Yes it is, since it makes claims that have been refuted by someone whose job was to know about such matters. Besides, this gives me pause in trusting administration websites.


-Fox

Not so. Simply citing an individual that worked for the CIA does not make all other arguements, especially from other government departments null and void. And your last citation is irrelevant as it only refers to instances after Sept. 11th 2001.

[This message has been edited by Morfildor (edited January 13, 2004).]

I don't understand what Fox is trying to prove with his first link anyway. It practically opens with the author saying we undoubtedly know that Iraq used chemical weapons that killed Kurds. I already quoted that line.

------------------
former TACC outcast

The irony is rather damning, but at the time, it was rightly assumed that Khomeini's radical brand of Shia Islamism posed a much greater threat to the area, not least because it had the support of Iranian communists and the USSR. I'll be the first to admit that our foriegn policy in the Middle East has been questionable in the past, but looking at Iran, I can scarcely imagine how much worse off the area would be had Khomeini succeeded in "exporting the revolution".



Yeah, we should have followed Canada's model and done ... uh... what was it Canada did about the Iran-Iraq war? Guarded shipping in the Persian Gulf? No, that's right, nothing.



Actually, no, I keep that link on hand for whenever someone claims the US sold chemical weapons to Iraq. That having been said ... cite?

I heard it secondhand. I'll look for a good source.

------------------
Steal my dreams and sell them back to me.....

No luck, the guy I heard it from was really pro Republican-biased anyway, bad sign.

------------------
Steal my dreams and sell them back to me.....

I tought this thread was about the US finding chemical weapons and where they possible came from in the first place.

Canada? Hmmm... Start another thread.

------------------
To artificial life, all reality is virtual.

A simple search with the terms Kofi, food, and oil will net an abundance of hits. This one from, admittedly, a conservative news source details the corrupt programs that netted a billion dollars for the UN and many luxuries for Saddam's regime.

http://www.weeklystandard.com/Content/Public/Articles/000/000/002/459pqvob.asp

If you don't like that source you can try:
http://www.nytimes.com/2003/04/18/opinion/18ROSE.html?ex=1074142800&en=bf1b9ba5442eb2ba&ei=5070

and then you can read of Kofi praising the program here:
http://www.un.org/Depts/oip/


------------------
former TACC outcast

Ok, I really don't care for these types of arguments. You cannot fault a country for having a change of heart. You cannot fault a country for attempting to remedy past mistakes. And most importantly, you can't fault a government with a continually-rotating staff for past errors. GWB may care about different things than past presidents. He may have different methods of showing this. The circumstances of global politics may have changed, allowing action where action was not possible in the past.

I'm speaking generally here, because I forgot my wading boots, and don't wanna get my pants dirty in this flood, but half the arguments in this thread are "Well in the past, America did bad things! Thus, they will always do bad things, and there's absolutely no way this could possibly be good-intentioned or even a good idea". Yes, we performed chemical/biological weapon tests on our own populace - Most countries have. Do you really need me to go find citations? And hell, we only killed (Guessing very kindly here) a few hundred of our own populace - Germany killed 11 million of their own. I guess Germany will be an evil empire until roughly 37 days after the sun goes supernova, right?

What separates us from Iraq is that we haven't done it in about 50 years. We once brutalized slaves, but we stopped over a century ago. Saddam's sons were throwing people into plastic shredders what, 2 years ago? Last year?

haha, I like how once the U.S. has changed its mind regarding WMD, it isn't going back and is now defending the precisely OPPOSITE side of the argument than it had taken before. A few months ago before the blamegame, I'm certain that America would be all over this.

(I haven't read the other posts)

I agree. But. If you can not fault them for standing idly by while these acts were carried out, they can not use that as an excuse to take action now.
From what I gather, they may be using the 'Sadaam is a bad guy from way back' reason for going to Iraq (one of them anyway).
It leaves lots of people asking 'well why now? why not then?'
I mean, Rumsfeld was shaking his hand.
Bush's (a coupel of 'em) gave the Taliban hundreds of millions of dollars while they closed the stadium down th hang women for bearing thier skin.
It's a school yard rule that you can't use that reason later for an attack when you gave them money to do it in the first place (yes. 'I know you're doing it. I don't want you to do it. I know you're corrupt and misappropriating the funds we are giving you. We can see that the funds are not going to the people that need it. We know this because we have reported on it. Yet you still murder people in an open forum. And we still give you millions of dollars every month.' doesn't cut it sorry. make whatever excuse you want. past present, then now).

------------------
To artificial life, all reality is virtual.

Yeah, and American government and corporations provided Germany and its allies with weapons and supplies all the way through WW2, but i'm not seeing anyone claiming that it was thereby /wrong/ for the US to send soldiers over to fight against them. We shoulda just stuck with our previous policy and just supplied them without sending troops eh.

------------------
[Blue Mink Bifocals !] [fsck -Rf /world/usr/] [<!-- kalimonster -->] [Capite Terram]
Applecore scowled. "What does that mean, 'real'? Amn't I real, you? If you cut me, do I not bleed? If you piss me off, will I not kick you up the arse?" -War of the Flowers
NPC.Interact::PressButton($'Submit');

That wouldn't have worked, eventually we would have had to fight the Germans for our own defense.

------------------
Roach - Steal acceptance, lend denial.

0 of 14.

You can only say that with certainty because of hindsight. If you were working in the U.S. government of the late 1930's and early 40's, would you have said that you knew, for certain, that Germany was going to end up fighting you?

------------------
"LC Tusken: the idiot is the person who follows the idiot and your not following me your insulting me your following the path of a idiot so that makes you the idiot"
NMGOH || Jack Chick preaches it || The Link of the Dead

Which is why I said we'd fight them for defense. You know, in the case that the European armies fell, and Germany continued on its merry way across the Atlantic towards us. In which case we'd know we would fight them.

------------------
Roach - Steal acceptance, lend denial.

0 of 14.

Not claiming you're wrong, Dormouse, but do you have a cite? This is purely out of curiosity. I'll accept it as true, I just coulda sworn that we only supported our allies. Old useless destroyers to Britain, 500,000 trucks to the soviets, etc. We weren't exactly a fountain of givingness to our allies, I can't imagine we helped Germany much.

[Edit: Just noticed you said corporations. Yeah, some American corporations still did business with them, fair enough, but I'm still confused as to the government support]

[This message has been edited by Slug (edited January 14, 2004).]

In the case of Afghanistan; they never attacked the US yet the US attacked them. One of thier reasons? They are bad guys.

In the case of Iraq; they never attacked the US the US attacked them One of thier reasons? They are the bad guys.

What's up with that is all I'm asking.

------------------
To artificial life, all reality is virtual.

You guys don't know me, and I don't post very often, but I think this thread would be
improved with a little context. I'll respond to some specific issues I've seen.


"What gives us the right to prosecute Iraq now, when we didn't stop them from
gassing the Kurds back in the '80s?"

If you remember, we had bigger problems then, specifically, the Cold War. Russian Communism was decaying to the point where it had to either become openly hostile to preserve itself or fall. Given that they had been the greatest threat to the US for over 30 years, I do not fault Reagan for choosing to focus on nurturing the seeds of Democracy in Russia rather than fixing the then-internal problems of Iraq. So Communism fell, and Reagan is remembered by many as one of the US's best Presidents.
Bush Sr. inheirited the Presidency in 1990, and late that year, Saddam decided to invade Kuwait. With the Cold War over, the US and many others immediately came to Kuwait's aid.

"Yes, but it was only for the oil."

Oil was definately a major consideration, mainly the reason for the US's action was for much
the same reasons we went into World War II, Korea, Vietnam, and Grenada, and gave weapons
and aid to Columbia and Afganistan (in the 80s)- to stop tyranical, murderous governments from spreading to other nations. The war was over in less than a month. keeping in mind, what the Iraqi government had done to the Kurds and other Iraqi citizens, the coalition laid down protective measures that lasted for over and decade (and worked, for the most part). Among these was the resolution that Iraq could not have "weapons of mass destruction", a catagory which included not only nuclear, chemical, and biological warfare, but also devices which could (and were) used for carrying WMDs, such as SCUD missles. Also, a No Fly Zone was established over the Kurdish territory in northern Iraq, and another over Shiite territory in southern Iraq.

"Iraq never had weapons of mass destruction."

Since US intelligence showed that Iraq was funding terrorist operations, and had supported (through various means) many of the recent attacks against the US (possibly including Sept. 11th), Iraq was the logical second step in the War on Terror. Several times during the invasion, SCUDs were fired at coalition troops. Although they did not contain chemical or biological agents, they still provided evidence that Iraq did indeed have WMDs. Furthermore, Iraqi prisoners reported that they had been issued grenades modified for biological use. As coalition forces neared Baghdad, the order came to arm the grenades and use them. This was avioded because Iraqi commanders simply refused to obey the orders. Finally, during the occupation period, coalition forces found the empty missles which had been corroded by chemical and biological agents. Today's find only strengthens proof that Saddam did in fact have WMDs folowing the first gulf war.

"Why now? Why not then?"

Since WW2, the US government has had a fairly consistent policy of getting involved only if a country is aggressive against another country. When a country is screwing itself, we generally leave it alone. There are exceptions, of course; I just can't think of any right now.

Sorry this is so long. I just get torqued off by the sheer volume of anti-US misinformation these sort of debates usually dig up.

The Taliban *clearly* supported terrorist training camps. This isn't even debatable, as we fought not only Taliban troops, but Al Quada troops en masse. I say that's enough, but I can see where others would disagree.

Iraq *was* run by bad guys. WMDs or not, the Iraqi regime's numerous, *recent* crimes against their populace, by the *current* administration are well-documented. We finally did something about it. Whether or not the resulting Iraq will be better off, we've yet to see.

I fail to see where people are getting confused.

... Are you daft? The Taliban gave active support to al Qaeda, and vice versa. For all intents and purposes, the two organizations were one and the same. Since you'll probably ask me to cite the obvious, I'll offer you this: why the hell else would al Qaeda assassinate the leader of the chief Afghan opposition group days before 9-11? Could it have had something to do with the fact that they knew the same opposition group would serve as the footsoldiers for the US invasion?

God, even Dean realized toppling the Taliban was necessary. So, apparently, did your own government.

Oh come ON. The nazis were interested in one thing: The supremacy of the Aryan race. They wanted a united northen Europe; the Third Reich, NOT some filthy America full of race traitors.

It was the assumed Mexican invasion you should have been afraid of.

------------------
"For the scientist who has lived by his faith in the power of reason, the story ends like a bad dream. He has scaled the mountains of ignorance; he is about to conquer the highest peak; as he pulls himself over the final rock, he is greeted by a band of theologians who have been sitting there for centuries."
-Robert Jastrow

Yen:
1. Conservative cheerleading gets very tiresome.

2. You might want to find out what is going on in Colombia and Afghanistan right now before you cite them as examples of successful US intervention. Also, the Gulf War and sanctions killed around 350,000 Iraqi children and unknown numbers of civilian adults (1). You clearly have a perverted definition of success.

3. US intelligence has no concrete evidence that Iraq or Hussein ever had ties to al Qaeda (2), and no SCUDs were fired at any time during this recent war, although there were misrepresentations during the war (3).

You might consider getting a grip on your information before you come riding up on your high horse, as you made at least one serious and several minor factual errors. Providing sources for positive claims would be nice, too.

Sine and Slug have pretty much said it all. The Taliban knew about and supported the terrorist training camps in their country and refused to do anything about it.

*shrug*

I don't see any other way it could have really gone down.

------------------
Cantina Cloud | BCF | The Massassian 1 & 2 | Gonkmeg
Corrupting the kiddies since '97

1. If I don't have something liberal or anti-Bush to say, I should stay quiet? That's quite offensive (and frightening, considering that Congress may soon include people who think like that).

2. I never said anything about the US intervention being successful, merely that Reagan's intervention was an element that contributed to Communism's fall in Russia. Also, sanctions do not kill people; anyone who died (other than in conflict with coalition forces) must have died at the hand of fellow Iraqis. This obviously falls at the feet of Saddam's government.

3. I searched CNN.com for a report that refuted the SCUD story, and was unable to find one (please post a link if you know of one). On the other hand, I found this link:
http://www.charleston.net/stories/032103/ter_21banned.shtml

1. No, your paranoia notwithstanding. Just try to make sure your claims have some basis in reality.

2. That's a good one. If you really believe that sanctions are incapable of killing people, further discussion will be pointless. Trying to reason with the irrational is futile.

3. Don't be disingenuous. Look here, again. Look at the time stamps: both were written on Thursday, March 20, 2003. A side-by-side comparison:

"U.S., British and Kuwait military officials said Iraq fired at least three missiles Thursday, though they differed on how many of them were Scuds."
"U.S. and Kuwaiti sources initially reported all the missiles as Scuds, but the Pentagon later said it believes they were al Samouds or some other type of missile."

Sorry, but you are incorrect. Let it go.

Oh, I found this. Seems conclusive to me.

[This message has been edited by Ictus (edited January 14, 2004).]

Okay, let's look at the sanction issue with a hypothetical situation:
Let's say the US refuses to sell grain to Iraq because of crimes comitted by its government (sanction). Common Iraqis can no longer find grain. Some starve to death. However, Saddam's people do not notice a difference. Clearly, the Iraqi government has enough grain to allow it's top-ranking officials to maintain their lifestyle for at least a decade (because they did), but is allowing it's own people to starve.

Now, you're saying that the US government is allowing the Iraqi people to starve, therefore, the US is at fault. It would seem that the evil individuals of the world are forgotten in favor of villainizing the US. If I'm wrong, please show me, but show me in clear arguments, not general "thumbs-down" motions.

Finally, thank you for the link. I ceede the SCUD point. However, the link comes from a site which considers the news media too conservative, placing its writers on the far left. Imagine your reaction if I had quoted news stories from a far right or even a Christian source! Please try not to be hypocritical in your responses.

------------------
I'm looking for a life. If you see a good one, lemme know.

Yen, please at least try to understand the situation before you attempt to comment on it.

Even the UN now acknowledges the Iraqi trade sanctions have not helped the humanitarian disaster in Iraq. There really is no argument there, it's an open / shut case. The Iraqi economy suffered greatly during and after the Iraq-Iran and Gulf Wars through a diminising GDP, decrepit exchange rate, a non-existant public sector, and derelect infrastructure, and the imposed trade sanctions hindered rather than helped. I'll spell it out for you in black and white if you want, but really you should be able to see for yourself that severly limiting imports and exports in an economy where 80% of its GDP used to come from exporting oil is not a benefitting thing.

The US was the precursor in bringing trade sanctions against Iraq, and by 2000 was the sole voice supporting them. Hence, yes they are 'villanized' for it.

------------------
The Massassi-Map
There is no spoon.

I'm sorry, I just don't see logic to your points.

------------------
I'm looking for a life. If you see a good one, lemme know.

What about the food-for-oil program? If you'll refer to a link posted earlier, Iraq's export of oil was almost as high as it was pre-Gulf War - from 2.6 to 2.2 million, and was expected to reach 2.7, with 2.8 being illegal smuggled through the Persian Gulf.

It also points out that Saddam was responsible for buying the food, and any poor quality food that was shipped to Iraq was solely his fault, unless you feel that the U.N. should have been the one to decide what Iraq received.

------------------
"LC Tusken: the idiot is the person who follows the idiot and your not following me your insulting me your following the path of a idiot so that makes you the idiot"
NMGOH || Jack Chick preaches it || The Link of the Dead

Ok, fine. Pre-1990, 80% of Iraqi GDP came from the export of oil. Do you know what GDP is? Gross Domestic Product, or the total market value of all goods and services produced in a country in a year. The country was extremely dependant on the overseas sale of oil. After the Gulf War, US-led UN sanctions were imposed on Iraqi imports and exports. They virtualy stopped the export of oil, and stopped the import of essential goods the Iraqis couldnt produce themsleves, and used to buy with the money they got from selling oil. Get it?

The UN then introduced the Oil for Food program, where they traded much needed food and medical supplies for Iraqi oil at a severly undermarket price. This program probably saved Iraq from becoming a true 3rd world country, but by the late 90s it still left Iraq with a much lower GDP-per-capita, higher unemployment, much higher inlfation, extremely lower exchange rate, and lower social welfare than at the end of the Gulf War in the early 90s.

You see how they were worse off? Had the trade sanctions been lifted earlier (or even not imposed at all), oil exports would have resumed, and the Iraqi economy would have headed towards recovery.

------------------
The Massassi-Map
There is no spoon.

Yen: That's odd. I hadn't pegged you as someone who would support "government handouts" to the poor.

There's a couple problems:
First, removing the sanctions would have prevented the people from dying. The moral burden is on whoever's action or inaction is causing people to starve, regardless of the other parties involved.

Second, the food necessary to feed top-ranking officials is much, much less than the food necessary to feed the entire nation.

Third, conditions in Iraq were excellent prior to the Gulf War. Since the government remained the same, the only difference was the destruction of infrastructure and the sanctions which largely prevented rebuilding.

Fourth, there are obvious cases when the sanctions have clearly caused food and medical shortages, some of which have been outlined in this Seattle Times article.

I'm a Christian, Yen, and I have no problem with biased but accurate reporting. Note that the article is nothing but easily verified quotes of major news sources and government officials.

Oh, and welcome to Massassi. I'm not always this bitter.

[This message has been edited by Ictus (edited January 14, 2004).]

I found some interesting stats and figures on this page. Ignore the rather dry article, scroll down to the Socio-economic changes in Iraq in the 1990s table near the middle of the page.

------------------
The Massassi-Map
There is no spoon.

http://www.thirdworldtraveler.com/TWTwebsite_INDEX.html



http://www.thirdworldtraveler.com/Fascism/Capitalism_Fascism_WW2.html

And an exceedingly comprehensive [700pp or so i think] look at American fascism and fascist-support over the last century:
http://www.spiritone.com/~gdy52150/noon.html
[No i haven't read it all by any stretch]

Ford Motor and the Fuehrer:
http://www.thenation.com/doc.mhtml%3Fi=20000124&s=silverstein

Preface to Charle's Higham's book Trading with the Enemy [whence the quote above]:
http://www.maebrussell.com/Articles%20and%20Notes/Trading%20With%20The%20Enemy.html

That should do as a start. The last one includes at least a bit abuot Government either Ignoring-of or Support-of said. Beyond that it's fairly well-known that there was a not-insignificant anti-semitic atmosphere in the administration and public at the time, which at the very least led to dragging of feet and turning-of-heads at convenient times.

------------------
[Blue Mink Bifocals !] [fsck -Rf /world/usr/] [<!-- kalimonster -->] [Capite Terram]
Applecore scowled. "What does that mean, 'real'? Amn't I real, you? If you cut me, do I not bleed? If you piss me off, will I not kick you up the arse?" -War of the Flowers
NPC.Interact::PressButton($'Submit');

Turns out it was probably another false alarm: Tests on Iraqi Shells Find No Chemical Agent.

------------------
Who's a worthless, anonymous automaton that's losing consciousness?
Who wanted this? Who's on this trip to see the sights and monuments?
To read and write the documents by light that seems innocuous
'Til you discern it's pages burning that provides the phosphorescence?
Jesse Dangerously - Words Ending in -ic for $1000

[This message has been edited by Ictus (edited January 14, 2004).]

I trust Fox News ergo I take this story as to be true.

Not set in stone yet.
------------------
<scribbly handwriting barely resembling name>

[This message has been edited by Gandalf1120 (edited January 14, 2004).]

My point is supposed to be, the US attacks who it wants when it wants for whatever reasons it comes up with at the time.
Yeah, I know they gave ample warning to Afghanistan. But why were they giving them money pretty much until the day before? Why were they supporting a known corrupt government with possible ties to terrorist activities (I know someone will post a link stating the US didn't know for sure at the time :/)?
Don't you want to know why?

I just don't get it. And I obviously never will.

Why does Bush, or the US for that matter, knowingly give killers the money, therefor the means, to do so, and when it comes time to justify thier actions of bombing everything in sight, they say it was because the bad guys were killing people?
Yeah we know. It's been in the news for years. Why did you give them more money? Why?

I'll never understand it.
The only thing I can come up with from all of the evidence present is, the US doesn't give a crap about anyone, anywhere. As long as they make money in the long run, it doesn't matter how many people die.
Give me evidence to disprove this. From all the evidence I have seen, this is the only conclusion possible. Starting in Panama with Roosevelt up until yesterday, all eveidence points to my conclusion. :/

As far as my own government is concerned, as I said, start another thread.
------------------
To artificial life, all reality is virtual.


[This message has been edited by Darth Evad (edited January 14, 2004).]

I would like for you to name me one government that puts the welfare of other countries above its own. If you expect international relations to be governed by altruism and compassion, you have another thing coming.

Gandalf: All major news organizations are essentially equal in that they report exactly the same things. Fox News just caters to a certain preliterate audience, complete with "Wild Video".

Sine: Evad is asking, at least in part, why the US government claims altruism and compassion as its motivations in international relations when, as you said, they are clearly not.

cite


how do scuds=WMDs?

If the Bush snr administration had wanted to do something about Iraq during the 1991 gulf war, why didn't they extend the complete no-fly zone over Iraq to cover helicopters as well as aircraft? Helicopters were excluded from the no-fly zone rules as they were expected to be used for humanitarian efforts. Instead Saddam sent his Hind gunships up to help suppress the Shi'ite insurrection.

The Saudi's were pushing for helicopters to be incorporated into the no-fly rules, but it didn't happen.

I read that SCUDs were included as WMDs in the media somewhere- probably Newsweek, but I'm not sure. I don't have a specific quote, nor the time to search for one.

I don't know the reasons for why either of the Bush's did/do anything; we probably won't for several years. Of course, by then it will be irrelevant. What I'm trying to say is that it should not be a fore-gone conclusion that the decisions the US makes are always bad.

Ictus: Thanks. I'm fun most of the time, too.

------------------
I'm looking for a life. If you see a good one, lemme know.