Is the war in Iraq right?

[jamesrwright3]

First of all, how can you say what did or did not happen? Do you have an omniscient ability?

Why do you keeping hanging on to that word "Weaponized?" What is that supposed to do? Do you think it actually supports your position?

Here, take a look at this:

You said you had to see something on "mustard" gas, well, here you go. Somehow I suspect you'll try to flip the script again.

"Yes, the US government approved and orchestrated US corporate sales and exports of components for mustard gas to Iraq."

"More important, the US Department of Intelligence, the Department of Agriculture, the National Security Council, the CIA, and others, not only knew that the very purpose of selling the components was for Iraq to make mustard gas, but above all else, the US actively helped Iraq deploy the mustard gas and other agents to kill tens of thousands Iranians"

"President Reagan, Vice President George Bush...never withdrew their support for the highly classifiedprogram in which more than 60 officers of the Defense IntelligenceAgency were secretly providing detailed information on Iraniandeployments, tactical planning for battles, plans for airstrikes andbomb-damage assessments for Iraq” [with the full knowledge for years that Iraq was using chemical weapons, as this team was conducting weekly battle assessments—Boles]"

“The Pentagon’s battle damage assessments confirmed that Iraqi military commanders had integrated chemical weapons throughout their arsenal and were adding them to strike plans that American advisers either prepared or suggested."

"As with the components for mustard gas, the US government approved the sale to Iraq of anthrax and other biological materials."

"The CIA directly sold cynide to Iraq, and when the Iraq gassed the Kurds—their “own” people—the US tried to cover it up by blaming Iran."

“when Mr. Cheney was running Halliburton, the oil services firm, itsold more equipment to Iraq than any other company did." (NYT article cites that)

"After the Gulf War, the International Atomic Energy Agency found the following US equipment in Iraq: spectrometers, oscilloscopes, neutron initiators, high-speed switches for nuclear detonation, and other tools used to develop and manufacture nuclear weapons."
http://www.nonviolentways.org/Iraq-biochems-nukes.htm

There is plenty more information on the link!

There is no respectable way to refute the evidence. We could spend eternity going in semantic circles, but what's the point?

IT STILL DOESN'T SAY WE SENT THEM WEAPONS. YOU DON'T UNDERSTAND THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN SENDING WEAPONS AND DUAL USE MATERIALS.
WE CAN GO IN CIRCLES FOREVER BECAUSE YOU DON'T SEEM TO UNDERSTAND THAT THERE IS A DIFFERENCE.

YOU CAN'T REFUTE THE FACT THAT WE NEVER DIRECTLY TRANSFERRED CHEMICAL WEAPONS TO IRAQ. NO SEMANTICS INVOLVED. JUST THE COLD HARD TRUTH

 

[Redneck]

So, does the United States manufacture T-55 and T-72 tanks, Mirage F-1 jets, Exocet missiles, and AK type weapons now?

For the record, war does not determine who is right. War determines who is left.

 

[k]

So, does the United States manufacture T-55 and T-72 tanks, Mirage F-1 jets, Exocet missiles, and AK type weapons now?

For the record, war does not determine who is right. War determines who is left.

What in the world does that have to do with any of the evidence posted?

It's perplexing how people respond to posts, yet completely ingore all the evidence given, then try to make comments about ignored evidence. Or, another tactic is to try and divert attention away from the evidence.

 

[Redneck]

What in the world does that have to do with any of the evidence posted?

You do know where those weapons come from right?

 

[k]

You do know where those weapons come from right?

I am well aware of Russia, Germany, and France all being contributors, Russia being the biggest.

It still does not address the evidence, at all. Again, simply trying to divert attention from the facts. The US supplied Iraq w/ all types of chem/bio agents used directly for chemical weapons, and they did it when they KNEW Iraq was using chem weapons.

Why is it so hard to admit leaders in a party made some horrible mistakes? This is what makes me wonder about the difference between supporting an administration and worshiping it? (NO, not saying "you" do that in any way.) The question is asked because even when guilt is OBVIOUS people just can't seem to admit it.

 

[PACKY]

Hmmmm......I recall seeing the picture of Donald Rumsfeld shaking the hand of Saddam Hussein in the early 80's both men wearing ear to ear smiles. this was taken at a meeting in which the united states had just guranteed the delivery of Anti-aircraft radar systems.
(the same ones that were updated by french companies and used against us in both Iraqi wars)..that's where the weapons are coming from.

 

[k]

Hmmmm......I recall seeing the picture of Donald Rumsfeld shaking the hand of Saddam Hussein in the early 80's both men wearing ear to ear smiles. this was taken at a meeting in which the united states had just guranteed the delivery of Anti-aircraft radar systems.
(the same ones that were updated by french companies and used against us in both Iraqi wars)..that's where the weapons are coming from.

At one point, Iraq had it going on. Saddam was getting weapons, billions in funding, and chem/bio weapons from the two super-powers as well as some other countries.

 

[jamesrwright3]

What in the world does that have to do with any of the evidence posted?

It's perplexing how people respond to posts, yet completely ingore all the evidence given, then try to make comments about ignored evidence. Or, another tactic is to try and divert attention away from the evidence.

We don't ignore evidence. We admit we had dealings with Saddam. No one is disputing that. However, you claimed we directly supplied him with WMD and that was never the case. Dual use materials, yes.

 

[Redneck]

At one point, Iraq had it going on. Saddam was getting weapons, billions in funding, and chem/bio weapons from the two super-powers as well as some other countries.

I think that the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics was giving weapons to both sides during the Iran-Iraq war. If that isn't capitalist, I don't know what is.

 

[k]

I think that the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics was giving weapons to both sides during the Iran-Iraq war. If that isn't capitalist, I don't know what is.

Don't know if they were following the US model or vice versa, but the US also supplied Iran. It wasn't to the same degree they supplied Iraq, but it was definitely there.

 

[praying]

We don't ignore evidence. We admit we had dealings with Saddam. No one is disputing that. However, you claimed we directly supplied him with WMD and that was never the case. Dual use materials, yes.

Fine "dual use mterials", but here is the question(s):

What do you think we thought he was going to do with those materials? Sadaam since the day he seized power in 1973 (?) and before really, has been a brutal dictator. A menance to his own people and to the region, this was not new information come 1990. Why did the US choose to support him at all? Why did we not take the moral high ground?

Benevolence in our foreign policy is not America's strong suit is why.