Putin: Didn’t feel isolated, not all G8 leaders agree Assad used chemical weapons

[cpwill]

Re: US's Anti-Syria Propaganda Stumbles

Iran is in much better shape than Saddam was. Much, much better. Not only would it be difficult to sneak past us, but much was degrading.

Sneak past what? Sneak past whom? What force projection do you see us putting out to shut down the Iraq/Syria border when we couldn't even do that with 200,000 odd troops in-country?

 

[Boo Radley]

Re: US's Anti-Syria Propaganda Stumbles

Sneak past what? Sneak past whom? What force projection do you see us putting out to shut down the Iraq/Syria border when we couldn't even do that with 200,000 odd troops in-country?

We had people watching. It would have been risky, especially had he survived the inspectors. More than anything, he wanted to remain in power. He wouldn't likely have risked it that way.

 

[Michael66]

Re: US's Anti-Syria Propaganda Stumbles

There's little serious dispute that chemical weapons were used at Halabja. Some reports and declarations on the war crimes there:

Whatever Happened To The Iraqi Kurds? (Human Rights Watch Report, March 11, 1991)
Chemical Weapons Programs - Iraq Special Weapons Facilities
A/RES/46/134. Situation of human rights in Iraq

There is no dispute that chemical weapons were used at Halabja. Period!

Di you read my link to Pelletiere and have you any idea what he said? Answer me that first before I go to the trouble of trying to determine what the intent is of your link posted here.

If you do understand, or if you read the link and then understand, you will be asked to come to some kind of conclusion on Pelletiere's veracity or lack of. But that's all going to be dutch to you if you aren't familiar with what he said.

It's up to you people, I'm not going to lead people by the nose here.

Oh, and as for Saddam sending all his so-called WMD's to Syria? Get serious. Even W has been quoted saying there were none. Won't the warmongers and the liars ever roll over and play dead?

 

[OldWorldOrder]

Re: US's Anti-Syria Propaganda Stumbles

We had people watching. It would have been risky, especially had he survived the inspectors. More than anything, he wanted to remain in power. He wouldn't likely have risked it that way.

lol no. As cpwill implied, there's nothing that stopped Saddam that doesn't currently stop the Ayatollah. And Saddam would've had geographic advantages.

Is it so horrible to acknowledge that? I mean, I think everyone knows that the situation in the Middle East would be different now if the Iraq invasion hadn't happen, and it's impossible to speculate we'd be sitting here watching this transpire in Syria as it has been without the events in Iraq, but even ignoring all other variables...really?

 

[donsutherland1]

Re: US's Anti-Syria Propaganda Stumbles

There is no dispute that chemical weapons were used at Halabja. Period!

Di you read my link to Pelletiere and have you any idea what he said? Answer me that first before I go to the trouble of trying to determine what the intent is of your link posted here.

If you do understand, or if you read the link and then understand, you will be asked to come to some kind of conclusion on Pelletiere's veracity or lack of. But that's all going to be dutch to you if you aren't familiar with what he said.

It's up to you people, I'm not going to lead people by the nose here.

Oh, and as for Saddam sending all his so-called WMD's to Syria? Get serious. Even W has been quoted saying there were none. Won't the warmongers and the liars ever roll over and play dead?

Iraq used chemical weapons at Halabja. No serious work suggests some party other than Iraq was responsible. Speculation aimed at exonerating Iraq is not supported by any credible evidence.

As for the issue of Saddam purportedly sending WMDs to Syria, I never made any suggestion toward that end. No concrete evidence for that outcome was revealed in the post-war examination.

 

[EnigmaO01]

Re: US's Anti-Syria Propaganda Stumbles

That post is just a bunch of anti-semitic garbage.

Agreed. But i have more of a problem with it being borderline incoherent.

 

[apdst]

Re: US's Anti-Syria Propaganda Stumbles

Not really. It's unlikely he could have.

Based on what?

 

[apdst]

Re: US's Anti-Syria Propaganda Stumbles

If what you say is true then this is 100%, ABSOLUTE vindication of George W Bush and the lead up to the Iraq war. Somehow, I have to believe that if this was indeed the case there would be a 24-7 media blitz on the subject and there isn't.

Forgive my skepticism but...c'mon.

There's been too much hoopla over it. Even if I'm right, thete are too many people that will lose all their credibility.

 

[j-mac]

Re: US's Anti-Syria Propaganda Stumbles

Based on what?

Careful, this is just Joe's dishonest way of drawing you off topic, and into the age old "Saddam was no threat" debate....In his mind, he thinks that Saddam was a wonderful leader, that the mean ol' Bush wrongly attacked....:roll:

 

[Boo Radley]

Re: US's Anti-Syria Propaganda Stumbles

lol no. As cpwill implied, there's nothing that stopped Saddam that doesn't currently stop the Ayatollah. And Saddam would've had geographic advantages.

Is it so horrible to acknowledge that? I mean, I think everyone knows that the situation in the Middle East would be different now if the Iraq invasion hadn't happen, and it's impossible to speculate we'd be sitting here watching this transpire in Syria as it has been without the events in Iraq, but even ignoring all other variables...really?

Only if you think the two have equal ability. They don't. Not only that, Saddam had more to fear by acting.

 

[Boo Radley]

Re: US's Anti-Syria Propaganda Stumbles

Based on what?

I think I've explained that already.

 

[apdst]

Re: US's Anti-Syria Propaganda Stumbles

easy enough. He was under watch all the time. We even knew when he smuggled oil. So, we'd have to let him for him to do much. By the time the inspectors had finished, we'd have a real good idea what he had, making it even more unlikely. Saddam had a crumpling infastructure, was under heavy sanctions, and had limited ability. He'd be the least of the problems.

You mean we would ivade Syrian airspace to attack Saddam's arny?

 

[Michael66]

Re: US's Anti-Syria Propaganda Stumbles

Iraq used chemical weapons at Halabja. No serious work suggests some party other than Iraq was responsible. Speculation aimed at exonerating Iraq is not supported by any credible evidence.

As for the issue of Saddam purportedly sending WMDs to Syria, I never made any suggestion toward that end. No concrete evidence for that outcome was revealed in the post-war examination.

You haven't read Pelletiere's story and so there's really no use talking to you about the issue any further. Continue to believe the propaganda that makes you feel most comfortable.

Your country will likely get itself involved in a war with Syria if it can enlist the UN to aid it's march to war. However, even if the UN isn't willing, and it appears that it isn't, the US will likely just sidestep the UN and use Nato's somewhat lesser credibility over the UN's protests.

The point being mostly, that Americans screamed loudly about never again being conned into another ME war. It was the major parties who were throwing away the taxpayer's money and it had to stop. The tea baggers of course were the most vocal. And yet, now that the leadup to war is imminent, there is no interest of laying aside what the propagandists have told you all and following through in being more cautious of being conned into another phony war. A war that is, on the face of it, just as phony and for just as phony reasons as the Iraq war.

It's really quite laughable isn't it! Apparently there is only 20% of the American people who are in favour of increased involvement in Syria, yet that is not the case as that percentage can grow to a majority overnight through a little more propaganda and convincing.

 

[American]

Re: US's Anti-Syria Propaganda Stumbles

The lion's share of Syria's chemical weapons stockpile came from Iraq, when Saddam was in power.

Good thing Saddam isn't in power, because I'm sure he would be more than happy to come to Assad's aid in defeating the webels.

But...but Saddam never had any WMD's, right?

 

[American]

Re: US's Anti-Syria Propaganda Stumbles

You haven't read Pelletiere's story and so there's really no use talking to you about the issue any further. Continue to believe the propaganda that makes you feel most comfortable.

Your country will likely get itself involved in a war with Syria if it can enlist the UN to aid it's march to war. However, even if the UN isn't willing, and it appears that it isn't, the US will likely just sidestep the UN and use Nato's somewhat lesser credibility over the UN's protests.

The point being mostly, that Americans screamed loudly about never again being conned into another ME war. It was the major parties who were throwing away the taxpayer's money and it had to stop. The tea baggers of course were the most vocal. And yet, now that the leadup to war is imminent, there is no interest of laying aside what the propagandists have told you all and following through in being more cautious of being conned into another phony war. A war that is, on the face of it, just as phony and for just as phony reasons as the Iraq war.

It's really quite laughable isn't it! Apparently there is only 20% of the American people who are in favour of increased involvement in Syria, yet that is not the case as that percentage can grow to a majority overnight through a little more propaganda and convincing.

So when were they most vocal?

 

[Michael66]

Re: US's Anti-Syria Propaganda Stumbles

Ron Paul: ?Obama?s Syria policy looks a lot like Bush?s Iraq policy? ? RT USA

Good ol Ron Paul will just not keep his cakehole shut. But now he's saying about exactly what the baggers and the libertarians want him to say and they all go dark on the issue. Thereby giving us more evidence that the baggers are just blowing smoke with their feigned opposition to more US led wars in the ME.

 

[donsutherland1]

Re: US's Anti-Syria Propaganda Stumbles

You haven't read Pelletiere's story and so there's really no use talking to you about the issue any further. Continue to believe the propaganda that makes you feel most comfortable.

I've read Pelletiere's opinion piece. His opinion differs from the findings of humanitarian agencies and the United Nations. Iran was loosely allied with Iraq's Kurds and had no motive whatsoever to attack them. Iraq, on the other hand, had much incentive to attack them. Moreover, witnesses to the attack recognized Iraqi, not Iranian, aircraft.

Your country will likely get itself involved in a war with Syria if it can enlist the UN to aid it's march to war. However, even if the UN isn't willing, and it appears that it isn't, the US will likely just sidestep the UN and use Nato's somewhat lesser credibility over the UN's protests...

IMO, the U.S. should avoid getting involved in Syria's sectarian conflict (lack of critical U.S. interests involved; lack of indications from the anti-Assad movement that it would form an inclusive/stable government, be more hospitable to U.S. regional interests, seek to conclude peace with Israel; its own disregard for civilian protections, etc.). I've consistently stated that view and have no compelling reason to change that position at this time. In short, if you're assuming I advocate U.S. intervention in Syria's sectarian conflict, that assumption is incorrect.

 

[Michael66]

Re: US's Anti-Syria Propaganda Stumbles

I've read Pelletiere's opinion piece. His opinion differs from the findings of humanitarian agencies and the United Nations. Iran was loosely allied with Iraq's Kurds and had no motive whatsoever to attack them. Iraq, on the other hand, had much incentive to attack them. Moreover, witnesses to the attack recognized Iraqi, not Iranian, aircraft.



IMO, the U.S. should avoid getting involved in Syria's sectarian conflict (lack of critical U.S. interests involved; lack of indications from the anti-Assad movement that it would form an inclusive/stable government, be more hospitable to U.S. regional interests, seek to conclude peace with Israel; its own disregard for civilian protections, etc.). I've consistently stated that view and have no compelling reason to change that position at this time. In short, if you're assuming I advocate U.S. intervention in Syria's sectarian conflict, that assumption is incorrect.

Good, now we can continue. The fact is, Iraq didn't have the right type of gas that was used at Halabja according to Pelletiere. And so we have to contemplate that Pelletiere could have been lying if he said that. Was he lying? If he was lying then it was to cover up the fact that the gas used had to have been supplied to Saddam by the US.

And there's my point with Pelletiere. Now you can choose your side on that one.

What makes this applicable to the current times for me is that it's the 'gas attack' scenario being played out again by the US propagandists. Americans should be proactive and do everything in their capability to not let that happen. And as you will see on the other thread, Ron Paul is being and is making the right suggestions.

Plain and simple, there is no proof of the gas attacks by Assad's side. There isn't even proof of gas attacks by the terrorist side. Del Ponte has gone dark on the issue and that tells us all we need to know. The UN leans toward the West in nearly all cases and would not hold back evidence that could seal the case against Assad.

I'm interested in your further comments on Pelletiere especially.

 

[Boo Radley]

Re: US's Anti-Syria Propaganda Stumbles

You mean we would ivade Syrian airspace to attack Saddam's arny?

I didn't say that at all, but it wouldn't be the worse thing we've. Done. Saddam was a frightened man. He fear Iran, so he had to pretend he had wmds, and he feared us, so he had to present the other face. Playing the deception game was difficult. He really wasn't a threat to do much else. Too much risk.

 

[donsutherland1]

Re: US's Anti-Syria Propaganda Stumbles

Good, now we can continue. The fact is, Iraq didn't have the right type of gas that was used at Halabja according to Pelletiere. And so we have to contemplate that Pelletiere could have been lying if he said that. Was he lying? If he was lying then it was to cover up the fact that the gas used had to have been supplied to Saddam by the US.

And there's my point with Pelletiere. Now you can choose your side on that one.

What makes this applicable to the current times for me is that it's the 'gas attack' scenario being played out again by the US propagandists. Americans should be proactive and do everything in their capability to not let that happen. And as you will see on the other thread, Ron Paul is being and is making the right suggestions.

Plain and simple, there is no proof of the gas attacks by Assad's side. There isn't even proof of gas attacks by the terrorist side. Del Ponte has gone dark on the issue and that tells us all we need to know. The UN leans toward the West in nearly all cases and would not hold back evidence that could seal the case against Assad.

I'm interested in your further comments on Pelletiere especially.

Pelletiere’s recollection about the attack at Halabja is likely incorrect. That’s quite different from any assertion that he was “lying.”

Iraq used a combination of mustard gas and never agents (sarin and tabun) in its attack on Halabja.

BBC News | Saddam's Iraq: Key events

Following the 1991 Persian Gulf War, Iraq documented that it possessed all of those chemical weapons.

http://www.un.org/depts/unmovic/new/documents/technical_documents/s-2006-701-munitions.pdf

In sum, Iraq used weapons that were in its arsenal in the attack on Halabja.

 

[Michael66]

Re: Putin: Didn’t feel isolated, not all G8 leaders agree Assad used chemical weapons

donsutherland:

Pelletiere’s recollection about the attack at Halabja is likely incorrect. That’s quite different from any assertion that he was “lying.”

Yeah, maybe he forgot or something? Or maybe he was having a bad dream? Or maybe he was a highranking Russian spy who was posing as a high ranking CIA section leader? And here I thought that you were more interested in finding out the truth rather than defending your country's propaganda.

How about if we both agree to not waste each others time anymore?

 

[CanadaJohn]

Re: US's Anti-Syria Propaganda Stumbles

The only question I have is... I take that back, I actually have 2 questions.

1. Has anyone in this conflict used chemical weapons?
2. If anyone has, where did they get them?

I've always believed that Saddam's chemical weapons found their way across the Iraq/Syrian border in the lead up to the American invasion in 2003 - Saddam was known to use chemical weapons inside Iraq against the Kurds in the north and against Iran during the Iraq/Iran war. Those weapons just seemed to disappear once America invaded and took over Iran. Any bets that as Assad falls, these chemical weapons will find their way into Lebanon?

 

[Michael66]

Re: US's Anti-Syria Propaganda Stumbles

I've always believed that Saddam's chemical weapons found their way across the Iraq/Syrian border in the lead up to the American invasion in 2003 - Saddam was known to use chemical weapons inside Iraq against the Kurds in the north and against Iran during the Iraq/Iran war. Those weapons just seemed to disappear once America invaded and took over Iran. Any bets that as Assad falls, these chemical weapons will find their way into Lebanon?

Great idea! Were you sort of thinking before their expiry date or were you sort of not thinking?
And were you sort of thinkin that Assad has been using Saddam's missing WMD's?
This is an idea that you should maybe make the US aware of because I think they've sort of given up on the idea now.
wink, wink, nudge, nudge, say no more, say no more.

 

[OldWorldOrder]

Re: US's Anti-Syria Propaganda Stumbles

Only if you think the two have equal ability. They don't. Not only that, Saddam had more to fear by acting.

They did have equal ability.

I'm finding you're not very analytical.

 

[donsutherland1]

Re: Putin: Didn’t feel isolated, not all G8 leaders agree Assad used chemical weapons

donsutherland:

Yeah, maybe he forgot or something? Or maybe he was having a bad dream? Or maybe he was a highranking Russian spy who was posing as a high ranking CIA section leader? And here I thought that you were more interested in finding out the truth rather than defending your country's propaganda.

How about if we both agree to not waste each others time anymore?

You're missing the point:

If multiple independent investigations, not to mention witness accounts, reach a given conclusion and that conclusion is also lent further credence by the conflict context, why should one automatically accept an outlier solution unless very strong evidence were provided for that solution? That is not the case in the op-ed, which contains assertions e.g., the use of a "blood agent," that are not backed up by evidence, documents, or witness accounts.