[Rictor]

ionia, you seem to think you can ignore inconvient facts by labbeling them conspiracy theories. Just because you have never seen a source yourself, doe not mean they don't exists and that there aren't in fact a ton of sources saying the same thing.

[ionia23]

Originally posted by Rictor
ionia, you seem to think you can ignore inconvient facts by labbeling them conspiracy theories. Just because you have never seen a source yourself, doe not mean they don't exists and that there aren't in fact a ton of sources saying the same thing.

Right, but there are also plenty of places that say Lyndon Johnson was behind the Kennedy assasination, and that we're housing live aliens in Nevada, blah blah blah.

The idea that the US government of the time sold chemical, biological, and nuclear technology to the Iraqs is reprehensable, not an "inconvenient fact".  I just don't see anything to back it up.  It's easy to say, but prove?

[ionia23]

Originally posted by karajorma


What a load of crap. He used them! Do you think that a whole bunch of Iraqis just lay down one day and pretended to be dead from chemical attacks?

I think you missed my point.  Of course he used chem weapons at one point, I have the National Geographic with the pictures in it.  No denying he had them at one point, but how does that prove we specifically sold the product or technology to him?

[Rictor]

But no one, including the government, is denying it. There is not one person who denies that the US sold Saddam biological and chemical weapons, because that is preposterous to claim. You see it so often, its pointless to quote sources. Its a well established fact, no one is disputing it.

[karajorma]

Furthermore even after the fact was revealed that Saddam was using chemical weapons the US continued to support him. You can't claim they didn't know he was a tyrant then can you?

[ionia23]

Originally posted by Rictor
But no one, including the government, is denying it. There is not one person who denies that the US sold Saddam biological and chemical weapons, because that is preposterous to claim. You see it so often, its pointless to quote sources. Its a well established fact, no one is disputing it.

When people stop questioning "assumed" facts with no sources because it provides more ammunition for the slandering of a particular government, I get worried.  This is the great danger of conspiracy theories.

What is known is we did sell 100 helicopters, trucks, and I forget what else to the Iraqis quite some time ago.  Namely because the sale of military equipment was illegal to them, even up to 1983 when Donald Rumsfeld met with then-President Saddam Hussein to solve the "common problem" of Iran.  We were still stinging over the hostage incident in 1979.

What is also known is he already had the technology for chemical weapon development at the time.

[ionia23]

Originally posted by karajorma
Furthermore even after the fact was revealed that Saddam was using chemical weapons the US continued to support him. You can't claim they didn't know he was a tyrant then can you?

Yup, and we tried to do something about it as I'm sure you'll recall.  Massive financial sanctions, blah blah.  Unfortunately, good 'ol American businesses did everything in their power to make sure that the bill to initiate this died before it got to the president.  Seems they felt this would only hurt those who trade with Iraq, with little impact on Iraq itself.  To a small degree, they were right.

Then he invaded Kuwait.  Big mistake.  That was the "okay, enough of this, all bleeding hearts get out" moment.

I felt our response was unbelievably weak at the time.  I would much rather have seen what's happening right now happen then.  Had he been taught earlier on that his actions would have consequences, we wouldn't be there taking crap for what the rest of the world, minus our few allies, seem to be unable, or unwilling to do.

[karajorma]

Originally posted by ionia23
I think you missed my point.  Of course he used chem weapons at one point, I have the National Geographic with the pictures in it.  No denying he had them at one point, but how does that prove we specifically sold the product or technology to him?

I didn't miss your point. Your comment made a completely different one. You held up the fact that no one has found chemical weapons with a Made in USA sign on them as proof that America didn't sell them to Saddam and I called you on it. If what you say above was your point then you should have said that instead.

[Grey Wolf]

We also blatently ignored Saddam's use of CW, in the same way we ignore anything that Israel does, as mentioned in the National Security Archive. It's a bit harder to find official government data on the chemical weapons front though.

[Rictor]

No sources? Ha! There are only too many sources, thats why its assumed. I also assume that WW2 happened, though I have never seen a firsthand source...

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

[ionia23]

Originally posted by Grey Wolf 2009
We also blatently ignored Saddam's use of CW, in the same way we ignore anything that Israel does, as mentioned in the National Security Archive. It's a bit harder to find official government data on the chemical weapons front though.

As mentioned earlier, we didn't ignore it.  But we sure as hell didn't do anything about it.

Unfortunately, neither did anyone else.  It took the invasion of Kuwait to get us off our collective asses.

[Grey Wolf]

Did you read the part where it mentions that we intentionally blocked a Security Council resolution condemning his use of CW? That seems more like support, as opposed to non-action.

[ionia23]

Originally posted by Rictor
No sources? Ha! There are only too many sources, thats why its assumed. I also assume that WW2 happened, though I have never seen a firsthand source...

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

Now let's not be ludicrous, such as the WWII statement...

This makes for an interesting read.  Problem:  The sale of antitoxin to Iraq was blocked.

I'll read more of this when I get home.  Skimming doesn't seem appropriate.

[ionia23]

Originally posted by Grey Wolf 2009
Did you read the part where it mentions that we intentionally blocked a Security Council resolution condemning his use of CW? That seems more like support, as opposed to non-action.

I am maybe 1/8 of the way through this document.  Obviously, I"m not going to put all my faith in one chunk of information, but I'm definately reading the rest of it when I get home.

[mikhael]

You're obviously not going to put your faith in ANY chunk of information that doesn't agree with your current fantasy of US political history.

Dude, I love my country, and I'm proud to be an American--but that doesn't mean I'm blind to our mistakes. Selling the weapons to Hussein was a mistake. Training his people to use and manufacture them was a mistake. Providing them with logistical and intelligence support was a mistake. This isn't surmise or guesswork or opinion--its the history of the seventies and eighties.

Nicauragua and Panama and Chile and the rest, those are part of our history. Denying them because they're inconvenient or give us a black eye denies us the ability to atone or to head off future mistakes of that sort.

[Gank]

Originally posted by ionia23


You mean your leftist, terorist-backing version of history?  Pfft, not with a gun to my head.

I'm neither leftist or terrorist supporting, my version of history is based on facts as opposed to your omg we saved the world we're so great hollywood ****e

Originally posted by ionia23

Fact, there's no way you could know if the US's secret intentions were to use Hiroshima and Nagasaki as mere "tests".  You're not that old.

Oh so unless I was there I couldnt possibly know about it? Bull****, thats the arguement of a three year old. But heres some quotes from people that were there and say it was unnecessary:
http://www.doug-long.com/quotes.htm

Originally posted by ionia23
Fact.  Japan's surrender had to be "unconditional", period.  They weren't willing to do this so they got smacked.  I have zero sympathy.  It ended the pacific campaign, so I'd suggest YOU learn a bit of history before you shoot off your mouth any more.

God you're an idiot, Japans surrender was not unconditional. period. Go learn some history and stop shooting your mouth off about something you obviously know nothing about.

[Gank]

Going back ot, another one says byebye to Iraq
http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&u=/ap/20040421/ap_on_re_mi_ea/dominican_iraq&cid=540&ncid=1480

[ionia23]

Originally posted by Gank

I'm neither leftist or terrorist supporting, my version of history is based on facts as opposed to your omg we saved the world we're so great hollywood ****e

Your version of history is based on whatever you see on the X-Files.

Oh so unless I was there I couldnt possibly know about it? Bull****, thats the arguement of a three year old. But heres some quotes from people that were there and say it was unnecessary:
http://www.doug-long.com/quotes.htm

Right, and you could easily bring in plenty more from that generation who would say it was.

 God you're an idiot, Japans surrender was not unconditional. period. Go learn some history and stop shooting your mouth off about something you obviously know nothing about.

That does it. Go read the surrender documents yourself.  I am done with you.

http://www.law.ou.edu/hist/japsurr.html

[ionia23]

Originally posted by mikhael
You're obviously not going to put your faith in ANY chunk of information that doesn't agree with your current fantasy of US political history.

Dude, I love my country, and I'm proud to be an American--but that doesn't mean I'm blind to our mistakes. Selling the weapons to Hussein was a mistake. Training his people to use and manufacture them was a mistake. Providing them with logistical and intelligence support was a mistake. This isn't surmise or guesswork or opinion--its the history of the seventies and eighties.

Nicauragua and Panama and Chile and the rest, those are part of our history. Denying them because they're inconvenient or give us a black eye denies us the ability to atone or to head off future mistakes of that sort.

It wasn't a mistake then.  It was a mistake now.  That's hindsight for you.

[Slasher]

Progression of This Thread: