Uh oh...told you so!

[Tiger Al 0]

This is from another thread. Rumsfeld actually met with Saddam and Tariq Aziz twice. There's lots of declassified documents on this link.

LINK

[Ranger12 46]

Bottom line is that times changes and alliances change. Britain-enemy to ally. Russia-ally to enemy to ally again. Japan-enemy to ally. Germany-enemy to ally. China-ally to enemy. Iraq-ally to enemy. Taliban-ally to enemy. France-who cares?

[AUloggerhead 2,255]

Al,

Thanks for providing the links. In actuality, the US supplying military intelligence to the Iraqis during their war with Iran was started under Jimmy Carter with the AWACs flights (the war started while Carter was still president.) How does the fact that the US was condeming Iraq's use of CW & prohibiting the sale of chemical precursors to Iraq make the US responsible for Iraq's use of CW during the war? How does the sale of US civilian helicopters to Iraq overshadow the sale of French & Russian-made combat helicopters? The fact that it was at the time in the interests of the US under two successive US administrations (Carter & Reagan) to not sit back & watch Iran become the dominant power in the Middle East is proof that they were engaging in nothing more than diplomatic realpolitik -- the kind that every country practices.

Oh & btw, as horrible as the use of Iraqi chemical weapons were, lets remember their first use of them coincided with the Iranians "human wave" attacks -- the kind where children as young as 12 were forced to lead the charge across minefields. Once the minefields were cleared in this manner, a wave of Basji (Iranian college-age volunteers with a couple of weeks of training) was thrown into the breach and then after that the regular Iranian army -- with predictable results of carnage. Before one Iraqi is tried for war crimes in Iran, I want to see a few Ayatollahs held accountable first.

You can be selective in your outrage & confine it only to the country you reside in if you so choose. Just be sure you look at the total picture.

[Tiger Al 0]

Loggerhead, you're STILL missing my point about the here and now. My criticism isn't about how Iraq was handled 20 years ago. It seems that we chose to look the other way when Iraq was using CW against Iran, but that's not really here nor there at this point. My point is that it seems hypocritical for us now, 20 years later, to finally decide that they need to be held accountable for doing that when the administration at the time basically gave them the green light by doing nothing except to form an alliance with Iraq.

Everything that Iraq has done with CW's we've known about when it happened. This wasn't just exposed a few months ago or even a year ago. It was known when it happened. So, were we wrong then or are we wrong now? If we were so concerned about the greater good that would come from an alliance with Iraq in the 80's that we were willing to overlook some things they did, then how can we now claim that what Iraq did, and we overlooked, was so wrong that only a war now can make it right? If, on the other hand, we were wrong to overlook what they did then, it seems a little late to claim outrage now and claim that a war is the only way to make it right.

It would be like a cop using an informant for needed information, but the only way he could get that information was to turn a blind eye to crimes the informant committed to supply that information, and then, 20 years later, arresting the informant for the crimes the cop had originally overlooked.

Bottom line, Iraq did terrible things to people with their CW's and the US had full knowledge of it at the time and chose to do nothing more than criticize them publicly while proceeding to form a strategic alliance with them privately. Dubya's claim to be outraged is too little, too late, and is just one more lie he told to start a war.

[AUloggerhead 2,255]

Bottom line is that times changes and alliances change. Britain-enemy to ally. Russia-ally to enemy to ally again. Japan-enemy to ally. Germany-enemy to ally. China-ally to enemy. Iraq-ally to enemy. Taliban-ally to enemy. France-who cares?

Good points. One question: the Taliban was once our ally?

[Ranger12 46]

Bottom line is that times changes and alliances change. Britain-enemy to ally. Russia-ally to enemy to ally again.  Japan-enemy to ally. Germany-enemy to ally. China-ally to enemy. Iraq-ally to enemy. Taliban-ally to enemy. France-who cares?

Good points. One question: the Taliban was once our ally?

Yep. They were not "technically" called the Taliban at the time. We equipped and trained the rebels during the Russian invasion of Afghanistan. For the most part, those same rebels eventually became the Taliban. Same situation as Iraq, we helped them rid the world of a greater evil of that time, but then it came back to bite us. Isn't politics a glorious thing! :roll:

[AUloggerhead 2,255]

Go t it. Mujahadeen = Taliban. I'll buy that since the Arabs came over to help the Afghans fight the Russians and brought that crazy Great Satan crap with them. You'd think one of the mujahadeen could have guessed that maybe the reason they defeated the USSR had something to do with the weapons the US was providing them. Talk about biting the hand that feeds you -- Sheesh!

[cman 0]

Remember, if anyone questions you about WMD's, al Qaeda/bin Laden/9-11 connections or nukes, you've always got a trump card with human rights violations!!! There's nothing they can say to that. What are they gonna say, we shouldn't stop Saddam from gassing people? Please, everyone knows the US don't play that, homey!!!

Donald H. Rumsfeld went to Baghdad in March 1984 with instructions to deliver a private message about weapons of mass destruction: that the United States' public criticism of Iraq for using chemical weapons would not derail Washington's attempts to forge a better relationship, according to newly declassified documents.

Rumsfeld, then President Ronald Reagan's special Middle East envoy, was urged to tell Iraqi Foreign Minister Tariq Aziz that the U.S. statement on chemical weapons, or CW, "was made strictly out of our strong opposition to the use of lethal and incapacitating CW, wherever it occurs," according to a cable to Rumsfeld from then-Secretary of State George P. Shultz.

The statement, the cable said, was not intended to imply a shift in policy, and the U.S. desire "to improve bilateral relations, at a pace of Iraq's choosing," remained "undiminished." "This message bears reinforcing during your discussions."

The documents, obtained under the Freedom of Information Act by the nonprofit National Security Archive, provide new, behind-the-scenes details of U.S. efforts to court Iraq as an ally even as it used chemical weapons in its war with Iran.

LINK

Uh...um...yeah...he gassed people...we...um...we need to...ahhh...bring him to...justice! Yeah, that's it!

We were financially staked in a war he had with Iran. We were financially staked with a war over Kuwait.....there is nothing wrong with that.

Wars are not fault generally over territories anymore, they are fault over financial reasons and the Republicans and Demos both do that. If Kuwait was just another underdevolped nation with out an economy we would have let Saddam have the nation.......but they were a developed nation and I agree with what we did BECAUSE IT SERVED US

I DO NOT WANT TO GO FIGHT A WAR THAT WE DO NOT HAVE SOMETHING IN IT TO BENEFIT US

Which is why we for the most part stayed out of Liberia

What is the financial stake in N. Korea or the stability stake. S. Korea has already said they want us out....that is why N. Korea is still standing.

What is the financial stake in Iran.....nothing, they have nothing to add to the world and they do not have enough oil to sponsor anything to hurt us. Afghanistan would still be standing had they not taken Saudi oil money and Osama.

It maybe selfish but Thomas Jefferson said "This nation can achieve greatness if it can avoid NEEDLESS foreign conflicts"

Whether this war was fought over oil or regional stability it does not matter, it needed to happen, and it has happened, so let's move on.

wde

[DKW 86 7,447]

Cman, I am very afraid of the war that may come on the Korean peninsula. N. Korea has a huge army very well provisioned and they have Nukes too. Do not hold your breath while the UN votes and votes and revotes to take on the Chinese. They have veto power in the Security Council. This would be another US Brit Show.

Kim Jung Il is CRAZY. Not in the Moamar Qaddafi way either. He is nuts like Hitler. Starves his people to death and built up an Army only the Chinese could easily beat.

Some of the Dems are even saying we will need a much larger Army in the Future. We could only realistically take on one war at a time at present. We would need to be essentially out of Afghanistan and Iraq to win. Military thinking during the Cold War was we had to be prepared to fight Two Wars on two different fronts. WE kept a large enough Army to do that. Large enough AF and Navy too.

We are staked to S Korea with assets there now and Financially as well.

We have pushed the Japanese to reinstitute their Army soon.

If China comes after Taiwan, you can bank on N Korea coming after S Korea the next day because we would be too busy to fight in S Korea.

China probably wishes that they would have gotten the deal over with Taiwan during the Clinton years. He owed them for Millions to his re-election campaign.