Wait, you just called tear gas a WMD?
lol
Try this one:
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/arti...ld-Reagan.html
You're joking.
You trust everything you read?
Do you verify anything?
I didn't find anything in those intelligence reports that showed we helped Saddam pertaining to WMD. I didn't read all of the last one, it is long, so please quote the pertinent paragraph.
Are you serious?
Iraq started using WMDs against Iranian troops in 1983.
The US knew this in 1983.
The US routinely told Iraq where Iranian troops were until the end of the war in 1988, knowing that Iraq regularly used WMDs on them.
Therefore, the US helped Iraq "pertaining to WMD" for at least five years.
Please tell me you are only acting this stupid.
Yes.
Probably sooner.
So?
Who cares if that's your definition of "aiding in targeting."
I thought you meant he aided in the chemical weapons he had. My mistake there if that's not what you were implying.
When did we stop assisting Saddam with intelligence? My memory is really vague that many years ago, but wasn't it right after Saddam started using the chemical weapons? wasn't it at least before the end of Reagan's first term?
Obviously you don't care about the United States' helping a regime to use WMD because it was a Republican administration that did it.
No. They even tried to provide cover for Saddam when he gassed the Kurds in 1988.I thought you meant he aided in the chemical weapons he had. My mistake there if that's not what you were implying.
When did we stop assisting Saddam with intelligence? My memory is really vague that many years ago, but wasn't it right after Saddam started using the chemical weapons? wasn't it at least before the end of Reagan's first term?
No, I don't care because our efforts were in using Saddam as a proxy against Iran. Iran did hold US citizens hostage for some time you know.
Now this, I do call bull on. I do recall this timeframe while I was in the military. I know by 1988, Reagan was solidly against such actions Saddam was taking.
Did you ever see his 1988 speech to the UN?
C-Span link: Address before the United Nations Sep 26, 1988
So you basically have no principles.
That's fair.
Actions, not words.Now this, I do call bull on. I do recall this timeframe while I was in the military. I know by 1988, Reagan was solidly against such actions Saddam was taking.
Did you ever see his 1988 speech to the UN?
C-Span link: Address before the United Nations Sep 26, 1988
Analysis of thousands of captured Iraqi secret police do ents and declassified U.S. government do ents, as well as interviews with scores of Kurdish survivors, senior Iraqi defectors and retired U.S. intelligence officers, show (1) that Iraq carried out the attack on Halabja, and (2) that the United States, fully aware it was Iraq, accused Iran, Iraq's enemy in a fierce war, of being partly responsible for the attack. The State Department instructed its diplomats to say that Iran was partly to blame...
....There was little love for what virtually all of Washington recognized as an unsavory regime, but Iraq was considered the lesser evil. Sealed by National Security Decision Directive 114 in 1983, the tilt included billions of dollars in loan guarantees and other credits to Iraq.
Sensing correctly that it had carte blanche, Saddam's regime escalated its resort to gas warfare, graduating to ever more lethal agents. Because of the strong Western animus against Iran, few paid heed. Then came Halabja.
Unfortunately for Iraq's sponsors, Iran rushed Western reporters to the blighted town. The horrifying scenes they filmed were presented on primetime television a few days later. Soon Ted Koppel could be seen putting the Iraqi ambassador's feetto the fire on Nightline.
In response, the United States launched the "Iran too" gambit. The story was cooked up in the Pentagon, interviews with the principals show. A newly declassified State Department do ent demonstrates that U.S. diplomats received instructions to press this line with U.S. allies, and to decline to discuss the details.
It took seven weeks for the UN Security Council to censure the Halabja attack. Even then, its choice of neutral language (condemning the "continued use of chemical weapons in the conflict between the Islamic Republic of Iran and Iraq," and calling on "both sides to refrain from the future use of chemical weapons") diffused the effect of its belated move..
http://www.nytimes.com/2003/01/17/op...oost_ed3_.html
Anything is possible, but the story lacks a link of fact.
What the are you talking about?
An New York Slimes opinion piece as fact?
Using directive 114 as evidence, and not mentioning anything else to seek for facts?
Please chump. You should do at least a little verification.
What specific facts are you disputing here?
Initially, the US Defence Intelligence Agency blamed Iran for the attack.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/onthisday/hi/d...00/4304853.stm
By March 1988, Baghdad was bold enough to use poison gas on the Kurdish village of Halabjah, killing as many as 5,000 people. In response, Kurdish leader Jalal Talabani came to Washington to request assistance, and several U.S. senators called for sanctions against Iraq. This measure, called "premature" by the Reagan administration, stalled in the House. Though both chambers eventually passed sanctions, they were not imposed by the administration.
http://www.thenewamerican.com/usnews...qs-war-machine
Again, what are you disputing here?
That's still not evidence. "Premature" at what timeframe? It doesn't say now. Does it?
The administration never implemented any sanctions.
And all this was after the Iran-Iraq war ended.
The US helped Iraq through the conclusion of the war, five years after they knew Iraq used WMD.
These are facts. You cannot dispute them.
To that limited extent, I agree.
Then what are you trying to dispute?
The spin you add.
Reagan's call for a chemical weapons ban came after the Iran-Iraq War ended and chemical weapons had served the United States' interests there for five years with the administration's extensive knowledge of their use and aid in their deployment.
It's just what happened.
His call for these bans were also after it was determined that attack on Halabjah, was by Iraq and not Iran. You see, initial reports indicated it was an attack of Cyanide. A chemical Saddam was believed not to have, buy Iran did. That's why I pointed out "at what timeframe," and why it was stated that saying Iraq attacked Halabjah was "premature."
As you see, I agree with the actual facts, when they are not extrapolated to what cannot be justified.
Please stop spinning.
No, the sanctions were deemed premature.
And that has nothing at all to do with the fact that the US knew Iraq had been using chemical weapons for the previous five years. Where was Reagan's call for a ban in 1983?
Who the cares? Before that one incident, Saddam was only using chemical weapons on troops. Not on cities. When Saddam used it in an urban setting, that was going too far.
Reagan did.
Only after the chemical weapons served his purpose.
So WC approves of St Ronnie's proxy Saddam gassing Iranian troops, 1M of whom were kids? St Ronnie, Rummy, Repugs, etc certainly approved, too.
Isn't your ass sore? As much as you spin, I don't understand how you're still alive.
We disagree on why he cared. So be it.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
