Shame On You Mister Bush!

[cthomer5000]

Former Reagan official and National Security Council staffer Howard Teicher has described a less than hateful relationship between the Reagan administration and Saddam Hussein. In 1995, Teicher offered an affidavit in the Teledyne case, a legal sideshow to a larger scandal known as "Iraqgate." According to Teicher, he and Donald Rumsfeld traveled to Iraq to make sure the Iraqi dictator received what he needed in order to win the Iran-Iraq war--or if not win at least make sure there was a draw. "CIA Director Casey personally spearheaded the effort to ensure that Iraq had sufficient military weapons, ammunition and vehicles," Teicher swore in the affidavit.

http://www.counterpunch.org/nimmo0919.html

[cthomer5000]

American military sales to Iraq began in December 1982, when the Reagan Administration agreed to support the sale of 60 Hughes MD 500 "Defender" helicopters to Baghdad, despite their obvious military applications. The Hughes "Defender" was advertised by Hughes as a dedicated anti-tank machine; an earlier version was used in Vietnam equipped with TOW missile launchers. Nevertheless, and despite objections from four Republican Senators, the Commerce Department ruled that the sale of aircraft weighing less than 10,000 pounds did not require an export license to Iraq. (Iraq was taken off the terrorism list that March, and was therefore newly exempted from "foreign policy" export controls). All 60 helicopters were delivered by the end of 1983.

I could go on and on.

check out some books:

Spider's Web: The Secret History of How the White House Illegally Armed Iraq

Beyond the Storm: A Gulf Crisis Reader

[cthomer5000]

It's an absolute fact that Reagen/Bush either directly aided Iraq during the Iran-Iraq war (advice, satellite surveillance), gave them biological weapons (CDC records prove this), and cleared the way for many US companies to sell them shitloads of war-making tools.

I'd be satisfied with leaving this at my brass knuckles analogy.

[BishopMVP]

Lisbon - The United States does not have the military means to take over Baghdad and will lose the war against Iraq, former United Nations weapons inspector Scott Ritter said.

"The United States is going to leave Iraq with its tail between its legs, defeated. It is a war we can not win," he told private radio TSF in an interview broadcast here Tuesday evening.

"We do not have the military means to take over Baghdad and for this reason I believe the defeat of the United States in this war is inevitable," he said.

"Every time we confront Iraqi troops we may win some tactical battles, as we did for ten years in Vietnam but we will not be able to win this war, which in my opinion is already lost," Ritter added.

This was from today. Just because someone was in a position of power doesn't mean they are telling the truth or even have a clue what is going on. Don't believe everything you hear.

Because I feel this will likely end up in a circular argument with both of us set in our positions, I have another question for you. Does any of this matter? Even if we armed Saddam does that preclude us from taking him out, or even have an effect on the decision?

[panerd]

Originally posted by BishopMVP
When Iraq began losing we provided them with satellite photos of Iranian positions. I certainly don't condone that. They requested anthrax from certain laboratories and we gave them some thinking it was for scientific use. As for giving them chemical or other biological weapons, nyet. And as for the "billions" you have seen, check your figures and sources.

You probably should check your facts. With minimal searching...

http://www.jonathanpollard.org/1991/091391.htm

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn...2002Dec29.html

http://www.casi.org.uk/discuss/2000/msg00776.html


Of course the CIA denied a lot of the facts. Whom do I believe? Koppel and the rest of the world or Ollie North?

[cthomer5000]

Originally posted by BishopMVP
Because I feel this will likely end up in a circular argument with both of us set in our positions, I have another question for you. Does any of this matter? Even if we armed Saddam does that preclude us from taking him out, or even have an effect on the decision?

to me, yes. I think the public is largely unaware of our style of foreign policy, (which to me seems to be "revisionist history"). I basically fall in line with the issue QuikSand raised. This war shouldn't be justified as a humanitarian cause, because that's totally inconsistent with the rest of our foreign policy. There are equal (and worse) atrocities being committed to citizens of other nations throughout the world, but we won't do anything about them.

I think even those who support the war should question our motives for being there. When will the cycle of putting/keeping who we want in power end? It's not as if we're going to be running Iraq full-time when all is said and done, so is this ultimately worth it?


edited: for grammatical purposes

[BishopMVP]

My two quotes on the issue of arming Iraq.

Originally posted by BishopMVP
At least certainly not to the extent that many people claim. "when Iraq was on it's weapons spending spree from 1972 (when its oil revenue quadrupled) to 1990, the purchases were quite public and listed over $40 billion worth of arms sales. Russia was the largest supplier, with $25 billion. The US was the smallest, with $200,000."

When Iraq began losing we provided them with satellite photos of Iranian positions. I certainly don't condone that. They requested anthrax from certain laboratories and we gave them some thinking it was for scientific use. As for giving them chemical or other biological weapons, nyet. And as for the "billions" you have seen, check your figures and sources.

Panerd, I see nothing in your first two links that refutes what I have said. The only evidence given extending beyonf what I said in the two quotes above was that we sold them insecticides. The other mentions of connections extending farther than what I have already acknowledged are hearsay in the case of the Koppel transcript and in the WaPo article a quick line stating that we gave them chemical and biological weapons. When faced with Koppel's word vs. the CIA's, I'm going to believe neither and instead go with facts and evidence shown elsewhere. I didn't read the whole third link, but it seemed similar to the WaPo article in making accusations and not backing them up.

We are getting into a circular argument here. If the analogy is that the guy down the street is using the brass knuckles we gave him to beat up a kid, then you are wrong. But if you are saying that he is cutting the kid up with a French knife, and has an Russian AK-47 in his hand, then yeah, he is wearing our brass knuckles.

[BishopMVP]

Originally posted by cthomer5000
to me, yes. I think the public is largely unaware of our style of foreign policy, (which to me seems to be "revisionist history"). I basically fall in line with the issue QuikSand raised. This war shouldn't be justified as a humanitarian cause, because that's totally inconsistent with the rest of our foreign policy. There are equal (and worse) atrocities being committed to citizens of other nations throughout the world, but we won't do anything about them.

I think even those who support the war should question our motives for being there. When will the cycle of putting/keeping who we want in power end? It's not as if we're going to be running Iraq full-time when all is said and done, so is this ultimately worth it?

I am certainly aware of much of what we have done in the past, and there are certainly things I regret my country has done. Taking all the bad and good things we did as a country, I think the world is undoubtedly a better place due to American influence in the 20th century. You say that 'this war shouldn't be justified as a humanitarian cause because that is inconsistent with the rest of our foreign policy'. What does the rest of our foreign policy have to do with it? If a robber robs someone and then after he gets away he sees a beggar on the street and gives him some change should he not do so because it is inconsistent? Helping someone/some country out can be good even if the rest of what they do is bad.

There are equal (and worse) atrocities being committed to citizens of other nations throughout the world, but we won't do anything about them.

I think we should and I wish we would.

I think even those who support the war should question our motives for being there. When will the cycle of putting/keeping who we want in power end?

Hopefully not until the people in power are committed to freedom, democracy and doing what is best for the people.

It's not as if we're going to be running Iraq full-time when all is said and done, so is this ultimately worth it?

I hope so.

[Ben E Lou]

Watching the images of the Iraqis throwing off the symbolic mantle of their oppression today made me again think it.

Shame on you, Mister Bush.
Shame on you, Mister Clinton.

[Dutch]

If Spain turns around tommorrow and starts using Nuclear weapons against Morrocco and it's own people, should we consider our friendship of yesterday to have been hypocritical and sly?

Give me a break, people. We were made the sworn enemy of Iran in 1979. It's written in their frickin Islamic laws.

When the relatively unknown Iraqi regime declared war on them, why not help them? The unknown Iraq regime was a sight better than the hateful Iranian one.

Nobody and I mean nobody questioned these decisions in 1979 and 1980.

Sometimes, things in this world go wrong. Shit happens. Get over it and quit bitching about how evil the United States of America is.

Why? Because it's just flat out wrong to think that. You better thank the good Lord that you live here and not in Iraq or Iran or any other place who hasn't embrassed democracy. The USA isn't utopia, but it's about infinately better than what these dictators and kings provide their people.

[The Afoci]

Great post Dutch!!!!

[Anrhydeddu]

Great post, Dutch. I have always felt that such anti-American folks just do not believe that having more freedoms and liberties (as oppose to less) and a government that can reasonable assure such things is any better than a government under dictatorship, tyrant monarchy, socialism or communism. That has been the one thing that really bugs me about the hippie protestors of the 60s to the extremist left-wing policies since then and to some of the protestors nowdays. Too may folks, I think, take their freedoms and liberties for granted and have no clue what it is live, work and play where there are much less freedoms and liberties.