Another Mass Grave found in Iraq

[Crispy]

Just to weigh in on the Iran Iraq war deal here,

Although i don't know what arms we did or didn't provide to Iraq during the war the US did support Iraq in this conflict and for many reasons. We had just gotten our hostages back from Iran prior to that war's inception thus putting Iran on our **** list. We were just coming out of an oil crisis which Iraq was helpful in alleviating through negotiations outside of OPEC for oil reserves. Sadaam at the time wasn't considered a threat and to the contrary was considered a leader who single handedly brought his country out of crisis into a time of prosperity through rebuilding its civil war battered infrastructure. It wasn't until the the results of the Iran-Iraq war came to fruition that Sadaam demonstrated his ambitions for Regional domination and freedom from control over the west through the aquisition of nuclear technology and wmd. His incursion into Kuwait was intended to secure a new source of revenue in order to persue his regional domination ambitions and was the signal to the rest of the world of his true intentions to establish himself as the world power of the middle east and oppose western domination of global power.

On the mass grave, like CNREDD said earlier, those who opposed military action against Milosivek just like those who oppose it now, which I might add included Clinton who refused to acknowlege the Bosnian crisis until the atrocities reached CNN, were in denial about the magnitude of the crisis and the importance of the World Power's need to militarily intervene. These mass graves still only serve to confirm that what was occurring in Iraq during Sadaam's rule was not worth appeasing him at the expense of his people.

And I'll add that yes, the world should deal with Sudan, the world should deal with Somalia and all of the regions of the world who's leaders haven't learned to behave responsibly on behalf of the people they affect.

 

[Trajan Octavian Titus]

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.

Wrong all the shiplments had medical value and sending them with atropine-injectors would prove that they were intended for warfare not the opposite this proves nothing.

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

Actually they found that the shipments were for legitimate non military application so according to your own source you're wrong.

We didn't give Iran chemical and biological agents.

We didn't give Iraq WMD either what we did give them was for legitimate use not for military application.

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

No actually according to them you're wrong.

 

[Trajan Octavian Titus]

Just to weigh in on the Iran Iraq war deal here,

Although i don't know what arms we did or didn't provide to Iraq during the war the US did support Iraq in this conflict and for many reasons. We had just gotten our hostages back from Iran prior to that war's inception thus putting Iran on our **** list. We were just coming out of an oil crisis which Iraq was helpful in alleviating through negotiations outside of OPEC for oil reserves. Sadaam at the time wasn't considered a threat and to the contrary was considered a leader who single handedly brought his country out of crisis into a time of prosperity through rebuilding its civil war battered infrastructure. It wasn't until the the results of the Iran-Iraq war came to fruition that Sadaam demonstrated his ambitions for Regional domination and freedom from control over the west through the aquisition of nuclear technology and wmd. His incursion into Kuwait was intended to secure a new source of revenue in order to persue his regional domination ambitions and was the signal to the rest of the world of his true intentions to establish himself as the world power of the middle east and oppose western domination of global power.

On the mass grave, like CNREDD said earlier, those who opposed military action against Milosivek just like those who oppose it now, which I might add included Clinton who refused to acknowlege the Bosnian crisis until the atrocities reached CNN, were in denial about the magnitude of the crisis and the importance of the World Power's need to militarily intervene. These mass graves still only serve to confirm that what was occurring in Iraq during Sadaam's rule was not worth appeasing him at the expense of his people.

And I'll add that yes, the world should deal with Sudan, the world should deal with Somalia and all of the regions of the world who's leaders haven't learned to behave responsibly on behalf of the people they affect.

The support of Saddam has been so blown out of proportion that I can't even believe I have to comment on it to put it in perspective U.S. support was appx 1/2 of 1% of foriegn arms support given to Saddam in the Iran-Iraq war. This whole thread has turned into anti-U.S. propaganda at its finest, without substantiating evidence you people have made spurious claims and even used an Iran based source as evidence, the only legitimate sources that you have supplied actually prove what I was saying all along that the U.S. gave minimal military aid and was limited to logistical support and that all chemical and biological agents shipped to Saddam were for legititmate medical and industrial applications.

 

[Crispy]

The support of Saddam has been so blown out of proportion that I can't even believe I have to comment on it to put it in perspective U.S. support was appx 1/2 of 1% of foriegn arms support given to Saddam in the Iran-Iraq war. This whole thread has turned into anti-U.S. propaganda at its finest, without substantiating evidence you people have made spurious claims and even used an Iran based source as evidence, the only legitimate sources that you have supplied actually prove what I was saying all along that the U.S. gave minimal military aid and was limited to logistical support and that all chemical and biological agents shipped to Saddam were for legititmate medical and industrial applications.

Hey I'm not sayin he wasn't a scumbag nor am I saying we were Iraq's greatest ally loadig him with WMD during that period, but the side we chose to support for reasons mentioned was Iraq and not Iran.

Here's a quick reference for you (but read further after):

"As the war continued, however, Iraq toned down its rhetoric to gain American support. The United States responded by giving trade credits to Iraq and supplying the Iraqi armed forces with intelligence information through Saudi Arabia. Equally important, the United States dropped objections to efforts by its allies, especially France, to give weapons and other supplies to Iraq. The United States was motivated in part by a desire to back its friends in the region (most of whom supported Iraq), and in part by its fear of the broader consequences of an Iranian victory. Iraq also relied heavily on the USSR for military supplies."

Encyclopedia Encarta.

What's important is that our support for Iraq during the 80s has "nothing" to do with our opposition to his regime in the 90s. I'm for our war now as I was for "not" supporting Iran then.

The argument that "we're always jumping in bed with evil dictators to suit our purposes" and the "how could we go after a dictator we supported before?" argument are the arguments that everybody spews never taking into account any context through which these events took place.

You guys are arguing about the level of support we gave Iraq then and alls I'm saying is "what does supporting Iraq then have to do with removing him from power now?" I've vocally supported our actions nows but I also don't deny the past and instead embrace our national position then as what was right for that time.

 

[Trajan Octavian Titus]

Hey I'm not sayin he wasn't a scumbag nor am I saying we were Iraq's greatest ally loadig him with WMD during that period, but the side we chose to support for reasons mentioned was Iraq and not Iran.

Here's a quick reference for you (but read further after):

"As the war continued, however, Iraq toned down its rhetoric to gain American support. The United States responded by giving trade credits to Iraq and supplying the Iraqi armed forces with intelligence information through Saudi Arabia. Equally important, the United States dropped objections to efforts by its allies, especially France, to give weapons and other supplies to Iraq. The United States was motivated in part by a desire to back its friends in the region (most of whom supported Iraq), and in part by its fear of the broader consequences of an Iranian victory. Iraq also relied heavily on the USSR for military supplies."

Encyclopedia Encarta.

What's important is that our support for Iraq during the 80s has "nothing" to do with our opposition to his regime in the 90s. I'm for our war now as I was for "not" supporting Iran then.

The argument that "we're always jumping in bed with evil dictators to suit our purposes" and the "how could we go after a dictator we supported before?" argument are the arguments that everybody spews never taking into account any context through which these events took place.

You guys are arguing about the level of support we gave Iraq then and alls I'm saying is "what does supporting Iraq then have to do with removing him from power now?" I've vocally supported our actions nows but I also don't deny the past and instead embrace our national position then as what was right for that time.

I can respect that allthough I think that the support for Iraq had little to no impact, what I can't respect is these people who continously try to implant the idea in peoples heads that America is some evil empire supporting fascist dictators the world over whenever we get the chance. Just read this thread people are posting the propaganda of our enemies it's just unbelievable it's like they're trying to portray Iraq as an innocent victim, they're all a bunch of Noam Chomsky akolytes trying to pin every attrocity that's happened for the last 100 years on the shoulders of the U.S..

 

[Crispy]

I can respect that allthough I think that the support for Iraq had little to no impact, what I can't respect is these people who continously try to implant the idea in peoples heads that America is some evil empire supporting fascist dictators the world over whenever we get the chance. Just read this thread people are posting the propaganda of our enemies it's just unbelievable it's like they're trying to portray Iraq as an innocent victim, they're all a bunch of Noam Chomsky akolytes trying to pin every attrocity that's happened for the last 100 years on the shoulders of the U.S..

Oh yea, our support for Iraq then has absolutely nothing to do with now and I don't appreciate the evil empire speak either. I can't appreciate those who take such narrow perspectives of our country just so they can prove a negative message. I don't deny our bloody past or our faults as a country but that doesn't make us wrong nor does it make us evil. It makes us human. And regardless, we've still been the country on the side of right. We're the ones who sent our marines into Somalia to provide food to a starving country. We're the ones who faciliated and hosted the peace negotiations between Egypt and Isreal. We're the ones who concieved the idea for the UN. These are the ideals that demonstrate what America is lest we forget.

 

[Napoleon's Nightingale]

Wrong all the shiplments had medical value and sending them with atropine-injectors would prove that they were intended for warfare not the opposite this proves nothing.

Not true. Atropine injectors are used for vaccination. If the chemical and biological agents were for medical use then they would have been shipped with atropine injectors.

Actually they found that the shipments were for legitimate non military application so according to your own source you're wrong.

Then why weren't they sent to medical facilities instead of to the Iraqi Atomic Engery Commission and to the base where Saddam had restarted his weapons programs?

We didn't give Iraq WMD either what we did give them was for legitimate use not for military application.

Yeah..I bet those tanks and helicoptors we gave them were used for medical purposes too. Oh and by the way, why did we send them West Nile Virus considering the fact that West Nile Virus is not native to Iraq and there hasn't been a single case of it there? Perhaps you'd care to explain the small pox and anthrax too.

No actually according to them you're wrong.

ROFL. It's apparent that you never read the sources. All 4 of those agencies and committees came to the conclusion I've presented. Keep running from the facts..maybe one day they'll catch up to you.

 

[oldreliable67]

I bet those tanks and helicoptors we gave them..."

I think you have us confused with the Russkys. We gave Iraq some stuff, but, IIRC, not tanks and helicopters.

 

[Trajan Octavian Titus]

Not true. Atropine injectors are used for vaccination. If the chemical and biological agents were for medical use then they would have been shipped with atropine injectors.

Nope atropine injectors are used for chemical warfare not the other way around.

Then why weren't they sent to medical facilities instead of to the Iraqi Atomic Engery Commission and to the base where Saddam had restarted his weapons programs?

Maybe those were the only facilities with the capacity to manage them and you haven't shown me proof that they were sent there in the first place.

Yeah..I bet those tanks and helicoptors we gave them were used for medical purposes too. Oh and by the way, why did we send them West Nile Virus considering the fact that West Nile Virus is not native to Iraq and there hasn't been a single case of it there? Perhaps you'd care to explain the small pox and anthrax too.

Ha we didn't send tanks T-32's partna, not M-1 abrams, the only heloes we sent were non-combat helicopters.

ROFL. It's apparent that you never read the sources. All 4 of those agencies and committees came to the conclusion I've presented. Keep running from the facts..maybe one day they'll catch up to you.

Actually I did read them and they came to the conclusion that all chemical and bio agents were sent for legitimate research and industrial means.


ps when you get your intel off of Iranian based websites and from Noam Chomsky I consider you a non-source.

 

[Napoleon's Nightingale]

Nope atropine injectors are used for chemical warfare not the other way around.

Wise up.

"The atropine-auto injector, which is normally attached to a 2-PAM CL (Pralidoxomine Chloride) auto-injector, is a device used by soldiers who come under chemical attack and begin to show symptoms of nerve agent poisoning."

Now I wonder if you recall the chemical agents we sent to Iraq.

https://chppm-www.apgea.army.mil/dmis/documents/Atropine10-23-01DMIS.pdf#search='Atropine%20Injector'

Maybe those were the only facilities with the capacity to manage them and you haven't shown me proof that they were sent there in the first place.

ROFL. The Iraqi Atomic Energy Agency doesn't have facilities that deal with medicines and neither did Saddam's weapons programs base so why send them there instead of a hospital or a university? I have shown you proof..a whole slew of sources cooberating what I'm saying.

Ha we didn't send tanks T-32's partna, not M-1 abrams, the only heloes we sent were non-combat helicopters.

"Official documents suggest that America may also have secretly arranged for tanks and other military hardware to be shipped to Iraq in a swap deal -- American tanks to Egypt, Egyptian tanks to Iraq."

"The helicopters, some American officials later surmised, were used to spray poison gas on the Kurds."

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

Actually I did read them and they came to the conclusion that all chemical and bio agents were sent for legitimate research and industrial means.

Ha. You obviously didn't read them.

ps when you get your intel off of Iranian based websites and from Noam Chomsky I consider you a non-source.

Hmm..I didn't know that the Senate Intelligence Committee, the Senate Banking Committee, the Washington Post, Federation of American Scientists, USA Today, Newsweek, the U.S.-Israeli Embassy, the Baltimore Sun, and Gulf War veterans are being controlled by Iran and Noam Chomsky. You really do crack me up. Thanks for the laugh. :lol:

 

[Trajan Octavian Titus]

Wise up.

"The atropine-auto injector, which is normally attached to a 2-PAM CL (Pralidoxomine Chloride) auto-injector, is a device used by soldiers who come under chemical attack and begin to show symptoms of nerve agent poisoning."

Yes exactly so why would we send atropine injectors with the chemicals unless we intended those chemicals to be used for warfare?

Now I wonder if you recall the chemical agents we sent to Iraq.

https://chppm-www.apgea.army.mil/dmis/documents/Atropine10-23-01DMIS.pdf#search='Atropine%20Injector'

UMM chlorine and ammonia I don't need the link Mustard Gas can be made with **** from the local super save.

ROFL. The Iraqi Atomic Energy Agency doesn't have facilities that deal with medicines and neither did Saddam's weapons programs base so why send them there instead of a hospital or a university? I have shown you proof..a whole slew of sources cooberating what I'm saying.

Oh ya where's the proof that Iraq had any other facility capable of handling these volatile chemicals other than the IAEA or for that matter where's the proof that that is where the chemicals were sent in the first place?

"Official documents suggest that America may also have secretly arranged for tanks and other military hardware to be shipped to Iraq in a swap deal -- American tanks to Egypt, Egyptian tanks to Iraq."

Not one shred of proof has ever surfaced to back that claim.

"The helicopters, some American officials later surmised, were used to spray poison gas on the Kurds."

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

Rhetoric and lies you have no proof I can say some American officials at one time surmised that assasinating Kennedy would be a good idea, it still means absolutely jack **** and has no substantiative relevance.

Ha. You obviously didn't read them.

Ha, obviously you didn't.

Hmm..I didn't know that the Senate Intelligence Committee, the Senate Banking Committee, the Washington Post, Federation of American Scientists, USA Today, Newsweek, the U.S.-Israeli Embassy, the Baltimore Sun, and Gulf War veterans are being controlled by Iran and Noam Chomsky. You really do crack me up. Thanks for the laugh. :lol:

Actually I didn't know that all those sources you listed above confirmed that we gave Saddam chemical or virul agents for non-legitimate purposes and in actuality they found the opposite.

 

[cnredd]

Why is this an issue?...


"Waaahhhh...We gave Saddam stuff when he wasn't telling everyone he wanted us dead in 1983"...:roll:

 

[Trajan Octavian Titus]

Why is this an issue?...


"Waaahhhh...We gave Saddam stuff when he wasn't telling everyone he wanted us dead in 1983"...:roll:

Because their entire premise is flawed and I'm not going to go down the slippery slope of trying to justify something which is untrue in the first ****ing place.

 

[oldreliable67]

From the Newsweek article of September 23, 2002, cited by in the Congressional Record at fas.org, there is also this statement in reference to our earlier relationship and dealings with Saddam:

It illustrates the power of wishful thinking, as well as the
iron law of unintended consequences.

Ok, lets face it. In the history of this country, we have yet to have an omniscient President. Sorry. We'll just have to get over it and maybe lower our expectations a bit and realize that governments are made up of human beings and human beings have failings. Among those failings are bouts of wishful thinking. And if we could just read those danged Tarot cards correctly, we could avoid all those unknowable, unforecastable, unforeseeable events in the future!

Bottom line: Look, people on both sides of the aisle, that was then, this is now. Get over it. Focus on something more productive.

 

[steen]

For all of you Saddam apologists who claim that the Shiite holocaust didn't take place well they just found another mass grave it seems that all one needs to do is to dig a hole anywhere in Iraq and you will find the evidence of Saddam's brutality and genocide

:spin:

I wonder how many mass graves we can find in the latin-american contries where American-trianed death squads reigned?

And how many mass graves do we find in Sudan, I wonder?

Oh, wait, repugincan hypocrites don't care about those people because they are not providing oil to the US.

 

[Trajan Octavian Titus]

:spin:

I wonder how many mass graves we can find in the latin-american contries where American-trianed death squads reigned?

Well first off you would have to prove this assertion and Chomsky rhetoric is not proof. How about the mass graves created by the Castro regime? How about the mass graves created by the Sandanistas? What about the communist revolutionaries who killed hundreds of thousands in Peru.

And how many mass graves do we find in Sudan, I wonder?

Oh, so now the U.S. is responsible for the affairs of the Sudan, tell me Steen which is the only country that has recognized the happenings in the Sudan as genocide and urged the U.N. to interveen I'll give you a hint it wasn't the French.

Oh, wait, repugincan hypocrites don't care about those people because they are not providing oil to the US.

What about Rwanda, what about Somalia, what about Cambodia, what about S. Vietnam, what about Iraq, oh and by the way the Sudan genocide happened under Clinton's watch too, but oh ya I forgot the liberal socialist elitest hypocrites don't care about those people because they're not white and half of them were killed by the communists so it's ok.

 

[steen]

Oh, so now the U.S. is responsible for the affairs of the Sudan, tell me Steen which is the only country that has recognized the happenings in the Sudan as genocide and urged the U.N. to interveen I'll give you a hint it wasn't the French.

Trajan, the POINT is that when you start using mass graves as justification for military intervention,. then ALL mass graves must be looked at, or your argument is hypocritical.

Per your argument, we should be invading Sudan, because there are mass graves of political opponents. If you do not agree, then your argument is bogus.

Per your argument, we should invade ALL countries where political killing goes on, right? Or did I miss you admitting your argument was hypocritical?

 

[cnredd]

Trajan, the POINT is that when you start using mass graves as justification for military intervention,. then ALL mass graves must be looked at, or your argument is hypocritical.

Per your argument, we should be invading Sudan, because there are mass graves of political opponents. If you do not agree, then your argument is bogus.

Per your argument, we should invade ALL countries where political killing goes on, right? Or did I miss you admitting your argument was hypocritical?

Mass graves all over the world...

# of countries where the rest of the world has intervened = 0
# of countries where the United Nations has intervened = 0
# of countries where the US has intervened = 1

The argument is we've done better, not that we're all-encompassing...

 

[Trajan Octavian Titus]

Trajan, the POINT is that when you start using mass graves as justification for military intervention,. then ALL mass graves must be looked at, or your argument is hypocritical.

Per your argument, we should be invading Sudan, because there are mass graves of political opponents. If you do not agree, then your argument is bogus.

Per your argument, we should invade ALL countries where political killing goes on, right? Or did I miss you admitting your argument was hypocritical?

No that's the Democrats argument not mine.

Why is it ok for Clinton to go into Kosovo (where we had no national interests by the way) solely because of genocide yet when Republicans point out the attrocities that happened under Saddam, it's a non-issue. Yet another in the laundry list of liberal hypocricies.

 

[Crispy]

Trajan, the POINT is that when you start using mass graves as justification for military intervention,. then ALL mass graves must be looked at, or your argument is hypocritical.

Per your argument, we should be invading Sudan, because there are mass graves of political opponents. If you do not agree, then your argument is bogus.

Per your argument, we should invade ALL countries where political killing goes on, right? Or did I miss you admitting your argument was hypocritical?

Actually, you're almost right. We must look at all regions that aren't developing past the point where warring factions within the region are preventing them from developing and subjecting thier people to un-acceptable conditions in the process.

We must "intervene" in "some way" in these regions where no action is being taken to reverse these trends, and, we must "Militariliy intervene" where such trends are developing into regional and / or global threats to social, economic and political stability, or where no amount of diplomatic intervention has resolved or stands to resolve the problems before such conditions as ethnic cleansing or genocide come to be.

 

[steen]

Mass graves all over the world...

# of countries where the rest of the world has intervened = 0
# of countries where the United Nations has intervened = 0
# of countries where the US has intervened = 1

The argument is we've done better, not that we're all-encompassing...

Ah, but per trajan's argument, we SHOULD intervene. Yet, Trajan "forgot" to mention the intervention we should do everywhere else. Seems rather hypocritical, as if that is not even the real argument, but that it rather is dishonestly presented as such.

 

[steen]

Actually, you're almost right. We must look at all regions that aren't developing past the point where warring factions within the region are preventing them from developing and subjecting thier people to un-acceptable conditions in the process.

We must "intervene" in "some way" in these regions where no action is being taken to reverse these trends, and, we must "Militariliy intervene" where such trends are developing into regional and / or global threats to social, economic and political stability, or where no amount of diplomatic intervention has resolved or stands to resolve the problems before such conditions as ethnic cleansing or genocide come to be.

Like Sudan. Like Kenya. Like Indonesia. Like latin America (oh, wait, we DID intervene in Latin America. We trained the very death squads that comitted the attrocities when we had conservative Governments).

Seems like the conservatives have 'forgotten" to argue for invasion of these areas to stop the genocides.

 

[Crispy]

Like Sudan. Like Kenya. Like Indonesia. Like latin America (oh, wait, we DID intervene in Latin America. We trained the very death squads that comitted the attrocities when we had conservative Governments).

Seems like the conservatives have 'forgotten" to argue for invasion of these areas to stop the genocides.

Oh Come on, what I'm saying has nothing to do with conservative or liberal. There's enough blame to go around for past mistakes made, and incidentally, observations about our interventions in the past, wrong or right, should be put in context otherwise their meaningless.

Yes, like Kenya, like Sudan, Like Indonesia, like Somalia, all of them. We have a responsibility, as a world power, to them and ourselves to help out these countries.

 

[Trajan Octavian Titus]

Like Sudan. Like Kenya. Like Indonesia. Like latin America (oh, wait, we DID intervene in Latin America. We trained the very death squads that comitted the attrocities when we had conservative Governments).

That bullshit we supplied the Contras who were fighting the Sandanistas it was the Sandanistas who were perpetrating genocide just like every other leftist regime in the history of the world.

Seems like the conservatives have 'forgotten" to argue for invasion of these areas to stop the genocides.

 

[steen]

That bullshit we supplied the Contras who were fighting the Sandanistas it was the Sandanistas who were perpetrating genocide just like every other leftist regime in the history of the world.

Ah, a touch of revisionist linguistics. So now fascists, whp tried to exterminate Jews are now leftist? The Serb nationalists, they are now leftist? The El Salvadore death squads, they are now leftist?

It really is amazing how much you are willing to just spew false claims with no concern for their accuracy, thus publically expose your ignorancde.