• Please read the Announcement concerning missing posts from 10/8/25-10/15/25.
  • 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!

Why did Assad use nerve gas?

JANFU said:
Just 1 time with the Kurds?? I think not
Then we have the Iraq-Iran war.
Click to expand...

The iran/iraq war? the war where the us was so deadset on removing iranian govt from power that we armed and backed saddam? You do know that the us gave saddam his wmd capabilities in the first place right? That war was so messed up that our ally israel backed and funded iran, because no matter how much america wanted it, israel saw saddam as a menace to the region and the biggest threat, yet we had zero issue giving him everything he needed so long as he was doing our bidding.
 
beerftw said:
The iran/iraq war? the war where the us was so deadset on removing iranian govt from power that we armed and backed saddam? You do know that the us gave saddam his wmd capabilities in the first place right? That war was so messed up that our ally israel backed and funded iran, because no matter how much america wanted it, israel saw saddam as a menace to the region and the biggest threat, yet we had zero issue giving him everything he needed so long as he was doing our bidding.
Click to expand...

The US wanted Saddam to hold his own against larger/more powerful Iran.
 
Jack Hays said:
The US wanted Saddam to hold his own against larger/more powerful Iran.
Click to expand...

Iraq was the more powerful military at the time, and despite using wmds since 1983, they suddenly got their capability after the us backed them, the iraqi army failed to beat the iranian army.

They had more missles, tanks, jets, and all around equipment and gear, the only thing Iran had was people, it ended up defending against iraq by sending out 9 year old boys to sweep for mines and defend posts with rifles they could barely hold. Yeah it seems more like iran was at the disadvantage the entire war, and america had a grudge against iran since the day their puppet the shah was overthrown.
 
beerftw said:
Iraq was the more powerful military at the time, and despite using wmds since 1983, they suddenly got their capability after the us backed them, the iraqi army failed to beat the iranian army.

They had more missles, tanks, jets, and all around equipment and gear, the only thing Iran had was people, it ended up defending against iraq by sending out 9 year old boys to sweep for mines and defend posts with rifles they could barely hold. Yeah it seems more like iran was at the disadvantage the entire war, and america had a grudge against iran since the day their puppet the shah was overthrown.
Click to expand...

Simply not true. Saddam's forces barely held on.
 
Jack Hays said:
Simply not true. Saddam's forces barely held on.
Click to expand...

Barely held on to what, their near defeat did not come until later in the war, and iran needed to use children because they could not maintain enough trained forces to continue fighting iraq.

Further you seem to justify iraq not only being armed by the us, but it also was complicit in it's used of chemical and biological weapons, and is highly suspected of supplying them with the technology, since they have no wmd program until us backing.
 
Jack Hays said:
Simply not true. Saddam's forces barely held on.
Click to expand...

Thanks to the gross incompetence of the Iraqi army. In 1981 Iraq invaded with 2,750 tanks, 4,000 APCs, 1,400 artillery pieces, and 150,000 men. Against this Iran had 500 operational tanks, and 100,000 untrained Pasdaran.

When Iran went on the offensive, Iraq had over 5,000 tanks, while Iran had about 500 left operational at any one time. Iran's divisions were entirely light infantry supported with minimal armor, while the Iraqis had substantial armored and mechanized divisions with plentiful artillery and air support. A picture-perfect modern mechanized army.

Iran was forced to sue for peace when it became clear Saddam could simply rebuild shattered division after division with oil funds from the Soviets.
 
beerftw said:
Barely held on to what, their near defeat did not come until later in the war, and iran needed to use children because they could not maintain enough trained forces to continue fighting iraq.

Further you seem to justify iraq not only being armed by the us, but it also was complicit in it's used of chemical and biological weapons, and is highly suspected of supplying them with the technology, since they have no wmd program until us backing.
Click to expand...

Iraq was a Soviet client state. It's weaponry and military and training was largely, though not exclusively, supplied by Moscow. Whatever military weaponry Iraq received from Washington was minuscule (I believe the Netherlands was a bigger arms supplier to the Iraq. France was a bigger supplier of chemicals).
The unofficial policy of the USA during the Iran-Iraq War was that it not end. The USA threw its weight in at the end of the war when Iraq began to collapse, specifically because an Iranian victory was as distasteful to the USA as an Iraqi one.
 
Jredbaron96 said:
Thanks to the gross incompetence of the Iraqi army. In 1981 Iraq invaded with 2,750 tanks, 4,000 APCs, 1,400 artillery pieces, and 150,000 men. Against this Iran had 500 operational tanks, and 100,000 untrained Pasdaran.

When Iran went on the offensive, Iraq had over 5,000 tanks, while Iran had about 500 left operational at any one time. Iran's divisions were entirely light infantry supported with minimal armor, while the Iraqis had substantial armored and mechanized divisions with plentiful artillery and air support. A picture-perfect modern mechanized army.

Iran was forced to sue for peace when it became clear Saddam could simply rebuild shattered division after division with oil funds from the Soviets.
Click to expand...

Iran has a far greater population than Iraq. The war was largely trench warfare, reminiscent of WW I. Iraq frequently sought out peace, but the Iranian condition was either that Sadaan had to resign or be turned over.
 
Athanasius68 said:
Iraq was a Soviet client state. It's weaponry and military and training was largely, though not exclusively, supplied by Moscow. Whatever military weaponry Iraq received from Washington was minuscule (I believe the Netherlands was a bigger arms supplier to the Iraq. France was a bigger supplier of chemicals).
The unofficial policy of the USA during the Iran-Iraq War was that it not end. The USA threw its weight in at the end of the war when Iraq began to collapse, specifically because an Iranian victory was as distasteful to the USA as an Iraqi one.
Click to expand...

Iraq was supported by russia, america, saudi arabia and other states. You are right that america did not want it to fall, but it started as the superior force, and maintained it with gear and money from around the world. Iraq invaded iran, but after a few years iran began an offensive. A very large part was not gear, they had better gear and intel from the us govt, it was morale, the iraqi people did not want to keep fighting, while after an invasion the iranian people were dedicated to overthrowing saddam.
 
reinoe said:
No, the MSM is saying that it was Assad. The information hasn't been corroborated by legitimate news sources like RT or Daily Caller.
Click to expand...

The RT is a propaganda network funded by the Russian government. So are you saying the Daily Caller is funded by the Russian government, too?
 
Athanasius68 said:
Iran has a far greater population than Iraq. The war was largely trench warfare, reminiscent of WW I. Iraq frequently sought out peace, but the Iranian condition was either that Sadaan had to resign or be turned over.
Click to expand...

Iraq sought out peace after starting the whole war, he invaded iran, it was not the other way around. He only wanted peace when he realized his superior army lost badly to sheer numbers and often even unarmed people as part of human waves.

Seeking out peace after starting the war does not make him peaceful, and it is understandable for iran to demand he leave for a peace agreement, after he orders his soldiers to invade their country.
 
Desert Storm said:
And who would believe Putin?? Not many people would.
Also, when it comes to nerve gas, I remember another fella who testified at UN that Saddam used nerve gas, remember him??

Powell-anthrax-vial.jpg
Click to expand...

They were right about the Yellow cake Uranium. In 2008, the US Air Force flew 550 metric tons of Yellow cake out of Iraq and into Canada.

U.S. removes 'yellowcake' from Iraq - World news - Mideast/N. Africa - Conflict in Iraq | NBC News
 
JANFU said:
Going by his past history, the answer is yes he did.
Click to expand...

You mean the past history of the UN stating that indications pointed towards the rebels, not Assad?
 
Athanasius68 said:
Iran has a far greater population than Iraq. The war was largely trench warfare, reminiscent of WW I. Iraq frequently sought out peace, but the Iranian condition was either that Sadaan had to resign or be turned over.
Click to expand...

Iran had a greater population but it's military was crippled by the purges, limiting their capabilities to support just 400,000 troops.

The war was not largely trench warfare, that was misinformation and misidentification of the Soviet defense in depth echelons employed after Iran went on the offensive.
 
Moot said:
The reports are the eye witnesses, the victims, the physical observable evidence of the bomb holes and damage to the surrounding areas...and videos taken by the white helmets.

All the evidence points to Assad...who had the means and motive to do it
Click to expand...
You're gonna sit here and tell me that within 24 hrs the media established it was Assad who threw the nerve gas?? Remember, there are ZERO news reporters in the ISIS controlled warzone (the ones that were there have all been beheaded).

Again, I have zero love for Assad, but the amount of propaganda bullsh_t some of you are willing to swallow is disturbing
 
Jack Hays said:
Simply not true. Saddam's forces barely held on.
Click to expand...

True. The main reason the U.S. helped Hussein's regime by giving it satellite reconnaissance imagery showing where Iranian forces were deployed, which turned the tide in Iraq's favor, was that Hussein had been trying to play general. He had fouled that effort up so badly that he was on the verge of snatching defeat from the jaws of victory, and the U.S. wanted both sides to keep on weakening each other.

I think that should be this country's strategy in any foreign war where one or more of the combatants are hostile to the U.S. We should support the weaker combatants as much as needed to keep them fighting the stronger ones. Let the savages slaughter as many of each other as possible. If they are our sworn enemies, to hell with all of them. More efficient to help the bastards butcher each other, than for the U.S. to have to go to the trouble and expense of killing them.
 
Last edited:
Desert Storm said:
You're gonna sit here and tell me that within 24 hrs the media established it was Assad who threw the nerve gas?? Remember, there are ZERO news reporters in the ISIS controlled warzone (the ones that were there have all been beheaded).

Again, I have zero love for Assad, but the amount of propaganda bullsh_t some of you are willing to swallow is disturbing
Click to expand...

Not the media...the eye witnesses, the victims, the physical observable evidence of the bomb holes and damage to the surrounding areas...and videos taken by the white helmets.
 
Moot said:
Not the media...the eye witnesses, the victims, the physical observable evidence of the bomb holes and damage to the surrounding areas...and videos taken by the white helmets.
Click to expand...
Okay, so UN helmets were there when it all happened?? How come they havent been beheaded yet??
 
OMG, if thats what Assad did then he should burn in hell!!

All I'm saying is, before the US starts WW3 they better make damn sure they have all their ducks in a row!
Remember Iraq and WMD's???
 
Why did Assad use nerve gas?
Click to expand...

He probably didn't.

The opposition is desperate and maybe has had it's stock of chemical weapons hit by artillery or just used it themselves on their own to try to get international action.

The US governement understands this.

The US wants the war in Syria to continue and thus is interviening now to stop Assad winning because it is better to let the nutters fight there than spread all over the world. They often kill each other as much as anybody we care about.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom