectly acceptable. Were in a bit of a quandry now ain't we

Sand

Why not Israel then?
It fits the bill nicely. Possible war criminal at the helm, large US supplied nuclear/chemical/biological arsenal, openly aggressive to all its neighbouring states, violently opresses people, illegally occupies large areas of land and has violated more UN resolutions that Iraq.

---

Im not going to get into Israel debate

---

Ive been in far too fecking many of them and I honestly dont care what you lefties think at this stage. And If i have to read another 7 page sermon from a certain individual on the issue Ill go fricking mad.

Having said that, one point: Taking the situation as you describe it there Im all for war on Israel - Tel Aviv before Christmas etc etc.

Returning to the real world and actually taking into account the nature of Israels neighbouring states and their denizens and the history of the region......things become less Star Wars, and Israel gets some competition for taking the role of the Galactic Empire. I wont get into it, just accept I can take say the Stormont Parliments record in isolation and use it to justify 30 years of bombing and murder - When you take something in isolation you can make any point you want.

Sand, you position seems to be that the ends justify the means. Apply that same logic to the IRA terrorisim(remember one persons terrorist is anothers freedom fighter) campagin and its perfectly acceptable. Were in a bit of a quandry now ain't we

Not really - The IRA is wrong (see above for some "good" justification using YOUR logic ), Saddam is wrong, Israel is wrong ANNNNNND all of Israels enemies are wrong - If were going to invade Israel lets go for a clean sweep and invade their neighbours who are harbouring terrorists as well. But, Youre taking Israels actions in isolation to make your analysis of the situation more clear cut and less complicated. Grand.

And Even if Israel is the most despicable bunch of evil scum sucking so and sos what does it have to do with Saddam? Is "Im not as bad as the other guy!!" now a good defence?

Hypocritical? Maybe - the americans dont share your view of Israel so theyre not being hypocritical by their standards. I dont care - Im just glad to see one less dictator in the world.

DiscoStu

Sorry but there is no getting away from the Israel arument. it is inextricably linked to the entire "war on terrorisim"/"war against the infidel"(depending on what way you look at it) situation.

Not really - The IRA is wrong

I agree there but lets run through each scenario step by step.

Northern Ireland
1. British rule in northern ireland is bad, we want them out.
2. IRA bombs people in attempt to get it back - Morally bad action
3. Lather, rinse, repeat.
4. Victory(not quite reality but it is the aim of the IRA)

Iraq
1. Saddam = BAD, we want him out.
2. USA bombs Iraq and starts war - Morally bad action.
3. Lather, rinse, repeat.
4. Victory.

Now considering the "ends justify the means" we can conviently ignore steps 2 and 3 and be safe in knowledge we done the right thing because "we" won.

Correct me if im wrong on your postion. but im drawing it from your stated support of any war with iraq and this nugget:

Theres no Right Choice here

Ajnag

Sand, I had a nice point by point reply, and then lost it, ho hum

However We can agree on one thing that saddam is an asshole and should be removed.

However If you have faith that an oil baron is going to liberate and help the Iraqi people you are mistaken.Afghanistan is still in tatters, with regualar violence still occuring and none of the promised western aid in sight.It still isnt democratic as karzi was only voted in by warlords.Oh but we got the oil pipeline built :rolleyes:

If you really give a **** about Iraq and its people, then you know that only a u.n and internationaly supported(and not u.s led) invasion or supported coup has any chance of helping anyone.

I suggest you read

http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/185984393X/qid=1040693563/sr=1-1/ref=sr_1_1/104-9393040-1627129?v=glance&s=books

You might see modern geo-politics and neo colonialism for what they are.

Chaos-Engine

We can all sit around and biitch about how hypocrical the US is, about how bad Saddam is and how the Israel's are the luckest lot when it comes to friends that back them up...
The real questions should be this...

What in the hell are we going to do about this mess? Are we just going to continue biitching or will we start shouting..

Sand

Sorry but there is no getting away from the Israel arument. it is inextricably linked to the entire "war on terrorisim"/"war against the infidel"(depending on what way you look at it) situation.

Sure there is, I can just go ....... everytime you mention Israel, end of argument.

And it has very little to do with the reasoning either side has presented for the USs invasion of Iraq, The lefties claim its oil, americans claim its a need to prevent saddam getting WMD, and I honestly dont care so long as Saddams toppled and a democratic regime installed in his place.

I agree there but lets run through each scenario step by step.

Youre comparing terrorism to a milatary operation, or even more bluntly the IRA leadership to the Pentagon and the US leadership. Maybe you do this because you view the US milatary in such a low light you believe they plant bombs on shopping high streets to kill civillians, or that they kidnap mothers and torture them to death because they believe them to be informers, or that they deal drugs so as to fund their activities. And on the flip side an IRA apologist would also compare the IRA to the US milatary - after all it was a "urban struggle for freedom" wasnt it?

Correct me if im wrong on your postion. but im drawing it from your stated support of any war with iraq and this nugget:

As bonkey has stated whats your option option?

You dont want war, Id imagine you dont want sanctions, You dont want Saddam --- This is all pretty hard to pull off together. Thats why theres no right choices.

Your strategy is to ask Saddam to abdicate nicely? What if he doesnt? More sanctions?

Sand

Sand, I had a nice point by point reply, and then lost it, ho hum

Ya, I hate it when that happens:D

However If you have faith that an oil baron is going to liberate and help the Iraqi people you are mistaken.

Oh I dont believe Bush cries himself to sleep every night at the plight of the Iraqi people - though then again I dont know, all I really know about him personally is the lampoon/hate figure hes been built up as by the leftie media.

As I already mentioned plenty of good deeds have been accomplished by people acting for their own selfish reasons - Bush need only look at Saddam to see the danger of installing petty dictatorships, hed be a complete moron to invade a country, gain total control of it and then hand it over to some psychopathic maniac who owes him little or no loyalty, and will potentially add to the instability of the region thus affecting Bushs precious oil prices. A functioning, grateful democracy would be far more stable and a better american ally in the long run. Someone just needs to persuade Bush to that line of thinking.

You might see modern geo-politics and neo colonialism for what they are.

Dont worry- despite my rather idealistic views that civillised nations should topple evil regimes such as Saddam through force of arms if nessassary Im blessed as a fairly cynical person - especially when it comes to politics.

DiscoStu

Maybe you do this because you view the US milatary in such a low light you believe they plant bombs on shopping high streets to kill civillians, or that they kidnap mothers and torture them to death because they believe them to be informers, or that they deal drugs so as to fund their activities.

oh boy oh boy oh boy. where do i start. maybe the neumerous rapes, murders, and destruction of villages in vietnam, the reported mass exectutions in panama in 89, the 1000000 innocent people killed in cambodia by us bombs, supply of chemical weapons and the intelligence reports on potential iranian targets handed to saddam in 1988 by donald rumsfeld. What about the many reports CIA drug trafficing to fund their contra wars of the late 70s early 80s and the blind eye being turned to the exploding opium industry that has sprung back up in post taliban afghanistan.

its quite easy to draw comparisons.

DiscoStu

To quote me

Despencing justice is fine, hypocracy is not.

My position is that there must be one standard for all.

where was the United states when there was genocide in rwanda?
did the US feel the need to go into east timor?
they were fine with letting pol pot bring an entire nation back to the stone age.
Yet they suddenly feel the need to go after iraq as part of the war on terror when the only link between iraq and the 9/11 highjackers was one of them had their bags moved from the baggage collection area of an airport to his car when visiting a south east asian country a year before 9/11. not really what ytou would call concrete proof of funding terrorisim.

Sand

oh boy oh boy oh boy. where do i start. maybe the neumerous rapes, murders, and destruction of villages in vietnam,

Good god youre right - That was in West Points tactical operations 101 lectures!!!!!

the reported mass exectutions in panama in 89,

Reported? As in the reported UFO sightings? Or is there proof beyond propaganda?

supply of chemical weapons and the intelligence reports on potential iranian targets handed to saddam in 1988 by donald rumsfeld.

Advantage Disco, Ive never ever ever heard of Rumsfeld ( a politician rather than a general regardless of his delusions ) advising Saddam on the best use of WMD, not even in decidely leftie media, who would view it as the story of the century? Is this reported again?

What about the many reports CIA drug trafficing to fund their contra wars of the late 70s early 80s

Well the CIA isnt the US milatary, the CIA was a dirty organisation in the Cold War which got far too involved with every petty dicatorship. I see that pesky word reports again.

the blind eye being turned to the exploding opium industry that has sprung back up in post taliban afghanistan.

The Allies are not the central government and they havent got the ground forces to act as such - the US has no interest in increasing the drug supply into the US.

its quite easy to draw comparisons.

Of course, all you need are words like "reported" and "reports" whereas I can say with certainty that The IRA and their splinters have been plotting the murder, torture and intimidation of people since the 60s on a grandscale in NI, the UK mainland and Ireland.

You remember when the days of "reported" links between 60s western socialism and USSR hard line communism were used to discredit decent, if wholly stupid, people? Reds under the beds and all that.

Pesky word reported.

Sand

where was the United states when there was genocide in rwanda?

The Guards dont catch all crinimals - so they shouldnt catch any or be called hypocrites?

And where was Europe in all this?

Or the much beloved UN, trusty defender of the true peace loving people of the world......

Oh right.

not really what ytou would call concrete proof of funding terrorisim.

Who cares, one less dictator in the world?

DiscoStu

http://www.commondreams.org/views02/0802-01.htm

buried in the michael moore message board there is also a photo of rumsfled shaking hands with saddamn after that meeting in question.

The Guards dont catch all crinimals - so they shouldnt catch any or be called hypocrites?

there is a little bit of a diffrence between a knacker stealing an old ladys handbag and the mass slaughter of hundreds of thousands of people.

And where was Europe in all this?

europe is not a miliary superpower. at the time there were no plans for a pan european "rapid reaction force" that could have dealt with the situation.

Reported? As in the reported UFO sightings? Or is there proof beyond propaganda?

Am i mistken that the UN declared the invasion of panama was illegal under international law? were the independant bodies resposible for the discoveries of the mass graves under the control of some great "commie" mastermind(remember the ussr and the us were getting pretty damn cosy at the time.) when these reports surfaced?

Well the CIA isnt the US milatary

are the CIA and the US militatry in diametrically opposed positions? would anything that the cia do be not in the best interests of the united states or would what the us military do be not in the intersts of the us? get real sonny, they may not have the same dircet leadership but everything that they do is to help the cause of the united states. if you really wanted you could draw a parallel between sine fein(CIA) and the IRA(US army).

The Allies are not the central government and they havent got the ground forces to act as such - the US has no interest in increasing the drug supply into the US

who is in control of all western military operationsin afghanistan?
my point is that it is only "morally bad" if it not in the best interests of the US.

Sand

Okay - Lets go off into the mists of why the US is the great satan. Iraq was getting boring anyway.

buried in the michael moore message board there is also a photo of rumsfled shaking hands with saddamn after that meeting in question.

Okay - That link you gave points to an article which tells me Rumsfeld was very cosy with Saddam during the Cold War when he was dropping chemical weapons on the Iranians. This is morally corrupt but it is not providing chemical weapons to Saddam and intelligence on where best to employ them as you have claimed.

Youve got me curious though. Any better sources to back up your claim?

there is a little bit of a diffrence between a knacker stealing an old ladys handbag and the mass slaughter of hundreds of thousands of people.

Not in the logic - you catch crinimals when you can, not at all times.

europe is not a miliary superpower. at the time there were no plans for a pan european "rapid reaction force" that could have dealt with the situation.

What does a milatary superpower have to do with peace? Youre opposed to war, surely Europe, by its very pacifist/UN loving nature, was far better equipped to create peace in Rwanda than the evil, corrupt mass murdering americans were? This is your logic here.

Am i mistken that the UN declared the invasion of panama was illegal under international law? were the independant bodies resposible for the discoveries of the mass graves under the control of some great "commie" mastermind(remember the ussr and the us were getting pretty damn cosy at the time.) when these reports surfaced?

I had hardly view the UN as the moral guardians of the world given their membership, but hey. The invasion of Panama was just or unjust based on the merits of the case- not on whether the UN says so or not. And youre still basing your arguments on "reports". There are "reports" the US faked the moon landings, wouldnt put it past them either - dirty low down good for nothings.

are the CIA and the US militatry in diametrically opposed positions? would anything that the cia do be not in the best interests of the united states or would what the us military do be not in the intersts of the us? get real sonny, they may not have the same dircet leadership but everything that they do is to help the cause of the united states. if you really wanted you could draw a parallel between sine fein(CIA) and the IRA(US army).

Id have to argue the CIA and the milatary are different organisations with no significant shared command structure with different spheres of influences and wholly different style of operations and traditions. Using your logic if the Minister of Justice was caught taking bribes then the Gardai should be up in court beside him the next day - they at least share a pupose.

Oh and given the CIAs record in latin america, its incredible record at provoking anti americanism and its generally corrupt morals Id think its very likely the CIA would act against american interests. Havent you noticed how the american media/hollywood portrays the CIA as snivelling worms?

who is in control of all western military operationsin afghanistan?

The allies are. Of course, from what I know western milatary patrols are limited to large urban areas like Kabul and Khandahar. Most of the country is garrisoned by the central governments troops (i.e friendly warlords ). So control of all western milatary operations in afghanistan mightnt be all its cracked up to be.

my point is that it is only "morally bad" if it not in the best interests of the US.

Cant say I agree with your view on that, but hey its your morals.

shotamoose

Originally posted by Sand
Of course, all you need are words like "reported" and "reports" whereas I can say with certainty that The IRA and their splinters have been plotting the murder, torture and intimidation of people since the 60s on a grandscale in NI, the UK mainland and Ireland.

Oh, I hadn't realised you were an eyewitness to the entirety of the Troubles. That must have been rough on you.

Pesky word reported

Yeah, and so are 'claimed', 'said' and even 'stated'. Please, enlighten me: unless you experienced the Troubles first-hand, how did you manage to learn about them without the information being mediated somehow, 'reported', even? Leaving aside the fact (oops, sorry, reported fact) that some convictions of alleged IRA terrorists were subsequently found to be unsafe and that some RUC and Gardai members reportedly colluded with terrorists of various stripes, I'm guessing you know with certainty what you do about the Troubles because you learned it from trusted sources, from some good authorities, perhaps official ones.

Now, if you'd like us to only believe your word on events that you have personally witnessed with your own eyes, please say so (of course, given the medium, we'll have to take your word on what events you'd claim to have witnessed), and people will happily take everything else you say on every other topic with a massive pinch of salt. Otherwise, stop this childish carping and agree that absolute certainty is always elusive and that we must judge every report based on the trustworthiness of the source. Unsatisfactory? Definitely. Inevitable? Absolutely.

So, about the first point raised by Disco Stu, if that really is his name. The claim that the US provided chemical weapons to Saddam and intelligence on where best to employ them is detailed in those bastions of lefty conspiracy theories, the New York Times , USA Today and the Buffalo News .

I don't know if the NYT link will work, so these extracts from a piece in Australia's
Green Left Weekly (careful!) , quoting the NYT and a US Senate report, will have to suffice:

A 1994 US Senate report revealed that US companies were licenced by the commerce department to export a ``witch's brew'' of biological and chemical materials, including bacillus anthracis (which causes anthrax) and clostridium botulinum (the source of botulism). The American Type Culture Collection made 70 shipments of the anthrax bug and other pathogenic agents.

The report also noted that US exports to Iraq included the precursors to chemical warfare agents, plans for chemical and biological warfare facilities and chemical warhead filling equipment. US firms supplied advanced and specialised computers, lasers, testing and analysing equipment. Among the better-known companies were Hewlett Packard, Unisys, Data General and Honeywell.

and

The August 17, 2002 NYT reported that, according to ``senior military officers with direct knowledge of the program'', even though ``senior officials of the Reagan administration publicly condemned Iraq's employment of mustard gas, sarin, VX and other poisonous agents … President Reagan, vice president George Bush [senior] and senior national security aides never withdrew their support for the highly classified program in which more than 60 officers of the Defense Intelligence Agency (DIA) were secretly providing detailed information on Iranian deployments, tactical planning for battles, plans for air strikes and bomb-damage assessments for Iraq.''

.

DiscoStu

http://foi.missouri.edu/terrorbkgd/howsaddam.html

its only copy of an article by MSNBC, but i bet those leftie student types are up to no good anyway though.

http://www.webactive.com/pacifica/demnow/dn20020819.html

i admit i did get the date wrong though sorry. it was in 1983 that rummy met saddam.

http://www.fas.org/spp/starwars/congress/1992/h920731g.htm

Would you call transcripts of House of Representatives leftie propaganda?