The Blue Site

The US had close ties to Saddam in the late 80's, early 90's as well...Maybe the 101st should be rolling into Washington next... ;)

After all, we have to go after EVERYONE...not just a few...

Posted by: HOODLUMinc at November 16, 2003 11:04 AM

But then again, the Saudis (the contributor to state funded terrorism next to Syria) also has ties to Al'Queda and MANY other known terrorist organizations....but will the "Coalition of the willing" be knocking on the Saudi Crown princes door any time soon? Not likely...not while the Saudis control the majority of OPEC...

This is why I have lost confidence in the war on terrorism...

Although it is probably the most noble undertakings of the 21st century, it has turned into a pool of hipocracy, lies and deception.

If you're going to declair war on terrorism, I expect them to follow through....not pick and choose targets....

Then you look like you're taking sides (some terrorists are more "evil" than others...or so it seems)

Posted by: HOODLUMinc at November 16, 2003 11:11 AM

thats nonsense. we didnt have "close ties" to hussein. not in any significant way that would be cause for whatyou said.

and oil isnt the only reason were not in saudi arabia. its not viable right now. you cant take every fight on earth...and if you want to drive around in your car...wait, if you want to push your car around and have the north american economy collapse, thats up to you. id rather not personally, and i think were doing a decent job of keeping the royal family in check. i dont doubt that, in time, well take on saudi arabia...but its not going to happen anytime soon.

Posted by: Josh Bozeman at November 16, 2003 12:13 PM

Is that so? I have a nice pic of Donald Runsfield shaking hands with Saddam from the Regan, early 90's with a WMD envoy.

The US gave Iraq 2/3 the WMD they used against the Kurds. How come it didn't bother them then, but bothers them now?

The hipocracy.

Call it as stupid and as absurtd as you want. It happened.

Ill show you a bunch of links a littlke later. Do your research for yourself...

Posted by: HOODLUMinc at November 16, 2003 07:33 PM

sending an envoy to meet with hussein doesnt equal the US and Iraq being allies or anything near that...we simply had to choose a side between iraq and iran. iran is a clear enemy of the US, and is a much bigger menace overall the iraq in the 80's. plus, we needed strategic alliances to get oil out of the middle east. its a give and take that is constantly changing.

Posted by: Josh Bozeman at November 16, 2003 08:15 PM

not to mention...we did condemn the use of chemical weapons by the iraqi regime...and rumsfeld had a number of conversations with top iraqi leaders, including tariq aziz- in which he urged them to drop any chemical weapons program they had or might be starting up.

we needed to show a strong military presence in the middle east, and we did that thru iraq in the 80's...and, as i said before, we needed alliances for oil- which is vital to the economy of every nation, not just our own. plus, we needed to protect specific allies within the middle east from any threats posed by iraq.

its not just black and white...there is lots of grey when youre dealing with the intricacies of international policy-- who to support, who to fight, and when to fight them...figuring out when you can reasonably battle one enemy, and which enemy you take on first, etc.

we did also respond to iraq's human rights record in the 80's, so that's a plus...and, as mentioned, we did urge iraq to drop the chemical/biological weapons programs they had and we condemned the use of chemical weapons by hussein on the iranians.

Posted by: Josh Bozeman at November 16, 2003 08:22 PM

"sending an envoy to meet with hussein doesnt equal the US and Iraq being allies or anything near that..."

- As I recall, all hoodlum said was that the U.S. had "close ties" to Iraq. For that reason, I'll ignore that comment about the US being "allies" with Iraq.

"thats nonsense. we didnt have "close ties" to hussein."

- If we define "close-ties" as a decided pattern of support for one another, then hoodulm's statement is very true.

I'll begin with a couple of links to overviews of US relations with Iraq, which discuss the nature of the support. The first is an article from the Washington Post:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn?pagename=article&node=&contentId=A52241-2002Dec29¬Found=true

Basing their conclusions on reviews of the "thousands of declassified documents and interviews with former policymakers" the report concludes that "US intelligence and logistical support played a crucial role in shoring up Iraqi defenses against the 'human wave' attacks by suicidal Iranian troops," and that, "the administrations of Ronald Reagan and George H.W. Bush authorized the sale to Iraq of numerous items that had both military and civilian applications, including poisonous chemicals and deadly biological viruses, such as anthrax and bubonic plague." The report also determines that Donald Rumsfeld was "instrumental in tilting US policy toward Baghdad."

The second link is to the third installment of a three-part series on the history of Iraq produced by the radio program "The World":

http://www.theworld.org/Iraq/part3.html

It describes how Iraq was removed from the US list as a state-sponsor of terror and how, after the use of chemical weapons was known, the Reagan administration reestablished diplomatic ties with Iraq. The story also relates how, while the US didn't directly supply Iraq with much finished weapons, it assisted Iraq in obtaining weapons by providing large amounts of food credits (2nd only to Mexico) and quotes former CIA analyst Ken Pollack (who supported Bush's drive for war in Iraq), who says that US policy encouraged our allies to sell Iraq weapons. Moreover, the report states that the Reagan administration killed Congressional attempts to impose sanctions on Hussein's regime after his massacres of the Kurds using chemical weapons at places like Halabja (which, yes, means that the Reagan administration persisted in actively supporting the butcher of Baghdad even after the much ballyhooed "gassing of his own people!").

Howard Teicher, a staffer with the National Security Council from 1982-1987, and a man who accompanied Rumsfeld to Iraq when Reagan sent him there as "Special Envoy," described similar support for Iraq in the Reagan administration in an affidavit:

http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article1413.htm

filed for a 1995 civil lawsuit. This support, he says, included efforts to "ensure that Iraq had sufficient military weapons, ammunition, and vehicles to avoid losing the Iran-Iraq war," by "monitoring third country arms sales to Iraq." According to Teicher, the US supplied Iraq with military intelligence.

- Furthermore, the Wisconsin Project on Nuclear Arms Control:

http://www.iraqwatch.org/suppliers/studycommerce.htm

an affiliate of the Univ. of Wisconsin Law School, examined documents relating to those 771 licenses for exports to Iraq between 1985 and 1990, all of which were dual-use products, and found that the Department of Commerce approved some of the technology sales without consulting the Defense, State, or Energy Departments, as was required by federal rules.

- Wouldn't you agree that all this makes the US allies or something "near that" with Iraq?

"we simply had to choose a side between iraq and iran."

- Well let's see, Iraq INVADED Iran, which means that Iraq was not engaged in legitimate self defense but was in fact the aggressor. This means that any military assistance or sales of military hardware or technology was strictly prohibited by federal law. Yet the US supported them anyway. Shocking, I know.

"and rumsfeld had a number of conversations with top iraqi leaders, including tariq aziz- in which he urged them to drop any chemical weapons program they had or might be starting up."

- In a September interview with CNN, Rumsfeld said he "cautioned" Hussein about the use of chemical weapons, a claim at odds with declassified State Department notes of his 90-minute meeting with the Iraqi leader. A Pentagon spokesman, Brian Whitman, now says that Rumsfeld raised the issue not with Hussein, but with Iraqi foreign minister Tariq Aziz. The State Department notes show that he mentioned it largely in passing as one of several matters that "inhibited" U.S. efforts to assist Iraq.

SOURCES:

http://www.gwu.edu/~nsarchiv/NSAEBB/NSAEBB82/press.htm

http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn?pagename=article&node=&contentId=A52241-2002Dec29¬Found=true

- So he mentioned it "in passing" to ONLY Tariq Aziz. It's like he said "gee golly Tariq, we really wish you'd tell Saddam to stop gassing your own people." It's funny how they didn't sanction Iraq for human rights violations until AFTER they invaded Kuwait.

"plus, we needed strategic alliances to get oil out of the middle east"

- Funny, a second ago you denied that the US had "close ties" with Iraq. Now you admit that they had a "strategic alliance" for oil. Your
contradicting yourself again. And so the downward spriral begins..

- Are you saying it's okay for the US to support any ruthless dictator regardless of how many human rights regulations he violates as long as it's "for oil"? Your ethics are as screwed up as Bush's.

"its not just black and white...there is lots of grey when youre dealing with the intricacies of international policy"

Yes, it's called "the enemy of my enemy is my friend" philosophy, and if it wasn't for that philosophy, Saddam wouldn't have been able to slaughter his own people with support from your country's elected officials.

"we did also respond to iraq's human rights record in the 80's, so that's a plus..."

- When? How? By mentioning to Tariq Aziz it would be nice if you'd stop gassing the Kurds? Where were the sanctions then? Where was the "LIBERATION"? Yeah, it was a "plus" alright. Way to go!

"we did urge iraq to drop the chemical/biological weapons programs they had and we condemned the use of chemical weapons by hussein on the iranians."

- Really? May we have a link?

Posted by: lowdown at November 16, 2003 10:12 PM

if i said black- youd say white.

when you become a policy expert, and are able to make EVERYONE happy, then get back to me and let me know how its done.

hood was clearly trying to claim that we were close with iraq...even mentioning that we provided them with weapons. but he neglected to mention we helped them simply so they could defeat the iranians. we took sides, yes. thats how it works. it seems as tho youre saying we should just go in and bomb the hell out of both countries. yet, that wouldnt fit very well with what im guessing is your opposition to war.

i never said this is the way id do things...i never said that this was moral and this wasnt. i simply explained that we werent in cahoots with iraq to supply them with weapons to attack everyone around them. we didnt say- here are some baddddd badddddd weapons...and then suddenly decide were gonna flip flop and attack them.

both of you, clearly, are trying to put some of the blame for hussein on the US, which is just silly. i dont run this nation, never have...but i dont jump up and blame the govt of being corrupt and being responsible for horrible things when i know that things are much more complicated than- we did this, thus were responsible for this.

Posted by: Josh Bozeman at November 17, 2003 06:18 AM

[[if i said black- youd say white.

when you become a policy expert, and are able to make EVERYONE happy, then get back to me and let me know how its done.]]

That's Josh's subtle way of saying "im wrong, you guys are right...again..."

And damn you Lowdown...I thought we agreed it would be me finishing him... ;)

Posted by: HOODLUMinc at November 17, 2003 06:52 AM

"hood was clearly trying to claim that we were close with iraq..."

-Which you were. Do you feel ashamed of the actions of your country? Why else would you deny it then...when it's true?

"even mentioning that we provided them with weapons."

-Which they did. I can't help it. They did it, not me....

"but he neglected to mention we helped them simply so they could defeat the iranians."

-Oh yeah, thats right. The country THEY invaded...

Well how come Bush is bringing it up as Saddam being such a bad guy now? How come it is such a bad action now, but YOU seem to think it's ok?

Where were the sanctions and "Liberation" back then when it was done? Why now? Why is it ok one time, and "terrible" another?

Like I said, the hipocracy....

"we took sides, yes. thats how it works."

EXACTLY! You took sides. I'm not condemning that fact. Sometimes, sides have to be taken...but how come NOW they bring up all these "bad things" he did, to justify war, when back then it was "ok" and the US even supplied Iraq with the very weapons to commit those "atrocities"....?

THe plot thickens....

During the campaign for war, did you ever hear Bush or anyone else say "Saddam is a terrible man. He killed his own people with chemicle weapons. We didn't do anything about it back then because we wanted oil. Heck, we even gave him a few chemicle weapons ourselves".......

Of course not....because that would be the truth....

"both of you, clearly, are trying to put some of the blame for hussein on the US, which is just silly."

There you go with "silly" again....

Actually, we're clearly showing the hipocracy in foreign policy...which as usual, went over your head..

But anyway Josh....it's early, shouldn't you be somewhere pledging to the flag or singing god bless america?

Posted by: HOODLUMinc at November 17, 2003 07:13 AM

Name:


Email Address:


URL:

Remember personal info?
YesNo
Comments: