• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!
  • Welcome to our archives. No new posts are allowed here.

Another Mass Grave found in Iraq

Trajan Octavian Titus said:
Yes you show me where the Republicans in congress voted for the authorization of force in Kosovo and then after that denounced the war go ahead I'm all ears. As I already explained Clinton did not get congressional approval and thus was only allowed to dispatch the troops for 60 days these statements were made in the debate on whether or not to grant Clinton the war powers which is when those issues and reservations about going to war are supposed to be made not after the fact, what the Democrats did is voted for the authorization of force and then turned around and stated their reservations after the fact which is nothing more than partisan politics and putting politics ahead ahead of the war effort.
ahh.. so it changes now. First it's show me any republican that denounced the war and now it's show me any that voted for the war and then denounced? :lol:
 
scottyz said:
ahh.. so it changes now. First it's show me any republican that denounced the war and now it's show me any that voted for the war and then denounced? :lol:

That's not the point the Republicans stated their reservations before granting the president the war powers as is their right, the Democrats granted the use of force and then turned around after the fact to denounce the war for partisan politics it's not even close to the same thing it's a fallacious analogy if the Democrats didn't want to go to war then they shouldn't have ****ing voted for it. Just because the president wakes up one morning with a bug up his ass and decides to dispatch the troops doesn't mean you have to give him the authorization to do it the president isn't a dictator, the Democrats gave the president the authorization if they didn't want to then they shouldn't have given Bush the war powers. To condemn the war now for the sake of partisan-politics is hypocritical and unconscionable.
 
Trajan Octavian Titus said:
Do you see a timetable in the Joint Resolution of Congress of Oct. 22, 2002 do you, how bout a spending limit, show me where there at where's it at hmmm?

Clearly I wouldn't see that because there isn't one. You can't deny the fact that they said those things, however, during the debate that led up to the war. They said we would only be there for a very short time and Iraqi oil would pay for the whole thing. Now we've been there for 3 years, and we haven't gotten a DIME from Iraqi oil to help cover the costs of this war or the terribly slow reconstruction efforts going on there. We're funding the whole thing with that money that comes out of our respective paychecks each week.

It's not only right, but necessary, with 3 years, $300billion, more than 2000 lives lost and 10,000 wounded soldiers, that we begin debating exactly when we've accomplished what we're going to militarily, and at what point the Iraqis are going to be made to take responsibility for their own lives and liberty.
 
JustMyPOV said:
Clearly I wouldn't see that because there isn't one. You can't deny the fact that they said those things, however, during the debate that led up to the war. They said we would only be there for a very short time and Iraqi oil would pay for the whole thing. Now we've been there for 3 years, and we haven't gotten a DIME from Iraqi oil to help cover the costs of this war or the terribly slow reconstruction efforts going on there. We're funding the whole thing with that money that comes out of our respective paychecks each week.

It's not only right, but necessary, with 3 years, $300billion, more than 2000 lives lost and 10,000 wounded soldiers, that we begin debating exactly when we've accomplished what we're going to militarily, and at what point the Iraqis are going to be made to take responsibility for their own lives and liberty.

That's all fine and dandy but don't try and revise the lead up to war, don't call our troops terrorists, don't compare the U.S. to nazis, don't say that we can't win the war, don't call for surrender, that's what the Democrats are doing not debating how we attain victory in the war they're trying to reinvent how we got in it and demoralizing the troops in the process because they're invested in defeat.
 
Last edited:
Trajan Octavian Titus said:
That's all fine and dandy but don't try and revise the lead up to war, don't call our troops terrorists, don't compare the U.S. to nazis, don't say that we can't win the war, don't call for surrender, that's what the Democrats are doing not debating how we attain victory in the war they're trying to reinvent how we got in it and demoralizing the troops in the process because they're invested in defeat.

Which Democrat was it that called for surrender and what exactly did he/she say to suggest this? I just can't seem to come up with anything. I'm genuinely curious because whoever it was should have his/her membership card revoked. Fact is, Murtha didn't call for surrender, he called for the safe withdrawal of American troops at the earliest possible date. He said that we've already won the war and accomplished what we can militarily. Nowhere does he suggest that we can't win the war. Also, Kerry picked a bad synonym for "scaring", he did not call the troops terrorists. He simply stated that it should be Iraqi soldiers raiding Iraqi homes not Americans, and both of these men have a really good point. It's long-since time that the Iraqis step up to the plate and fight for their own freedom at their own expense.

I don't personally compare what we do to the actions of Nazis, and neither do most in the mainstream of the Democratic party. There are extremists on both sides of the aisle that will say pretty much anything to support their arguments, so it's unfair to suggest as you do that all Democrats do this. The rest of what you've said is just pure spin to make legitimate arguments look outlandish. It's a lot easier for conservatives to debate what those Democrats didn't say rather than what they actually said, I suppose, but it doesn't say a hell of a lot about their credibility.
 
JustMyPOV said:
Which Democrat was it that called for surrender and what exactly did he/she say to suggest this? I just can't seem to come up with anything. I'm genuinely curious because whoever it was should have his/her membership card revoked. Fact is, Murtha didn't call for surrender, he called for the safe withdrawal of American troops at the earliest possible date. He said that we've already won the war and accomplished what we can militarily. Nowhere does he suggest that we can't win the war. Also, Kerry picked a bad synonym for "scaring", he did not call the troops terrorists. He simply stated that it should be Iraqi soldiers raiding Iraqi homes not Americans, and both of these men have a really good point. It's long-since time that the Iraqis step up to the plate and fight for their own freedom at their own expense.

I don't personally compare what we do to the actions of Nazis, and neither do most in the mainstream of the Democratic party. There are extremists on both sides of the aisle that will say pretty much anything to support their arguments, so it's unfair to suggest as you do that all Democrats do this. The rest of what you've said is just pure spin to make legitimate arguments look outlandish. It's a lot easier for conservatives to debate what those Democrats didn't say rather than what they actually said, I suppose, but it doesn't say a hell of a lot about their credibility.

I'm sorry in Democratic newspeak calling for premature withdrawl is called a strategy for success. :roll:

Howard Dean said that the war is unwinnable.

Ya you can reinterpret Kerry all you want to the fact is this is nothing new for him he made the same lies in Vietnam.

Senator Durbin did compare the troops to the Nazis how can you be a more main stream Democrat then one who's in office.
 
JustMyPOV said:
I can at least respect you approaching the two with the same standard, even though I have a different view on it... They were absolutely correct in feeling free to criticize the president, in my opinion. I feel the same way about the Democrats doing so today.

The point I was driving at is that most conservatives don't approach the topic with your more subjective viewpoint. Most, even though they were outspoken against the military's mission in Kosovo, feel that Democrats are undermining the troops by speaking out against the mission in Iraq. It's downright conceited of the conservative side to suggest that speaking out against the president during combat operations is only ok if it is them doing it. I commend you for not applying the double-standard, but surely, even you have to admit, that it is applied by most arguing on the Republican side.
But now I have a question for you (and those on the Left side of the aisle)...

Did you support and defend those Republicans during the war in Bosnia as strongly as you support and defend what the Democrats are saying now?

It seems that the ones putting out quotes from Republicans are pointing out that it's OK to act like a dirty rat now and criticize the Administration and the military based on the SOLE reason that the Republicans were acting like dirty rats back in 1999...

That logic is befuddling...

"They were a-holes back then, so now it's OUR turn to be a-holes"...

I'll remember that when a Republican "accidentally" flips over a bridge and drowns their passenger...

Pure genius...:roll:
 
cnredd said:
But now I have a question for you (and those on the Left side of the aisle)...

Did you support and defend those Republicans during the war in Bosnia as strongly as you support and defend what the Democrats are saying now?

It seems that the ones putting out quotes from Republicans are pointing out that it's OK to act like a dirty rat now and criticize the Administration and the military based on the SOLE reason that the Republicans were acting like dirty rats back in 1999...

That logic is befuddling...

"They were a-holes back then, so now it's OUR turn to be a-holes"...

I don't seem to recall any of the Republicans who spoke out against the president in 1999 being referred to as un-American, as traitors, as Milosevic apologists, as being pro-ethnic cleansing, and at no point during my post do I refer to them as dirty rats, or a-holes. I didn't spin any of what they said to suit my purposes as is done by those on the other side on a regular basis, I simply pasted what they did say into my posts, much of which is strikingly similar to what Democrats are saying today.

I never suggested once that they were "a-holes" for saying it, I stated that both sides had/have the right to speak out against the presidents' policies during the respective wars. You're the one who suggested that both sides were wrong in speaking out, not me.

I'll remember that when a Republican "accidentally" flips over a bridge and drowns their passenger...

Pure genius...:roll:

What does that have to do with what we're debating? In any case, they're probably too busy fighting off charges of money laundering, accepting bribes, and obstruction of justice to do anything like that, so I don't think we have to worry about it.
 
Trajan Octavian Titus said:
Name one? Saddam perpetrated genocide on a scale not seen since pol-pot and Hitler before him.
mainly with our help during the iran iraq war.......
 
Napoleon's Nightingale said:
I think you're using the term "genocide" too loosely. Why focus on what Saddam did 20 years ago while there's a genocide in progress in the Sudan?

While I frequently disagree with NN's POV, this time we are in total agreement. The progress we are making in Iraq highlights the situation with the United Nations more than it does on anything the US is doing or not doing. In Iraq, we determined, rightly or wrongly depending on one's POV, that the UN was not going to do what we thought (again, rightly or wrongly) in regard to Iraq and that it was in our interests to proceed unilaterally. In Sudan and Rwanda, there are situations every bit as bad if not worse in many, many respects than Iraq, and yes, in the pov of some, there really is no comparsion. Yet where is the UN? Still ineffective, for all practical purposes, not to be seen. Why?
 
Red_Dave said:
mainly with our help during the iran iraq war.......

I continually hear this batted around by the left when in fact it was not true the weapons used by Saddam in the Iran-Iraq war were Soviet ones left over from the previous decade, the U.S. may have given Saddam viruses to be used for medical vaccine treatment but so did the rest of the world, and the Chemical weapons that people keep claiming we gave Saddam it's a total fabrication Saddam converted already existing chemical factories which created things like chlorine and ammonia and turned them into factories for the production of WMD. The continious lie that says we supported Iraq or gave Saddam arms is a total fabrication why do you think we were blowing up Russian made T-32's and not M-1 Abrams tanks, why do you think we shot down MIG's and not F-16's, and why do you think the insurgents wave around AK's and not M-16's????
 
Last edited:
oldreliable67 said:
While I frequently disagree with NN's POV, this time we are in total agreement. The progress we are making in Iraq highlights the situation with the United Nations more than it does on anything the US is doing or not doing. In Iraq, we determined, rightly or wrongly depending on one's POV, that the UN was not going to do what we thought (again, rightly or wrongly) in regard to Iraq and that it was in our interests to proceed unilaterally. In Sudan and Rwanda, there are situations every bit as bad if not worse in many, many respects than Iraq, and yes, in the pov of some, there really is no comparsion. Yet where is the UN? Still ineffective, for all practical purposes, not to be seen. Why?


The U.S. is the only country who has come out publicly when Powell stood up and said that what is going on in the Sudan is genocide and thus the U.N. should use force to stop it as is specified in the U.N. charter that genocide is an act which justifies military intervention so what does the U.N. do? It puts Sudan on the ****ing Human Rights commission, the U.N. is corrupt to the core and unless they we reform I say we withdraw from it and take the bulk of the money used to fund it with us.
 
Trajan Octavian Titus said:
U.N. is corrupt to the core and unless they we reform I say we withdraw from it and take the bulk of the money used to fund it with us.
I had a great idea a couple of months back. Withdraw from the U.N. kick them and all of their diplomats out of the country, revoked visas, immediate deportation et.al., and then turn the U.N. building in New York City into the N.R.A.'s national headquarters just to make a point.
 
LaMidRighter said:
I had a great idea a couple of months back. Withdraw from the U.N. kick them and all of their diplomats out of the country, revoked visas, immediate deportation et.al., and then turn the U.N. building in New York City into the N.R.A.'s national headquarters just to make a point.

Hell's ya.
 
tecoyah said:
No one denys Saddam was a bad man.....the issue revolves around our reasoning for invasion. If we use the brutality of dictators as criteria.....there are many far worse to deal with. Care to try Again?

So if we don't deal with all of them dealing with any one of this is wrong? I've never understood the point of your arguement?
 
Trajan Octavian Titus said:
I continually hear this batted around by the left when in fact it was not true the weapons used by Saddam in the Iran-Iraq war were Soviet ones left over from the previous decade, the U.S. may have given Saddam viruses to be used for medical vaccine treatment but so did the rest of the world, and the Chemical weapons that people keep claiming we gave Saddam it's a total fabrication Saddam converted already existing chemical factories which created things like chlorine and ammonia and turned them into factories for the production of WMD. The continious lie that says we supported Iraq or gave Saddam arms is a total fabrication why do you think we were blowing up Russian made T-32's and not M-1 Abrams tanks, why do you think we shot down MIG's and not F-16's, and why do you think the insurgents wave around AK's and not M-16's????

:spin: !! If we gave Saddam anthrax, west nile virus (which is not native to Iraq), clostridium botulinum bacteria, botulinum toxin, botulinum toxiod, clostridium perfringens, etc.. for medical ussage then why were the samples sent without atropine injectors and without being diluted to the Iraqi Atomic Engery Commission and to the al-Muthanna complex which Saddam used as his main base for his weapons programs? If it was a "fabrication" then why did the Senate Armed Services Committee conduct an inquiry into the matter and find that it is true?
 
Napoleon's Nightingale said:
:spin: !! If we gave Saddam anthrax, west nile virus (which is not native to Iraq), clostridium botulinum bacteria, botulinum toxin, botulinum toxiod, clostridium perfringens, etc.. for medical ussage then why were the samples sent without atropine injectors and without being diluted to the Iraqi Atomic Engery Commission and to the al-Muthanna complex which Saddam used as his main base for his weapons programs? If it was a "fabrication" then why did the Senate Armed Services Committee conduct an inquiry into the matter and find that it is true?

Umm because it's not true and you're either making it all up or you got it off of a Chomsky website. The viruses given to Saddam didn't just come from the U.S. they came from all over Europe too, and they were for vaccine research, and what does a virus or bacteria have to do with the IAEC??? Besides that fact the WMD Saddam used was chemical not virul in nature so the point is moot. The U.S. DID NOT support Saddam with arms of any sort during the Iran-Iraq war infact we supplied Iran with weapons to help fund the Contras to take out those Sandinista commie bastards in Nicaragua. You have absolutely no evidence to support that the U.S. gave WMD to Iraq all you have is one article from a socialist nut who hates the U.S. and is already known to totally slant the truth on matters ranging from Pol-Pot to the Sudan in order to make the U.S. look like the bad guy.
 
Last edited:
Trajan Octavian Titus said:
You have absolutely no evidence to support that the U.S. gave WMD to Iraq all you have is one article from a socialist nut who hates the U.S. and is already known to totally slant the truth on matters ranging from Pol-Pot to the Sudan in order to make the U.S. look like the bad guy.

Condemning a source when I haven't even mentioned any source as of yet? Hmm someone is deeply biased and runs from the facts. That would be you.


http://www.fas.org/irp/congress/2002_cr/s092002.html

http://www.usatoday.com/news/world/2002-09-30-iraq-ushelp_x.htm

http://www.usatoday.com/news/world/2002-09-30-iraq-ushelp-list_x.htm

http://www.baltimoresun.com/news/na...oct01,0,4635016.story?coll=bal-home-headlines

http://www.gulfweb.org/bigdoc/report/r_1_2.html#exports

http://www.usembassy-israel.org.il/publish/press/arms/archive/november/ac21127.htm
 
Last edited:
Napoleon's Nightingale said:


Here's who really supplied Iraq with weapons during the Iran Iraq war:

Suppliers in Billions (1985 $US) % of total
CCCP...................... 19.2 ............61
France .....................5.5 .............18
China .......................1.7 ..............5
Brazil .......................1.1 ...............4
Egypt .......................1.1 .............4
Other countries.......... 2.9 .............6
Total ........................31.5 ...........100.0

We're about half of one percent of the other countries our involvement was so miniscule as to have had absolutely no impact on the war check out your prescious French if you really want to know who supported Saddam you and the rest of the propagandists on this sight are full of it.
 
Trajan Octavian Titus said:
Here's who really supplied Iraq with weapons during the Iran Iraq war:

Suppliers in Billions (1985 $US) % of total
CCCP...................... 19.2 ............61
France .....................5.5 .............18
China .......................1.7 ..............5
Brazil .......................1.1 ...............4
Egypt .......................1.1 .............4
Other countries.......... 2.9 .............6
Total ........................31.5 ...........100.0

We're about half of one percent of the other countries our involvement was so miniscule as to have had absolutely no impact on the war check out your prescious French if you really want to know who supported Saddam you and the rest of the propagandists on this sight are full of it.

Oh I see. First you deny that it ever happened then you try to claim that the U.S. sent them for medical use then you claim that the U.S. didn't do it as much as other countries then you call the Senate Armed Services Committee and the Senate Banking Comitteee "propagandists". LOL. You really are laughable.
 
Yup....I have such a powerful imagination I just made all this up too......

September,1980. Iraq invades Iran. The beginning of the Iraq-Iran war. (8)

February, 1982. Despite objections from congress, President Reagan removes Iraq from its list of known terrorist countries. (1)

December, 1982. Hughes Aircraft ships 60 Defender helicopters to Iraq. (9)

1982-1988. Defense Intelligence Agency provides detailed information for Iraq on Iranian deployments, tactical planning for battles, plans for air strikes and bomb damage assessments. (4)

November, 1983. A National Security Directive states that the U.S would do �whatever was necessary and legal� to prevent Iraq from losing its war with Iran. (1) (15)

November, 1983. Banca Nazionale del Lavoro of Italy and its Branch in Atlanta begin to funnel $5 billion in unreported loans to Iraq. Iraq, with the blessing and official approval of the US government, purchased computer controlled machine tools, computers, scientific instruments, special alloy steel and aluminum, chemicals, and other industrial goods for Iraq›s missile, chemical, biological and nuclear weapons programs. (14)

October, 1983. The Reagan Administration begins secretly allowing Jordan, Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, and Egypt to transfer United States weapons, including Howitzers, Huey helicopters, and bombs to Iraq. These shipments violated the Arms Export Control Act. (16)

November 1983. George Schultz, the Secretary of State, is given intelligence reports showing that Iraqi troops are daily using chemical weapons against the Iranians. (1)

December 20, 1983 Donald Rumsfeld , then a civilian and now Defense Secretary, meets with Saddam Hussein to assure him of US friendship and materials support. (1) (15)

July, 1984. CIA begins giving Iraq intelligence necessary to calibrate its mustard gas attacks on Iranian troops. (19)

January 14, 1984. State Department memo acknowledges United States shipment of �dual-use� export hardware and technology. Dual use items are civilian items such as heavy trucks, armored ambulances and communications gear as well as industrial technology that can have a military application. (2)

March, 1986. The United States with Great Britain block all Security Council resolutions condemning Iraq›s use of chemical weapons, and on March 21 the US becomes the only country refusing to sign a Security Council statement condemning Iraq›s use of these weapons. (10)

May, 1986. The US Department of Commerce licenses 70 biological exports to Iraq between May of 1985 and 1989, including at least 21 batches of lethal strains of anthrax. (3)

May, 1986. US Department of Commerce approves shipment of weapons grade botulin poison to Iraq. (7)

March, 1987. President Reagan bows to the findings of the Tower Commission admitting the sale of arms to Iran in exchange for hostages. Oliver North uses the profits from the sale to fund an illegal war in Nicaragua. (17)

Late 1987. The Iraqi Air Force begins using chemical agents against Kurdish resistance forces in northern Iraq. (1)

February, 1988. Saddam Hussein begins the �Anfal� campaign against the Kurds of northern Iraq. The Iraq regime used chemical weapons against the Kurds killing over 100,000 civilians and destroying over 1,200 Kurdish villages. (8)

April, 1988. US Department of Commerce approves shipment of chemicals used in manufacture of mustard gas. (7)

August, 1988. Four major battles were fought from April to August 1988, in which the Iraqis massively and effectively used chemical weapons to defeat the Iranians. Nerve gas and blister agents such as mustard gas are used. By this time the US Defense Intelligence Agency is heavily involved with Saddam Hussein in battle plan assistance, intelligence gathering and post battle debriefing. In the last major battle with of the war, 65,000 Iranians are killed, many with poison gas. Use of chemical weapons in war is in violation of the Geneva accords of 1925. (6) (13)

August, 1988. Iraq and Iran declare a cease fire. (8)

August, 1988. Five days after the cease fire Saddam Hussein sends his planes and helicopters to northern Iraq to begin massive chemical attacks against the Kurds. (8)

September, 1988. US Department of Commerce approves shipment of weapons grade anthrax and botulinum to Iraq. (7)

September 1988. Richard Murphy, Assistant Secretary of State: �The US-Iraqi relationship is... important to our long-term political and economic objectives.� (15)

December, 1988. Dow chemical sells $1.5 million in pesticides to Iraq despite knowledge that these would be used in chemical weapons. (1)

July 25, 1990. US Ambassador to Baghdad meets with Hussein to assure him that President Bush �wanted better and deeper relations�. Many believe this visit was a trap set for Hussein. A month later Hussein invaded Kuwait thinking the US would not respond. (12)

August, 1990 Iraq invades Kuwait. The precursor to the Gulf War. (8)

July, 1991 The Financial Times of London reveals that a Florida chemical company had produced and shipped cyanide to Iraq during the 80›s using a special CIA courier. Cyanide was used extensively against the Iranians. (11)

August, 1991. Christopher Droguol of Atlanta›s branch of Banca Nazionale del Lavoro is arrested for his role in supplying loans to Iraq for the purchase of military supplies. He is charged with 347 counts of felony. Droguol is found guilty, but US officials plead innocent of any knowledge of his crime. (14)

June, 1992. Ted Kopple of ABC Nightline reports: �It is becoming increasingly clear that George Bush Sr., operating largely behind the scenes throughout the 1980›s, initiated and supported much of the financing, intelligence, and military help that built Saddam›s Iraq into [an aggressive power].� (5)

July, 1992. �The Bush administration deliberately, not inadvertently, helped to arm Iraq by allowing U.S. technology to be shipped to Iraqi military and to Iraqi defense factories... Throughout the course of the Bush administration, U.S. and foreign firms were granted export licenses to ship U.S. technology directly to Iraqi weapons facilities despite ample evidence showing that these factories were producing weapons.� Representative Henry Gonzalez, Texas, testimony before the House. (18)

February, 1994. Senator Riegle from Michigan, chairman of the Senate Banking Committee, testifies before the senate revealing large US shipments of dual-use biological and chemical agents to Iraq that may have been used against US troops in the Gulf War and probably was the cause of the illness known as Gulf War Syndrome. (7)

August, 2002. �The use of gas [during the Iran-Iraq war] on the battle field by the Iraqis was not a matter of deep strategic concern... We were desperate to make sure that Iraq did not lose�. Colonel Walter Lang, former senior US Defense Intelligence officer tells the New York Times. (4)
 
Napoleon's Nightingale said:
Oh I see. First you deny that it ever happened then you try to claim that the U.S. sent them for medical use then you claim that the U.S. didn't do it as much as other countries then you call the Senate Armed Services Committee and the Senate Banking Comitteee "propagandists". LOL. You really are laughable.

A) They were for medical research.
B) You have no proof to the contrary.
C) The roll the U.S. played in supporting Iraq is equatable to the roll we played to supporting Iran to finance the Contras.
D) It was the French and the Soviets who supported Iraq and gave him WMD not the U.S..
 
Trajan Octavian Titus said:
A) They were for medical research.

They were sent without atropine injectors and the Iraqi Atomic Energy Agency and the al-Muthanna complex facilities are not medical facilities. Some of the shipments did not have any medical value.

Trajan Octavian Titus said:
B) You have no proof to the contrary.

According to the Senate Armed Services Committee, the CDC, the ATTC, and the Senate Banking Comittee you're wrong.

Trajan Octavian Titus said:
C) The roll the U.S. played in supporting Iraq is equatable to the roll we played to supporting Iran to finance the Contras.

We didn't give Iran chemical and biological agents.

Trajan Octavian Titus said:
D) It was the French and the Soviets who supported Iraq and gave him WMD not the U.S..


According to the Senate Armed Services Committee, the CDC, the ATTC, and the Senate Banking Comittee you're wrong.
 
tecoyah said:
Yup....I have such a powerful imagination I just made all this up too......

September,1980. Iraq invades Iran. The beginning of the Iraq-Iran war. (8)

That's not U.S. support

February, 1982. Despite objections from congress, President Reagan removes Iraq from its list of known terrorist countries. (1)

That's not U.S. support.

December, 1982. Hughes Aircraft ships 60 Defender helicopters to Iraq. (9)

Those are not military aircraft.

1982-1988. Defense Intelligence Agency provides detailed information for Iraq on Iranian deployments, tactical planning for battles, plans for air strikes and bomb damage assessments. (4)

OOO logistical support woopeddee doo.

November, 1983. A National Security Directive states that the U.S would do �whatever was necessary and legal� to prevent Iraq from losing its war with Iran. (1) (15)

Key word legal.

November, 1983. Banca Nazionale del Lavoro of Italy and its Branch in Atlanta begin to funnel $5 billion in unreported loans to Iraq. Iraq, with the blessing and official approval of the US government, purchased computer controlled machine tools, computers, scientific instruments, special alloy steel and aluminum, chemicals, and other industrial goods for Iraq›s missile, chemical, biological and nuclear weapons programs. (14)

Oh I see the U.S. is responsible for what Italy does. That's called Italian support partna not U.S.


October, 1983. The Reagan Administration begins secretly allowing Jordan, Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, and Egypt to transfer United States weapons, including Howitzers, Huey helicopters, and bombs to Iraq. These shipments violated the Arms Export Control Act. (16)

That's called Jordanian, Saudi Arabian, Kuwaiti and Egyptian support not U.S.


November 1983. George Schultz, the Secretary of State, is given intelligence reports showing that Iraqi troops are daily using chemical weapons against the Iranians. (1)

And that's U.S. support how exactly?

December 20, 1983 Donald Rumsfeld , then a civilian and now Defense Secretary, meets with Saddam Hussein to assure him of US friendship and materials support. (1) (15)

That's U.S. official policy how exactly and equates to military aid because why?

July, 1984. CIA begins giving Iraq intelligence necessary to calibrate its mustard gas attacks on Iranian troops. (19)

Oh ya proove it.

January 14, 1984. State Department memo acknowledges United States shipment of �dual-use� export hardware and technology. Dual use items are civilian items such as heavy trucks, armored ambulances and communications gear as well as industrial technology that can have a military application. (2)

Key word dual-use as in can have a military use but does not mean it is.

March, 1986. The United States with Great Britain block all Security Council resolutions condemning Iraq›s use of chemical weapons, and on March 21 the US becomes the only country refusing to sign a Security Council statement condemning Iraq›s use of these weapons. (10)

Oh wow we stopped the corrupt U.N. from tying the hands of the enemy of an allie of the Soviet Union woopee.

May, 1986. The US Department of Commerce licenses 70 biological exports to Iraq between May of 1985 and 1989, including at least 21 batches of lethal strains of anthrax. (3)

Ya for vaccine research.

May, 1986. US Department of Commerce approves shipment of weapons grade botulin poison to Iraq. (7)

First off prove it second off it has a medical use.

March, 1987. President Reagan bows to the findings of the Tower Commission admitting the sale of arms to Iran in exchange for hostages. Oliver North uses the profits from the sale to fund an illegal war in Nicaragua. (17)

Like I said we supported Iran as much as Iraq does that make us allies I think not.

Late 1987. The Iraqi Air Force begins using chemical agents against Kurdish resistance forces in northern Iraq. (1)

And that's the U.S.'s fault why?

February, 1988. Saddam Hussein begins the �Anfal� campaign against the Kurds of northern Iraq. The Iraq regime used chemical weapons against the Kurds killing over 100,000 civilians and destroying over 1,200 Kurdish villages. (8)

U.S's fault why?

April, 1988. US Department of Commerce approves shipment of chemicals used in manufacture of mustard gas. (7)

Chlorine and ammonia woopee I can buy those at the grocery store down the street.

August, 1988. Four major battles were fought from April to August 1988, in which the Iraqis massively and effectively used chemical weapons to defeat the Iranians. Nerve gas and blister agents such as mustard gas are used. By this time the US Defense Intelligence Agency is heavily involved with Saddam Hussein in battle plan assistance, intelligence gathering and post battle debriefing. In the last major battle with of the war, 65,000 Iranians are killed, many with poison gas. Use of chemical weapons in war is in violation of the Geneva accords of 1925. (6) (13)

U.S.'s fault how?

August, 1988. Iraq and Iran declare a cease fire. (8)

August, 1988. Five days after the cease fire Saddam Hussein sends his planes and helicopters to northern Iraq to begin massive chemical attacks against the Kurds. (8)

U.S.'s fault how?

September, 1988. US Department of Commerce approves shipment of weapons grade anthrax and botulinum to Iraq. (7)

Prove it and it has medical purposes what exactly does weapons grade mean it their a non-weapons grade botulinum and anthrax I don't freaking think so.

September 1988. Richard Murphy, Assistant Secretary of State: �The US-Iraqi relationship is... important to our long-term political and economic objectives.� (15)

Wow we say the same thing about Chavez now let's find all the quotes where the U.S. condemns Saddam shall we?

December, 1988. Dow chemical sells $1.5 million in pesticides to Iraq despite knowledge that these would be used in chemical weapons. (1)

What prior knowledge and pesticides are used in farming so what's your point?

July 25, 1990. US Ambassador to Baghdad meets with Hussein to assure him that President Bush �wanted better and deeper relations�. Many believe this visit was a trap set for Hussein. A month later Hussein invaded Kuwait thinking the US would not respond. (12)

That's a total lie the ambassador went to Iraq and told Saddam that if he invaded Kuwait the U.S. would respond the ambassador has been totally exonerated and a high up Iraqi official said that the transcript that said we gave Saddam our blessing was a fabrication and part of the Iraqi propaganda program this is Illuminati type stuff buddy you're going to have to do better.

August, 1990 Iraq invades Kuwait. The precursor to the Gulf War. (8)

And the U.S. responds as we said we would.

July, 1991 The Financial Times of London reveals that a Florida chemical company had produced and shipped cyanide to Iraq during the 80›s using a special CIA courier. Cyanide was used extensively against the Iranians. (11)

How much cyanide a dual purpose chemical by the way.

August, 1991. Christopher Droguol of Atlanta›s branch of Banca Nazionale del Lavoro is arrested for his role in supplying loans to Iraq for the purchase of military supplies. He is charged with 347 counts of felony. Droguol is found guilty, but US officials plead innocent of any knowledge of his crime. (14

June, 1992. Ted Kopple of ABC Nightline reports: �It is becoming increasingly clear that George Bush Sr., operating largely behind the scenes throughout the 1980›s, initiated and supported much of the financing, intelligence, and military help that built Saddam›s Iraq into [an aggressive power].� (5)

Ya sure thing Mr. Kopple. :roll:

July, 1992. �The Bush administration deliberately, not inadvertently, helped to arm Iraq by allowing U.S. technology to be shipped to Iraqi military and to Iraqi defense factories... Throughout the course of the Bush administration, U.S. and foreign firms were granted export licenses to ship U.S. technology directly to Iraqi weapons facilities despite ample evidence showing that these factories were producing weapons.� Representative Henry Gonzalez, Texas, testimony before the House. (18)

You left that little D out of his title.

February, 1994. Senator Riegle from Michigan, chairman of the Senate Banking Committee, testifies before the senate revealing large US shipments of dual-use biological and chemical agents to Iraq that may have been used against US troops in the Gulf War and probably was the cause of the illness known as Gulf War Syndrome. (7)

Key words: dual use and may have.

August, 2002. �The use of gas [during the Iran-Iraq war] on the battle field by the Iraqis was not a matter of deep strategic concern... We were desperate to make sure that Iraq did not lose�. Colonel Walter Lang, former senior US Defense Intelligence officer tells the New York Times. (4)

Oh well that last quote prooves that we supported the genocide sure thing buddy. :roll:
 
Last edited:
Not only was that information not proof of U.S. support it was so freaking biased that I can't believe you even bothered to plagarize it here's the site you stole it from:

http://www.iranchamber.com/history/articles/arming_iraq.php

This is a cite ran by the Iran Chamber Society lmfao unbelievable I can't believe you posted Iranian propaganda and thought you would get it past me you're a anti-U.S. propagandist.
 
Back
Top Bottom