US Knew Iraq was Using Chemical Weapons Against Iran

[Jeff]

Whoa.

<i>Officers Say U.S. Aided Iraq in War Despite Use of Gas
Sat Aug 17, 3:17 PM ET

By PATRICK E. TYLER The New York Times

WASHINGTON, Aug. 17 — A covert American program during the Reagan administration provided Iraq with critical battle planning assistance at a time when American intelligence agencies knew that Iraqi commanders would employ chemical weapons in waging the decisive battles of the Iran-Iraq war, according to senior military officers with direct knowledge of the program.

These officers, most of whom agreed to speak on the condition that they not be named, spoke in response to a reporter's questions about the nature of gas warfare on both sides of the conflict between Iran and Iraq from 1981 to 1988. Iraq's use of gas in that conflict is repeatedly cited by President Bush ( news - web sites) and, this week, by his national security adviser, Condoleezza Rice ( news - web sites), as justification for "regime change" in Iraq.

The covert program was carried out at a time when President Reagan's top aides, including Secretary of State George P. Shultz, Defense Secretary Frank C. Carlucci and Gen. Colin L. Powell, then the national security adviser, were publicly condemning Iraq for its use of poison gas, especially after Iraq attacked Kurds in Halabja in March 1988.

During the Iran-Iraq war, the United States decided it was imperative that Iran be thwarted, so it could not overrun the important oil-producing states in the Persian Gulf. It has long been known that the United States provided intelligence assistance to Iraq in the form of satellite photography to help the Iraqis understand how Iranian forces were deployed against them. But the full nature of the program, as described by former Defense Intelligence Agency officers, was not previously disclosed.

Secretary of State Powell, through a spokesman, said the officers' description of the program was "dead wrong," but declined to discuss it. His deputy, Richard L. Armitage, a senior defense official at the time, used an expletive relayed through a spokesman to indicate his denial that the United States acquiesced in the use of chemical weapons.

The Defense Intelligence Agency declined to comment, as did Lt. Gen. Leonard Peroots, retired, who supervised the program as the head of the agency. Mr. Carlucci said, "My understanding is that what was provided" to Iraq "was general order of battle information, not operational intelligence."

"I certainly have no knowledge of U.S. participation in preparing battle and strike packages," he said, "and doubt strongly that that occurred."

Later, he added, "I did agree that Iraq should not lose the war, but I certainly had no foreknowledge of their use of chemical weapons."

Though senior officials of the Reagan administration publicly condemned Iraq's employment of mustard gas, sarin, VX and other poisonous agents, the American military officers said President Reagan, Vice President George Bush and senior national security aides never withdrew their support for the highly classified program in which more than 60 officers of the Defense Intelligence Agency were secretly providing detailed information on Iranian deployments, tactical planning for battles, plans for airstrikes and bomb-damage assessments for Iraq.

Iraq shared its battle plans with the Americans, without admitting the use of chemical weapons, the military officers said. But Iraq's use of chemical weapons, already established at that point, became more evident in the war's final phase.

Saudi Arabia played a crucial role in pressing the Reagan administration to offer aid to Iraq out of concern that Iranian commanders were sending waves of young volunteers to overrun Iraqi forces. Prince Bandar bin Sultan, the Saudi ambassador to the United States, then and now, met with President Saddam Hussein ( news - web sites) of Iraq and then told officials of the Central Intelligence Agency ( news - web sites) and the Defense Intelligence Agency that Iraq's military command was ready to accept American aid.

In early 1988, after the Iraqi Army, with American planning assistance, retook the Fao Peninsula in an attack that reopened Iraq's access to the Persian Gulf, a defense intelligence officer, Lt. Col. Rick Francona, now retired, was sent to tour the battlefield with Iraqi officers, the American military officers said.

He reported that Iraq had used chemical weapons to cinch its victory, one former D.I.A. official said. Colonel Francona saw zones marked off for chemical contamination, and containers for the drug atropine scattered around, indicating that Iraqi soldiers had taken injections to protect themselves from the effects of gas that might blow back over their positions. (Colonel Francona could not be reached for comment.)

C.I.A. officials supported the program to assist Iraq, though they were not involved. Separately, the C.I.A. provided Iraq with satellite photography of the war front.

Col. Walter P. Lang, retired, the senior defense intelligence officer at the time, said he would not discuss classified information, but added that both D.I.A. and C.I.A. officials "were desperate to make sure that Iraq did not lose" to Iran.

"The use of gas on the battlefield by the Iraqis was not a matter of deep strategic concern," he said. What Mr. Reagan's aides were concerned about, he said, was that Iran not break through to the Fao Peninsula and spread the Islamic revolution to Kuwait and Saudi Arabia.

Colonel Lang asserted that the Defense Intelligence Agency "would have never accepted the use of chemical weapons against civilians, but the use against military objectives was seen as inevitable in the Iraqi struggle for survival." Senior Reagan administration officials did nothing to interfere with the continuation of the program, a former participant in the program said.

Iraq did turn its chemical weapons against the Kurdish population of northern Iraq, but the intelligence officers say they were not involved in planning any of the military operations in which these assaults occurred. They said the reason was that there were no major Iranian troop concentrations in the north and the major battles where Iraq's military command wanted assistance were on the southern war front.

The Pentagon ( news - web sites)'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. Iran claimed it suffered thousands of deaths from chemical weapons.

The American intelligence officers never encouraged or condoned Iraq's use of chemical weapons, but neither did they oppose it because they considered Iraq to be struggling for its survival, people involved at the time said in interviews.

Another former senior D.I.A. official who was an expert on the Iraqi military said the Reagan administration's treatment of the issue — publicly condemning Iraq's use of gas while privately acquiescing in its employment on the battlefield — was an example of the "Realpolitik" of American interests in the war.

The effort on behalf of Iraq "was heavily compartmented," a former D.I.A. official said, using the military jargon for restricting secrets to those who need to know them.

"Having gone through the 440 days of the hostage crisis in Iran," he said, "the period when we were the Great Satan, if Iraq had gone down it would have had a catastrophic effect on Kuwait and Saudi Arabia, and the whole region might have gone down — that was the backdrop of the policy."

One officer said, "They had gotten better and better" and after a while chemical weapons "were integrated into their fire plan for any large operation, and it became more and more obvious."

A number of D.I.A. officers who took part in aiding Iraq more than a decade ago when its military was actively using chemical weapons, now say they believe that the United States should overthrow Mr. Hussein at some point. But at the time, they say, they all believed that their covert assistance to Mr. Hussein's military in the mid-1980's was a crucial factor in Iraq's victory in the war and the containment of a far more dangerous threat from Iran.

The Pentagon "wasn't so horrified by Iraq's use of gas," said one veteran of the program. "It was just another way of killing people — whether with a bullet or phosgene, it didn't make any difference," he said.

Former Secretary of State Shultz and Vice President Bush tried to stanch the flow of chemical precursors to Iraq and spoke out against Iraq's use of chemical arms, but Mr. Shultz, in his memoir, also alluded to the struggle in the administration.

"I was stunned to read an intelligence analysis being circulated within the administration that `we have demolished a budding relationship (with Iraq) by taking a tough position in opposition to chemical weapons,' " he wrote.

Mr. Shultz also wrote that he quarreled with William J. Casey, then the director of central intelligence, over whether the United States should press for a new chemical weapons ban at the Geneva Disarmament Conference. Mr. Shultz declined further comment.</i>

[mateo]

Whoa indeed....but I am not surprised.

Reagan was soooooo shady. Deals with the pope, helping drug dealers in central america.....but hey, wasnt it fun to have him as the Prez....

[Refman]

Deals with the pope
Yeah that Pope is so shady. sheesh.

This is disturbing...but it was a much different time in the world. Iran had kidnapped Americans and sponsored a rash of hijackings. I'm not saying that it is a justification...but the feeling at the time was the ends justify the means. It was the me first 1980s afterall.

[Batman Jones]

Color me stupid. I'd like to know exactly why chemical weapons are so much worse than non-chemical weapons. I'd also, of course, like to know why we arm the hell out of Iraq so they can fight Iran and then send troops to war with Iraq because they are armed.... With arms we gave or sold them. Will this ever end? Probably not. Or at least probably not until the American electorate pays any attention at all to anything other than personality or "character." (And, man, should THAT word be banned from electoral politics.)

Refman asked in the other Iraq thread if people would condone action against Iraq if they had, and were prepared to share, chemical weapons, since the nuclear weapon thing seems to have fallen away. Here's my answer, Ref. Absolutely ****ing not. Got a problem with it? Talk to the people who made it all possible -- your very own party bosses.

Aside from dealing with its own borders and its own citizens, Iraq has not deployed or shared chemical weapons with anyone, to the best of our collective knowledge. They may have them, yes. Like we have nukes. And they may threaten to use them, if they are threatened, as we do with nukes. And none of that justifies a preemptive strike. Why? Because they are currently using them as defensive deterrents. The same way we use our weapons of mass destruction. Does anyone here feel our country is so morally superior to any other that we should be the only country granted that right?

Of COURSE we were okay with whatever Iraq did against Iran. There is a very strong argument we were even for whatever Iraq did against Kuwait (see: Where is April Glaspie). Our politics are cynical and they work because our electorate is ignorant. It's too complicated to understand what's really going on, so we talk about moral imperatives and new Hitlers and character. And, believe it or not, it actually works.

The people who wring their hands over how much worse chemical death is than death by bullets or bombs are the exact same people who don't understand why hate crime murders are worse than other murders. Can't have it both ways.

It was okay when we shared an enemy in Iran and it's not now? Why? How ****ing arrogant are we in this country? I thought Bush was supposed to be running AGAINST military arrogance. Turns out, like so many of us thought, he was lying on that too. Just like his fantasies of tax cuts and the maintenance of the surplus somehow co-existing. Has even one thing this guy ran on come true? I mean, even just one.

If anyone at all is offended by the cynicism this article demonstrates, I have just one recommendation: Grow up. The demonization of various countries, coupled with our arming of the self-same countries whenever it suits us, and the way they constantly overlap and switch is as American as apple pie. Both parties are guilty of this outrageous cynicism, but the Republicans (most especially Reagan/Bush) made it a ****ing art form.

Flame away, righties. But don't blame me. I voted for Gore.

[Refman]

I'd like to know exactly why chemical weapons are so much worse than non-chemical weapons.
It's a whole lot harder for me to take out 10,000 people with a gun than it is with an explosive devise loaded with sarin gas. That's the difference. It is a WEAPON OF MASS DESTRUCTION (emphasis on MASS).

I have tried to be diplomatic about this but now I'm going to put it painfully clearly. Saddam hates us and our allies. Very few people have argued against the notion that when he acquires nukes that he will use them. A staggering percentage of the populace believes that he will use them. Even Nostradamus predicted that the third antichrist would come out of the Middle East. I don't necessarily believe in Nostradamus as a prophet, but it is interesting to point out. The pain and anger I felt from watching the events on 9/11 will never leave me so long as I draw breath. I'm not willing to go through that again with mustard gas being unleashed in downtown LA or some equivalent act so that people will "feel better" about an attack on Iraq. If in order to prevent such an attack the intelligence shows we must take out Saddam then so ****ing be it. Some problems are difficult to solve, but when push comes to shove sometimes you have to have the Spaldings to get the job done...something the Dems have shown a unique ineptitude for. There it is...flame away. I probably deserve it.

Got a problem with it? Talk to the people who made it all possible -- your very own party bosses.
When exactly did the Republicans give Saddam chemical weapons? I missed that in the article.

Because they are currently using them as defensive deterrents.
Chemical weapons attacks against the Kurds is defensive exactly how?

new Hitlers and character.
Closer to a new Stalin in actuality.

I'd also, of course, like to know why we arm the hell out of Iraq so they can fight Iran and then send troops to war with Iraq because they are armed.... With arms we gave or sold them.
We are talking about attacking them to disrupt a weapons program that consists of items we never gave them. We never gave them the capability for weapons of mass destruction. To say we did is inaccurate.

The people who wring their hands over how much worse chemical death is than death by bullets or bombs are the exact same people who don't understand why hate crime murders are worse than other murders. Can't have it both ways.
It's not even the same argument. As an aside, I wrote a few pages about hate crimes that I'd be more than willing to send to you for your amusement.

It's too complicated to understand what's really going on, so we talk about moral imperatives and new Hitlers and character.
That is a bipartisan phenomenon. Gore made a career out of obfuscating the issues.

Turns out, like so many of us thought, he was lying on that too.
Show me that Bush knew all of these events were going to unfold and I'll agree that he lied. What is really unfair is that should another attack be perpetrated on this country and it turns out that Iraq provided the means...the Dems will hammer Bush for not preventing it. He's got LOTS of options.

I voted for Gore.
He'd be handling this SO much better. The Dems have shown no aptitude for handling the military. Remember when Clinton just handed the US military over to the UN? Our servicepeople had a UN flag swen to their uniforms. That's REAL leadership though...right?

I understand that you don't like Bush and we'll never agree on that. But the accusations made in this thread are speculative at best and a fabrication at worst. Which is it, I don't know. It's probably somewhere in the middle as is the case with most things.

BTW...let's assume the whole damned thing is true. I seriously doubt that it could have been done without the aid of a single Dem. Both houses were controlled by Dems at the time and you know as well as I do that if something this convoluted were to have happened the Dem leadership would have caught wind of it and acquiesed. To villify one party for something our entire governement did is just not an accurate assessment of reality.

[tacoma park legend]

When exactly did the Republicans give Saddam chemical weapons?I missed that in the article.

You didn't, it was an embellishment.

[Jeff]

Originally posted by Refman
This is disturbing...but it was a much different time in the world. Iran had kidnapped Americans and sponsored a rash of hijackings. I'm not saying that it is a justification...but the feeling at the time was the ends justify the means. It was the me first 1980s afterall.

What surprises me about this is the fact that we decried the use of those weapons at the time and we covertly sanctioned their use. Doesn't this make it even more clear why the people over there get so pissed at us?

I mean, we funded the Afghans against the Soviet Union and worked with the Iraqis against Iran. Then, we deny that we were helping them at all and actually call them out for the way they behave? If another country did that to us, we would be absolutely furious! Yet, we are so shocked when other countries are pissed?

What's that all about?

[Refman]

Originally posted by Jeff


What surprises me about this is the fact that we decried the use of those weapons at the time and we covertly sanctioned their use. Doesn't this make it even more clear why the people over there get so pissed at us?

I mean, we funded the Afghans against the Soviet Union and worked with the Iraqis against Iran. Then, we deny that we were helping them at all and actually call them out for the way they behave? If another country did that to us, we would be absolutely furious! Yet, we are so shocked when other countries are pissed?

What's that all about?
I agree that it is a real problem. The fact is that in the Middle East the country causing the most problems changes from moment to moment. In the early 1980s there is no question that Iran was a huge problem for us...so we funded Iraq. Now Iran has gotten a new regime after the death of Khomeni, and they have been pretty quiet. Now, ironically, it is Iraq threatening the stability of the region, our security and the security of our allies. We funded the Afghans due to our notion that we needed to help all people stave off communism. Sadly the result of the war was internal strife that landed them the Taliban....the rest is history.

What I really have a problem with is that certain people act as though this is strictly a Republican problem. That's absurd. Both parties have involved themselves in this. Congress (at the time Dem controlled) has to approve any and all monetary appropriations. To think that Reagan could just sneak million under the radar is ridiculous.

[rimbaud]

Originally posted by Refman

He'd be handling this SO much better. The Dems have shown no aptitude for handling the military. Remember when Clinton just handed the US military over to the UN?

It is not really wise to equate Gore with Clinton in regards to military policy. Keep in mind that for years Gore was never a serious Dem candidate because he was so pro-military.

I didn't vote for the guy, nor would I ever, but his military expertise is light years beyond Clinton and Bush Jr. combined.

In regards to the article that started this thread...this has been known for some time...it is nothing really new.

[rimbaud]

Originally posted by Refman

Yeah that Pope is so shady. sheesh.


Lol, his shadiness was also the reason why Kennedy had to practically swear an oath to the flag, Bible, etc, that the Pope would not be running the country if he were to win.

[Refman]

Originally posted by rimbaud


Lol, his shadiness was also the reason why Kennedy had to practically swear an oath to the flag, Bible, etc, that the Pope would not be running the country if he were to win.
Didn't I see the Pope wearing a trenchcoat and hat meeting at midnight in a dark parking garage with RC Solcum? :D

[Azadre]

Now, if every american could know this and understand this, would the country be the same?

[FranchiseBlade]

Originally posted by Refman
What I really have a problem with is that certain people act as though this is strictly a Republican problem. That's absurd. Both parties have involved themselves in this. Congress (at the time Dem controlled) has to approve any and all monetary appropriations. To think that Reagan could just sneak million under the radar is ridiculous.

Actually Reagan's administration did go behind Congress' back to fund the contras. In fact they also sold weapons to Iran to do it. It looks like they were selling to both sides. If they did one without Congress' knowledge why couldn't they have done both? While both parties have done wrong in foreign policy, it doesn't mean that the prinicple party guilty at the time shouldn't take the hits. IMO Reagan's whole support of former dictators in latin America, mining Nicaragua's harbor, actually going against Congress to fund the Contras, selling arms to terrorist regimes like Iran, and now supporting the use of chemical weapons by Iraq is dispicable.

You are correct had Reagan's administration acted legally they would have had congress' approval for some of these things. But as history has shown us, acting with legality wasn't top on the Reagan administrations priority list.

Actually the military seems to have done well under Clinton. They've performed excellently, and seemed up to the task for the Afghanistan job.

I will fault Dems for their military policy as well. Bombing the Asprin factory by Clinton was incredibly wrong. Carter helping out the regime in El Salvador was horrible as well. Funding govts. that use death squads and kill nuns seem horrible to me.

[Batman Jones]

Refman: Bombs are weapons of mass destruction, too. So are nukes. The more we find out about the cynical nature of our government's foreign policy, the closer we get to giving up the right as the world's moral compass to be the one of the only countries allowed to maintain weapons of mass destruction.

Saddam's past treatment of the Kurds is not grounds for a present invasion. If it were, we'd have to go after other countries as well. My point here was that Saddam has not used weapons of mass destruction against us or our allies, except when they were under attack by the US, at which time they used Scuds they had bought from us to bomb Israel. We reserve the right to maintain weapons of mass destruction for defensive purposes. Saddam is a bad man, I agree, but what's different about him saying he'll use such weapons if attacked?

I'd also like to add Noriega to the list of 'dangerous madmen' that we'd supported, armed, shared intelligence with and lent comfort to before coming to the world's rescue by taking out the monster we'd created. As Bill Hicks pointed out, we're like James Coburn in The Gunfighter, tossing the gun to the shepard's feet. "Pick up the gun..." "I don't wanna pick up the gun, mister. You'll shoot me." "Pick up the gun..." The shepard picks up the gun, Coburn shoots the shepard and says, "You all saw him... He had a gun..."

I was drunk and pissed off when I posted before, and my post was unnecessarily partisan. Frankly, I've disagreed with both parties' foreign policy, many times. But Bush is going back on his foreign policy campaign promises, in every possible way. When that happens, when Reagan lies to Congress to conduct his own secret war, when we secretly condone chemical weapons while publically condemning them, I get really pissed off about how much our government lies to us as to how, when and why thousands of civilians (as well as American soldiers) die at the hands of madmen we've befriended with weapons we gave or sold them, all the while assuming moral superiority over the rest of the world. Jeff's right. It's no wonder we're hated in that region and elsewhere. Our arrogance is astounding. If Bush goes forward with this thing, without international support, he will break new records in this regard.

Again, I aplogize for my very partisand post, but most of these things have happened under Republican presidents. When my favorite right wing poster comes on to say it's really not a big deal, even though he is otherwise extremely concerned about chem weapons, it is frustrating. People from both parties should be pissed about this.

Finally, it always blows my mind when people say "Thank goodness Bush is president during 9/11, etc..." Like Gore would have rolled over. As FranchiseBlade said above, Gore has always been considered terrifically hawkish. And I really doubt he would have allowed this most recent embarassing split on Iraq to have occurred. Dislike Gore, distrust him, disagree, hate him if you have to (I don't particularly like him myself), but don't insinuate he would have handled the last year's events less efficiently or with less force than Bush. It is also important to remember that not one single thinking person has ever postulated that Gore was less studied or less intelligent on foreign policy than Bush. Gore's written books on it. Bush had never in his life even visited a foreign country until he was running for president. Yeah. Thank goodness Bush is in charge. Gore woulda been horrible.

[Deckard]

Read the quote from the senior defense intelligence officer at the time, someone who was there and is not a "source", Col. Lang... "This use of gas on the battlefield by the Iraqis was not a matter of deep strategic concern... the use against military objectives was seen as inevitable in the Iraqi struggle for survival."

I'm not naive. I realize that nations have to do things to advance their foreign policy that can be distasteful and sometimes immoral. That they have to deal with regimes who not only aren't their friends, but who might normally be seen as enemies in order to achieve their national interests.

But poison gas! We and the other combatants in WWII managed to get through the worst war in history without resorting to it's use. (don't throw the Nazi death camps at me... I'm talking about military against military) I'm astonished that we would assist ANYONE that we knew were going to use that information to deploy gas on the battlefield. And apparently we knew.

[Mango]

Since this seems like the best thread for Iran-Iraq stories..........

<A HREF="http://www.menewsline.com/stories/2002/august/08_19_1.html">IRAN DOES NOT RULE OUT MISSILES TO IRAQ</A>

<i>
LONDON [MENL] -- Iran has agreed to examine an Iraqi request to supply Baghdad with intermediate-range missiles and combat aircraft.

Western intelligence sources said Iran and Iraq have agreed to establish a committee to discuss the request by President Saddam Hussein for the Shihab-3 intermediate-range missiles as well as up to 100 aircraft. The sources said the Iranian agreement to consider Baghdad's request comes amid rapidly improving relations between the two countries.

"Iran won't do anything that is rash," a senior Western intelligence analyst said. "But the mere fact that Iran did not say no to the Iraqi request is significant and reflects how far their relations have developed."

The Iranian side of the proposed panel would be represented by Gen. Mohammed Baqer Zolqadr, deputy commander of the Iranian Revolutionary Guard Corps. The sources said the Iranians want the panel to examine ways to ensure that any weapons supplied by Teheran would not be used against the Islamic regime.
</i>

[pasox2]

It is no longer necessary to triangulate. That is the definatative change then/now. I would think the U.S. can and should remove these troublesome bad actors and cut a hegemony deal with Russia for pipeline rights. All the boo hoo about soveriegnty and religion is a red herring. If the Saudi's, Mubarak, Assad or any other dicatator wants to cry about it, tough sh@#. Put this target on, please. You're next.

[Refman]

Bombs are weapons of mass destruction, too. So are nukes.
You'll never take out an entire city with a conventional bomb. With a nuke you will. WMD are typically nukes, chemical and biological weapons. The international community has outlawed the use of chemical and biological weapons due to this fact.

The more we find out about the cynical nature of our government's foreign policy, the closer we get to giving up the right as the world's moral compass to be the one of the only countries allowed to maintain weapons of mass destruction.
You'll have to instruct the rest of the Western world too.

Saddam's past treatment of the Kurds is not grounds for a present invasion. If it were, we'd have to go after other countries as well.
We have...see Slobodan Milosevic....see Somalia...etc etc etc

But Bush is going back on his foreign policy campaign promises, in every possible way.
Bush is currently studying the intelligence...he has said he has not made up his mind on military action on Iraq (he said it yesterday)...if we do he will have a clear explanation as to why to give the public...and he will have an exit strategy. How is that different than what he promised? I'll agree that if he goes in without explanation and without an exit startegy that I would be very disappointed.

It's no wonder we're hated in that region and elsewhere. Our arrogance is astounding.
Are you sure you're not confusing us with the French? :D

I aplogize for my very partisand post
It's all good brother.

When my favorite right wing poster comes on to say it's really not a big deal, even though he is otherwise extremely concerned about chem weapons, it is frustrating.
Are you talking about me? If so thank you very much. :D
You know that you are my favorite lib on the BBS.
I do think it's a big deal. I also know that the worlds was a vastly different place and fear makes strange bedfellows. The thing that really bothers me is if Congress was bypassed. We are a nation of laws...not a nation of men.

Like Gore would have rolled over.
Nope...but we'd still be seeking UN approval. In recent years the Dems haven't taken a crap overseas without UN permission.

most of these things have happened under Republican presidents.
THIS happened under a Republican president. I assure you that the Dems have done things that would make us both shudder when in the White House as well. We won't know for 20 years what crazy stuff may have happened in the Clinton White House.

not one single thinking person has ever postulated that Gore was less studied or less intelligent on foreign policy than Bush.
I'm one of them. He understands the issues but he acts in a fundamentally different way than would I. I know Gore is a smart guy...I just don't agree with him. It doesn't make him stupid...just wrong in my book. On the other side, while Bush will never be accused of being the world's greatest orator, he isn't stupid either.

I think that Bush genuinely cares about this country and tries to act in accordance. Sometimes he hits and sometimes he misses. The fact is just by being President right now he has walked into a hornet's nest that I don't think I could do any better than he has in. I think after an intellectual assessment you'll agree. All of that being said...Bush needs to make his case should he decide that action needs to be taken in Iraq.

[treeman]

Just a few minor points:

We did not ever *condone* Saddam's use of CBW against the Iranians (or the Kurds, for that matter). We knew we were dealing with a bad guy from day one - ever since Saddam killed his mentor and started building nuclear facilities that were capable of producing weapons-grade radioactives.

Re: Conventional arms -

During the Iran-Iraq war we gave the Iraqis alot of $$$ and we gave them satellite intelligence - both of which made a huge difference in their achieving a stalemate with the Iranians. Who, I remind you, were trying to spread radical Islam throughout the Gulf region, and who were consequently much greater - and more immediate - enemies at the time. If you want to bit*h at someone for giving them equipment, then point the finger at the French, Russians, and Chinese - curiously, the same factions who want to reopen economic/diplomatic ties with Saddam (and rearm Iraq). But if you want to bit*h at someone for giving them intelligence assets and money (both of which allowed a small Iraq to battle a large Iran), then point the finger at yourself - us.

The Iraqis do not own - and never did - any actual US arms. We did not give them a single tank, APC, AIFV, artillery piece, SAM, AD gun, etc - all of it was intelligence info and $$. Which is far more valuable than tanks and rockets, especially when it comes in the form of detailed satellite photos...

Re: Chemical / Biological weapons -

It is true that the Iraqis gained their anthrax strain from a US research lab, but an often ignored detail in that matter is that they obtained the original samples from a civilian research company that specialized in culturing samples that were intended to be sent to universities worldwide (and I do mean worldwide - it ended up in many countries) for research purposes. The Iraqis didn't get it from Ft. Detrick, as many conspiracy buffs would have you believe... If I had a letter of request with a bona-fide university letterhead then I could have ordered a sample (as the Iraqis did), and no one would have asked any questions - there were virtually no controls placed on such transfers until the Clinton admin - one thing he did right. But it wasn't a conspiracy; no one ever really noticed the inherent threat in letting civilian research companies sending out samples without stringent controls. I know it seems stupid now (it was), but no one was concerned about bioterrorism 25 years ago... Just a different age.

We weren't concerned with such issues 12 years ago either. It wasn't until we started looking at Iraq's chemical/nuclear apparatus that we began to discover the extent of their biowarfare programs. At the time, we were just coming to the dim realization that the Russians (who had been called "Soviets" only months previously) that the "biowarfare threat" even surfaced in anybody's minds. We thought we were dealing with some chemicals, a possible nuke or two, and 100 or so SCUDs to put them on.

You could say that as soon as we started tearing apart Iraq's weapons programs - that's when we first started thinking about bioterrorism on a large scale (although a Russian defector by the name of Ken Alibekov gave us strong warnings before). It was also when we started wondering what a rogue state could really do...

There were over 1,000,000 chem/bio alerts triggered in the 1991 Gulf War. Many of them could be accounted for, some could not. Analysis of patterns showed that Saddam actually used such weapons - at least nerve agents - against us. Yes, he actually fired friggen' poison gas at us then, it just didn't work (because the troops that went in Desert Storm were in full MOPP IV gear, which is full chem/bio gear).

They also found that Iraq was possibly less than 1 month away from achieving a nuclear device. They apparently had the nuclear material...

As far as the Iraqis' chemical weapons programs go - thank the Germans for that. Those damn IG's... Just business to them. Besides, every chemistry major knows how to throw together a half-decent nerve or blister agent. We didn't give it to them. We have never given any WMD to anyone (even the Israeli nukes are not American, as so many seem to believe - they are based originally on a French design).

The inspectors were kicked out in 1998. The 'Desert Fox' operation achieved none of its objectives, aside from killing a few totally innocent cleaning ladies, and briefly damaging the Iraqi Central Military Command structure (all of which they have rebuilt with funds from the "oil for food" deal - little food is actually bought under that program).

---------------------------------------------------

Yes, we knew that Saddam had chemical weapons. Yes, we knew that he had a biowarfare program (although we had no idea how advanced it was...). We also knew that he was a bad guy, and that he might end up using chems in his war against the Iranians. Did we really care? Honestly, No - as long as it wasn't widespread. As long as he only used them to turn an important battle here or there, and not in any large quantities - hell, who cares? What difference is that in the scale of things, when more people would be killed in other, more important battles by conventional means (bullets and explosives)? Hell, why should we have really cared if he used a touch of VX here and a touch of Sarin there, as long as he didn't spread it all over the place?

We didn't know that it would become a pattern. We certainly f*ked up there. We underestimated his propensity to use WMD - we thought along the lines of "Well, he'll just do it this one time..."

We were wrong.

Taken in the context of the US-Iran conflict - which was very real during the 80s (and still is, even if we don't acknowledge it), we didn't really care what kind of weapons Saddam used against them. Obviously in hindsight we should have - that was definitely a mistake. But I must point out two things: 1) We never in any condoned, authorized, told him to do it, or even allowed him to do it (an important one for the conspiracy buffs - we only found out afterwards); 2) we never knowingly supplied him with any agents for use on the battlefield - unlike some of our so-called "partners" in the war on terrorism (see Russia, France, and China).

And all of the crap that we did give him - aside from battlefield intelligence, which was certainly understandable, given the US-Iran relationship and power politics in the Gulf in the '80s - Good God, did we ever make a mistake (yes). Anthrax from a US research company? In hindsight - Good God, what a friggen mistake... Yes, we f*ed up.

It cannot be said enough, or about enough subjects: What were we thinking in the 1980s???

And - Oh, BTW, the war against Saddam and his Ba'athists is already well underway. Done deal, US troops are already inside Iraq. No televised speech from the Oval Office will be necessary. It's already on.

You think I'm joking. Or drunk. Keep thinking that. http://www.stopstart.fsnet.co.uk/smilie/biggrinshoot.gif

It's just moving too slowly for CNN to notice. This is a good thing...

[Jeff]

We have...see Slobodan Milosevic....see Somalia...etc etc etc

C'mon, that's not a very good representation. What about Ruwanda? Chechnia? How about Tibet? West Africa? South Africa? Central America? South America?

There are battles all over the world where people are brutally destroyed by ruthless dictators and we do nothing. To say that we are going after Iraq for the poor Kurds is WAY overstating it.

The bottom line is that "there's oil in them thar hills" and using terrorism and the POTENTIAL of weapons of mass destruction as justification for going after Sadaam sounds like a good reason.

My guess is that Sadaam will topple but I'd lay money that it happens from the inside, probably with significant American military help. I mean, if the CIA or Special Ops can't find a way to take this guy out, then what the hell are we even paying them for? :)

[Jeff]

treeman: Quit putting those long ------ in your posts. It ends up forcing a left to right scroll for most of us.

[Refman]

My guess is that Sadaam will topple but I'd lay money that it happens from the inside, probably with significant American military help.
That is an interesting statement. There has been talk of the US just assisting one of the many factions within Iraq that want Hussein gone. I'd be in favor of that.

[treeman]

I'll lay my money that either we take him out ourselves, or we build up such a force that his generals fold and take him out themselves.

Either way, that doesn't get the Iraqi Ba'ath Party out of power, and both scenarios would just lead to Qusay coming to power, with the Ba'athists still in control...

No, we're going to wipe the slate clean here. I'll lay heavy money on that. Clean wipe - Saddam, his family, and the higher Ba'ath officials all die or get captured. The new regime will be democratic. That is the goal.

Sorry for the"------------" deals, didn't realize that was a problem. Problem solved.

[glynch]

Another classic case of how our leaders support dictators, torturers, terrorists and whoever, if they are useful for foreign policy goals. When they cross us, we then label them as dictators, torturers, or terrorists and then insist that they should be removed at the expense of tax payers and the lives of working class young people.

Let's see, Sadam and , Noriega, our old CIA Agent come to mind. Can anyone think of more examples?

Of course many of the dictators, torturers and terrorists have never crossed us so we still support them. Sharon comes to mind.

[HayesStreet]

Originally posted by Jeff
C'mon, that's not a very good representation. What about Ruwanda? Chechnia? How about Tibet? West Africa? South Africa? Central America? South America?


Surely you are not suggesting we should have invaded Russia (Chechnya) or China (Tibet)?

You'll have to be more specific about West Africa. South Africa and Central and South America are old Cold War examples. The recent examples are decidedly different. And you should remember that Carter started the process of Pinochet's relinquishing power with the National Accords in Chile. Even Reagan followed Oscar Arias's lead with the expansion of democracy in Central and South America through the 80s as the Cold War came to a conclusion. It might be pointed out that the only DICTATOR left in Central or South America at one point was Castro, a dedicated opponent of the US. The US has removed a junta in Haiti. We intervened in Bosnia when the EUROPEANS failed to act for 10 years. We intervened in Somalia without strategic interest. And why is the US to blame for Rwanda. You called Russia and China 'superpowers' in another thread. Why aren't THEY to blame? Why isn't the UN to blame?

Originally posted by Jeff
There are battles all over the world where people are brutally destroyed by ruthless dictators and we do nothing. To say that we are going after Iraq for the poor Kurds is WAY overstating it.


When you point to places we DID NOT intervene, that does nothing to the point that we HAVE INTERVENED in places without stategic interest, like Somalia, or Bosnia. The US does not have to intervene in EVERY situation to be able to say we act others interest. Remember we sat by 10 years while Europe twiddled their thumbs in Bosnia. The genocide in Rwanda did not develop overnight, but WAS relatively swift it action. Without ANY international mandate are you advocating UNILATERAL ACTION???

You could easily justify removing Saddam to stop genocide. Just like in Bosnia. You could justify intervention to stop starvation, just like Somalia. You could justify intervention to remove a military dictator, just like Haiti.

Originally posted by Batman Jones
I'd also like to add Noriega to the list of 'dangerous madmen' that we'd supported, armed, shared intelligence with and lent comfort to before coming to the world's rescue by taking out the monster we'd created. As Bill Hicks pointed out, we're like James Coburn in The Gunfighter, tossing the gun to the shepard's feet. "Pick up the gun..." "I don't wanna pick up the gun, mister. You'll shoot me." "Pick up the gun..." The shepard picks up the gun, Coburn shoots the shepard and says, "You all saw him... He had a gun..."

It takes John Wayne to stop Liberty Valance, Jimmy Stewart just got stomped on.

Originally posted by Batman Jones
I get really pissed off about how much our government lies to us as to how, when and why thousands of civilians (as well as American soldiers) die at the hands of madmen we've befriended with weapons we gave or sold them, all the while assuming moral superiority over the rest of the world.

This is somewhat simplistic, and suprising from you Batman. What would have happened if Iran had rolled over Iraq? The choice was supporting a balance of power between a larger aggressor and a smaller country whose strategic goals (at the time) were consistent with our own, mainly to stop Iran from controlling the whole Middle East oil supply. It would have been US troops on the front line then so those proxy deals save US lives, on balance. We are much more able to deal with Iraq now then we were Iran then. Also, Scuds are not American. Saddam purchased weapons from many countries including China, Russia, the UK, and France. To assert that we are wholey responsible for his weapons program is false. Americans, I think, generally have a sense of moral superiority because when the **** hits the fan its the US they turn to for help first. Not the UN. Not China. Not Russia. Not the EU or the OAS. Or ASEAN or NATO. So we consider it natural for pretty much EVERY country in the world to BOTH ask for our aid and our help (whether it be dollars or influence or markets or military) AND dog us in public. Its the nature of being on top. The Arabs weren't squealing when Iraq stopped Iran. The won't be when we remove Saddam. THIS I guarantee: they will complain no matter what course we eventually take.

Originally posted by Batman Jones
Jeff's right. It's no wonder we're hated in that region and elsewhere. Our arrogance is astounding. If Bush goes forward with this thing, without international support, he will break new records in this regard.


It is well documented that the regimes in the region funnel public dissent on most internal issues into anti-American directions. It is also well documented that the Arab ego is hurt upon reflection of their once great civilization which is now so backwardsass.

[Jeff]

Hayes: Ego? Misinformation? That's it?

Let's do a hypothetical for the moment. Let's say, that we were fighting a war against Canada. In the process, China supplied us with covert arms and strategic support that allowed us to win, yet when it was over, they bailed out and left us in political and financial ruin and then BLAMED US for being the agressors.

Now, let's say that China also wants us to supply them with grain because we have an abundant source of it and they need it to feed their people.

How do you think the US would react?

I'm suggesting that, put in their shoes, we would be as insanely pissed off as they are. It is easy to tell people to just deal when you aren't the people dealing.

This goes WAY beyond simple egos being hurt.

[FranchiseBlade]

Originally posted by Refman
Nope...but we'd still be seeking UN approval. In recent years the Dems haven't taken a crap overseas without UN permission.


I don't really understand what the problem is with acting in conjunction with the UN. Acting with other countries of the world, instead of acting above them, seems like a smart way to do things. It will improve relations and hopefully decrease anti-American sentiment around the world. Acting with other countries instead of unilaterally would be cheaper, provide more support, and less resentment. It just seems like good diplomacy to me.

[Deckard]

I'm astonished that no one seems to think it was immoral that we "apparently" gave Iraq battlefield intelligence knowing that Saddam would use it to deploy poison gas. Perhaps someone did and I missed it.

I would MUCH rather have sent in US forces to prevent an Iranian victory. I followed this conflict as closely as I could at the time (and a brutal conflict it was), and I was disturbed then that we were doing what has come out now. Had we militarily intervened, we could have been in a good position to influence Iraqi military brass who were eager to remove Saddam to take that step with our help. Those officers were executed with regularity if they so much as sneezed in Saddam's direction.

It was crucial to prevent the fall of Iraq. We didn't have to assist them in the use of poison gas to do it. We had other options.

[Batman Jones]

HayesStreet: My basic point here IS simplistic. And Jeff summed it up perfectly. I'm not questioning the danger Iran posed to us at the time. I'm questioning the cynical maneuver, perpetrated time and again, of assisting, empowering and arming bad guys (at a considerable cost to taxpayers), only to go back and take them out later (at considerable cost in both tax dollars and blood).

And Bosnia and Somalia were very different. We went in to those situations DURING the genocide -- not years later.

[glynch]

Deckard said:I'm astonished that no one seems to think it was immoral that we "apparently" gave Iraq battlefield intelligence knowing that Saddam would use it to deploy poison gas. Perhaps someone did and I missed it.

Sadly, I'm not. Many people, especially in Texas,think that morality has only to do with supporting Bush the Younger because he is a "good Christian man". Nothing else needs to be said.

Of course one can talk about the immorality of premarital sex, homosexuality, abortion, erotic literature and pictures and in the Catholic Church's case (at least in years past) the immorality of masturbation and impure thoughts.

[HayesStreet]

Originally posted by Jeff
Hayes: Ego? Misinformation? That's it?

What do you mean, 'that's it?' What do you think feeds anti-Americanism? When everything from local poverty to the emasculation of the Arab male by the Israelis is blamed on the US by local regimes, who do think they're going to hate? When they look at how powerful their ancestors were, and how developed their civilizations were, how can they not be jealous of the comparative squalor they live in while we now occupy the top rung. At the same time they see the Jews prospering. Why are the Jews prospering with no oil, while the Arabs like like crap with the worlds money flowing into their pockets? Oh, well it can't be their own regimes, so it must be those Imperialist Americans! Can't get milk for the kids? Well its obviously because the US has a vendetta against that good Muslim Saddam since he stood up to them when Kuwait invaded Iraq!

When Arabs say silly stuff like the above, its obvious the Arab world is either misperceiving our intent, or they are falling for propaganda designed to transfer blame to the US. Neither is justification to alter our course nor our policies.

Originally posted by Jeff
Let's do a hypothetical for the moment.

Your hypothetical is not parallel. No one says we STARTED the war between Iran and Iraq. No one says we caused 'political and financial ruin' in Iraq as a result of the Iran/Iraq war. Saddam was already firmly in power in Iraq so the political situation hardly changed. Financially Iraq was fine until they invaded Kuwait which was much later. Iraq WERE the aggressors in the Iran/Iraq War AND in the Gulf War.

If we invaded Mexico and got waxed by a UN coalition as a result, I don't think Americans would be reacting the same way as the Arabs.

[HayesStreet]

Originally posted by Batman Jones
HayesStreet: My basic point here IS simplistic. And Jeff summed it up perfectly. I'm not questioning the danger Iran posed to us at the time. I'm questioning the cynical maneuver, perpetrated time and again, of assisting, empowering and arming bad guys (at a considerable cost to taxpayers), only to go back and take them out later (at considerable cost in both tax dollars and blood).

You cannot make policy in a vaccuum. In most policy choices you are faced with choosing between the lessor of two evils. Whether or not more US soldiers are saved through these actions is probably unresolvable. I think it should be apparent that involving US troops in a full scale conflict in the Middle East, during the early 80s, while the Cold War was still in swing, would have been much more dangerous, potentially losing many many many more American lives, than supplying Iraq with operational intelligence. The moral decision, which was to stop radical elements threatening the West's economy, was easy. Would be easy again.

Would you murder one child or launch a nuclear bomb at NY? At some point our tendencies toward moral imperatives MUST take a backseat to the more utilitarian instinct.

Now in the post-Cold War world, the US has follow a path with MORE multilateral actions, and less UNILATERAL actions. We have interevened in places with NO STRATEGIC VALUE purely for the sake of the people involved (Haiti, Bosnia, Somalia) when NO ONE ELSE would act.

Originally posted by Batman Jones
And Bosnia and Somalia were very different. We went in to those situations DURING the genocide -- not years later.

This makes no sense.

[FranchiseBlade]

Originally posted by Deckard
I'm astonished that no one seems to think it was immoral that we "apparently" gave Iraq battlefield intelligence knowing that Saddam would use it to deploy poison gas. Perhaps someone did and I missed it.


I'm definitely upset by the kind of 'morality' used in that conflict. But I'm just not surprised. I think the Reagan administration was one of the most unethical administrations this century. You hear so much about Clinton corruption but looking at just the convictions Reagan had 29 convictions in his administration, and Clinton had 1.

I'm not trying to defend Clinton, because personally I think the guy was extremely dishonest, and behaved poorly. I just wanted to point out how unethical the Reagan administration was. Also a lot of Clinton's dishonesty ended up in him getting oral sex, Reagan's cover ups ended with chemical weapons being used, arms being sold to terrorist nations etc.

[Refman]

Originally posted by glynch
Deckard said:

Of course one can talk about the immorality of premarital sex, homosexuality, abortion, erotic literature and pictures and in the Catholic Church's case (at least in years past) the immorality of masturbation and impure thoughts.
Objection, relevance.

[Batman Jones]

Refman: Sustained.

Hayes: Someone (Ref?) said Saddam's treatment of the Kurds was similar to the reasons we went into Bosnia and Somalia. I pointed out the main difference, which was that we went into those conflicts to stop the bloodshed. In the case of the Kurds, they are not presently being killed -- to the best of our knowledge that has stopped. How does this not make sense?

[Deckard]

Damn, I was going to reply to HayesStreet, but now I've got to go after YOU... Refman???

Read my post. I DIDN'T SAY ANYTHING (thank you, that felt good) about the crap your referring to... Glynch said that. I think supporting Saddam's use of poison gas in that conflict was immoral and would rather have used our military if Iraq was on the verge of losing. I think we could of gotten rid of Saddam at the same time. Read my post, please.

[FranchiseBlade]

Not to mention our ally, Turkey has it's own problem with oppressing Kurds. We'd have to attack them as well as Iraq. But instead we are trying to get Turkey to help us in the attack.

To say we'd go into Iraq because of their treatment of the Kurds doesn't make sense, or at best is hypocritical.

[Deckard]

Batman Jones, I'm glad you bothered to read it as well. :rolleyes:

[Batman Jones]

Originally posted by Deckard
Batman Jones, I'm glad you bothered to read it as well. :rolleyes:

Whoa, bro. I'm on your side. I'm on glynch's too. Ref just failed to edit out the "Deckard said" bit from glynch's post. Honest mistake. I think glynch has a point here too. It's a bit of a reach in this thread, though, even though I get his point about Bush getting the benefit of the doubt on issues of morality from people who share his basic value system.

[Deckard]

OK, no problem. :)

[Refman]

Originally posted by Deckard
Damn, I was going to reply to HayesStreet, but now I've got to go after YOU... Refman???

Read my post. I DIDN'T SAY ANYTHING (thank you, that felt good) about the crap your referring to... Glynch said that. I think supporting Saddam's use of poison gas in that conflict was immoral and would rather have used our military if Iraq was on the verge of losing. I think we could of gotten rid of Saddam at the same time. Read my post, please.
I was replying to Glynch. I didn't realize that your name was't deleted. I apologize for misquoting you. Those thing were said by glynch. My apologies, sir.

[Deckard]

See above. :)

[Refman]

Originally posted by Batman Jones
Refman: Sustained.
Thank you, Your Honor. :D

[Refman]

Originally posted by Deckard
See above. :)
Got ya. No worries, friend.

[HayesStreet]

Originally posted by Batman Jones
Refman: Sustained.

Hayes: Someone (Ref?) said Saddam's treatment of the Kurds was similar to the reasons we went into Bosnia and Somalia. I pointed out the main difference, which was that we went into those conflicts to stop the bloodshed. In the case of the Kurds, they are not presently being killed -- to the best of our knowledge that has stopped. How does this not make sense?

Don't think that is necessarily correct. We went into Somalia for STARVATION, not to stop genocide. And part of the justification for the US finally leading action in Bosnia was the genocide the Serbs had been committing for 10 years, not one particular incident at the time of intervention. In that sense it is perfectly comparable to the Kurds situation. Without US and British aircover, the Kurds would have been eliminated a long time ago. Without cover Saddam would undoubtably reinstate his efforts to eliminate them.

[glynch]

Deckard, I actually was impressed by your point. Though I put it crudely,and was doing some relatively unproductive venting, I think it is important that someone think about the morality of killing people in these wars, police actitions or whatever you call them.

Most of the supporters of Bush and America's foreign policy never bother to justify things morally. It is all done on the basis of power politics by the a few leaders in Washington, with easy rationalizing of why foreign lives are unimportant compared to those of Americans if US foreign policy interests dictate it. The majority of the public doesn't want to interrupt their daily lives so it is easier to take the position that if Bush, Cheney or Reagan support it, it must be right. No need to get messy input from ordinary citizens or their congress people f we say it is a national security measure that needs quick action.

As many of us learned during the Vietnam War, and many investors and employees are now understanding, it is really can be true that American leaders can really be so immoral that they put political considerations and the pursuit of profit before the lives of foreginers (that goes without saying) and even in some cases Americans.

It is almost like learning that there is no Santa Claus when you realize that American leaders and American foreign policy can be so immoral at all times.

I see little difference between needlessly killing people with gas or by bombing as someone else noted above. For that matter the hundreds of thousands of Iraqi innocent killed nedlessly by our stupid sanctions against Iraq is IMHO no better morally than Sadam's gassing of Iranis with or without our support.

[Refman]

I think it is important that someone think about the morality of killing people in these wars
Killing people is not pretty...it is not moral...but sometimes it is necessary. You are talking about taking the moral high road when faced with an enemy who cares not about morality. You'll always come out on the short end of the stick like that. In this case, the short end of the stick could be thousands of civillian casualties in the US.

Most of the supporters of Bush and America's foreign policy never bother to justify things morally.
After the Clinton administration you're going to argue morality. Come back from Fantasyland pal.

The majority of the public doesn't want to interrupt their daily lives so it is easier to take the position that if Bush, Cheney or Reagan support it, it must be right.
So now if we support Bush and his policies we are either stupid or intentionally ignorant. You just get better and better. What exactly is your problem anyway?

No need to get messy input from ordinary citizens or their congress people f we say it is a national security measure that needs quick action.
I have already pointed out at least 2 examples of Dems who did the same thing. Now I'll bring up another. NOBODY has ruled by Executive Order quite like Bill Clinton. He bypassed Congress whenever he could. You're in a glass house on this.

and many investors and employees are now understanding
All of the accounting scandlas that have recently unfolded were going on while Clinton was in office and his Justice Department had dummed down the investigative arm of the SEC. This is just as much Clinton's fault as anybody else's.

For that matter the hundreds of thousands of Iraqi innocent killed nedlessly by our stupid sanctions against Iraq is IMHO no better morally than Sadam's gassing of Iranis with or without our support.
Hell let's just leave him alone. Let's let him build up nukes (even though he's in violation of the UN cease fire). Hell let's just give him the coordinates to launch one of those suckers wherever he wants it to go. Would that FINALLY make you happy?

[treeman]

Huh. Morality?

When Iraqi plants start popping off prepositioned nerve gas stockpiles all over US cities in response to a US "attack", and 200,000 or so Americans die from the attacks, I want you to come crying to me about the morality of the whole thing.

I will calmly say to you "F* you and your morality, and F* your precious UN and its "coalition" for doing nothing to stop this," and then I will turn my back from you, spit on you as I'm leaving, and go deal with the crisis as best as I can.

War is not a moral endeavor. There is nothing philosophically redeeming about it at all - except when you're talking about action that will save innocent lives. And taking out Saddam and his Baathists will do that - save innocent lives, both here and abroad. I am 100% convinced of that, and I'd like you to try to convince me otherwise.

To do so, you will of course have to convince me that an Iraq armed with nuclear, biological, and chemical weapons - with Saddam Hussein at the helm - is not a threat to global (to say nothing of American) security. You'd better have a pretty good case ready for that, because even those who don't want us to go in will acknowledge that that is a frightening threat.

Morality takes the wayside in war. All sides ditch it to some extent or another. Be glad you're on the side that still thinksd about it, though, because we are going to win.

And when the shooting stops, and we are in control of that area, then morality can safely enter into our decision-making proceses. If our enemies win, however - as you appear to desire, since doing nothing amounts to letting them win - then you can kiss the whole concept of morality goodbye. No Iraqi will ever live a moral existence in that case, that's for sure. And the victims will never tell.

You might not realize it (glynch, my friend), but your cries for morality can only serve to reinforce tyranny. I know you're well-meaning, but... Do you think that Saddam's people like living under his grip? All of our strategic concerns aside, does not their plight affect you? Hell, I want to lift the sanctions too - just under different circumstances than you want. But jeesuz - we owe it to those people. We owe them liberation.

In the short run, people are going to die - but it will not be needlessly, and hopefully this time they will be the ones who need to / deserve to die. We've gotten really good at targeting the right people... But in the long run these people need to be removed from power in order to achieve the very peace that you claim to desire. And it might surprise you, but I desire that same peace; we really just differ in how to get there.

Sometimes there is no good way to do things. There is never a good way to conduct a war... But there are ways to make sure that fewer people die over the long-haul. That is always one of my personal goals.

For once think this one through and try to understand the consequences of inaction - please. We cannot afford those consequences. The world cannot.

[Refman]

I will calmly say to you "F* you and your morality, and F* your precious UN and its "coalition" for doing nothing to stop this," and then I will turn my back from you, spit on you as I'm leaving, and go deal with the crisis as best as I can.
Was this in response to me or glynch? If me...then I think you misunderstood my post.

BTW...excellent post overall. I agree with you completely. You said it better than I have. :)

[FranchiseBlade]

Actually to me morality should have something to do with it. Being a part of the world community, and not putting ourselves above it is important, and should play a role.

Personally, I would rather die in an attack from Iraqi nerve gas, than be part of a first strike against Iraq. I honestly believe it's better to die being right, and holding true to moral principle than to turn into an agressor like Hitler was, and invade countries out of paranoia, or greed, or any other reason. Remember the last conflict with Iraq? Saddam was the aggressor. He attacked Kuwait. He was the bad guy for that. Now apparently a lot of people don't care if we are the bad guy or not. Well I'm not one of those people. I hold my honor, and my principles above some things. It's better to die for what's right than to live committing wrong after wrong.

If war doesn't have to do with morality, why not just take over the whole world then? We are the strongest right? Obviously the fact that the U.S. has never struck first doesn't matter anymore. Since we should all say f**k the UN and every other country and not try to be diplomatic, it would be a lot simpler to just take over the whole world.

Some people would rather commit our troops to combat and lose a lot of lives so that we can strike Iraq first.

Well Iraq has never made any move to attack the U.S. If we were defending another country from attack that would be different. If we were defending the US from attack that would be different. But we aren't. Bush's reasons for attacking Iraq change with the wind. He can't convince people who would normally be his allies that now is a good time to invade. It's ludicrous.

Of course there is very little chance Iraq actually could attack the U.S. and very doubtful they would even if they could. Saddam has tried intimidation, craftiness, lying, murder and all sorts of ploys to survive. Why the hell would he attack us when he knows that would mean his certain? He's hemmed in so tight by our forces and surveilance that he won't be able to do jack. One attack if he was able to carry it out is all Saddam would get before he and his regime came to an end, and it would be unified, and not just unilateral.

The U.S. put out sorts of propoganda about what the Soviets wanted to do to us during the cold war. Of course a lot of it turned out to be bogus, and now it's happening with Iraq.

So treeman, you can shrug off morality, and spit on me all you want, then run off to attack first, and not self defense... but when you do, which one of us comes off looking worse?

[Refman]

So treeman, you can shrug off morality, and spit on me all you want, then run off to attack first, and not self defense... but when you do, which one of us comes off looking worse?
I wouldn't spit on anybody. I don't know who comes off looking better but I do know who's more likely to be alive later.

Personally, I would rather die in an attack from Iraqi nerve gas, than be part of a first strike against Iraq.
What if you had no ill effects, but your Mom died. Wouldn't there be at least a small part of you that would be angry that we could have done something but didn't. If not...I'm not sure you're really trying to put yourself in that position mentally.

[FranchiseBlade]

Originally posted by Refman

I wouldn't spit on anybody. I don't know who comes off looking better but I do know who's more likely to be alive later.
The spitter and person who decided that a first strike is acceptable would probably be alive. Like I said I would rather stick to my principles, even if it meant I died.

Originally posted by Refman

What if you had no ill effects, but your Mom died. Wouldn't there be at least a small part of you that would be angry that we could have done something but didn't. If not...I'm not sure you're really trying to put yourself in that position mentally.

Of course I would be angry about that. I couldn't be objective in that case. But more importantly than what I would feel would be what my mom would feel about it, because it's her life, and not mine. She would likewise want to stick to her principles, and would be willing to die for them, rather than attack someone based on the off chance that they might, possibly attack someone else later.

[Refman]

You seem to be a really good person FranchiseBlade. I hope that you don't hold it against me that I am willing to do whatever it takes to protect my life, your life and your Mom's life.

[FranchiseBlade]

Originally posted by Refman
You seem to be a really good person FranchiseBlade. I hope that you don't hold it against me that I am willing to do whatever it takes to protect my life, your life and your Mom's life.

Thanks, man, and I don't hold it against anyone that they have a different opinion than mine. Protecting lives is initself admirable.

I hope you don't think less of me because I would be willing to sacrifice my own life, to do what I think is right.

[Refman]

Originally posted by FranchiseBlade


Thanks, man, and I don't hold it against anyone that they have a different opinion than mine. Protecting lives is initself admirable.

I hope you don't think less of me because I would be willing to sacrifice my own life, to do what I think is right.
Of course not. We just have a different view of what we'd die for. We agree on some things and disagree on others. I think we agree more often than not.

[treeman]

Edit: double friggen post...

[treeman]

FranchiseBlade:

I want to start by saying that I actually do respect you as a poster. Ther are some guys who whine and appear to believe in nothing - those deserve no respect. Ther are other guys who might appear to be whining (to me), but who dearly care about the issues - and those I can respect. I can respect the latter, even if I almost never agree with them...

You'd fall in the second category by my book. Kudos...

And now on with the show...

Actually to me morality should have something to do with it.

It does. It most certainly does. Without a philosophical moral base to stand upon no war has any legitemacy, IMHO. You're trying to see the moral base for this coming war, and I'm trying to show it to you. It is readily apparent as long as you're willing to listen, that I guarantee you.

That was really what my last post was about. Not to sound like a Drill Sergeant or anything, but Pay Attention!...

Being a part of the world community, and not putting ourselves above it is important, and should play a role.

What "world community"? Do you mean letting our own national security interests being held hostage just because some a*hole wants to make some cash off of Sierra Leone's diamond mines? Or because he wants to sell Iran a cache of copied Stingers? Or because he wants to transfer a copious amount of funds from Switzerland to China without it being noticed?

Screw that. I will certainly put my own nation's national security interests first - not to mention my own.

Personally, I would rather die in an attack from Iraqi nerve gas, than be part of a first strike against Iraq.

Uh Huh. And aside from making a radical political statement that noone would hear, much less understand, how would this benefit the world? How would it benefit anyone? Do us all a favor and keep yourself alive.

I honestly believe it's better to die being right, and holding true to moral principle than to turn into an agressor like Hitler was, and invade countries out of paranoia, or greed, or any other reason.

I concur. It is better to die holding the moral high ground than to live under tyranny, because that can only result in one outcome - working for free just to stay alive, and wondering if you could have done things differently...

As far as invading out of paranoia - wouldn't such a definition necessitate delusional thinking? Those friggen chemical and biological warfare plants are real (I can send you pictures of them if you disbelieve me). All of the defectors coming out of Iraq say the same thing: Saddam is working feverishly to obtain a nuclear weapon. And he is very close - all he needs is the fissionable material (which can be bought), and his nuclear weapons program is a "GO"...

Do you really think it's just paranoia that's fuelling this? Or is it possible that it's actual fear? The difference being: paranoia is fear where no justification exists, while fear is justified by friggen satintel fotos...

It's better to die for what's right than to live committing wrong after wrong.

I agree. It is even better, though, to *correct* those wrongs that you have committed in the past. Do you want to simply end a long chain of mistakes and kill yourself, or correct those mistakes and then kill yourself... Or correct the mistakes and then take a Jamaican vacation instead? Dude... Lighten up. Fix the problem and then live your life. Don't lament it and then kill yourself...

(analogy to policy issues here)

If war doesn't have to do with morality, why not just take over the whole world then?

Well, uh, War is all about morality and the lack thereof (did you even understand my last post? Read it again). What will we do? May God help us (figuratively)take over the UN, because the UN has been ***totally*** ineffective without US guidance. I dare you to try to name even a single UNSC operation that has been successful in the absence of US leadership. You will not be able to do it, because guess what? Any time the UN ever does something worthwile, there are US troops (or scientists, or aid workers, etc) at the head. Whenever the UN does anything that actually succeeds, we are at the head - leading the way.

I dare anyone to argue against that simple friggen fact. Because it is a simple friggen fact.

Since we should all say f**k the UN and every other country and not try to be diplomatic, it would be a lot simpler to just take over the whole world.

Uh... No one's *trying* to tell the rest of the world to piss off. There's no 'trying' involved here.

We will *always* try to be diplomatic. But when diplomacy fails in a situation where we stand to lose millions of our own people, we should not hesitate to tell anyone else to F* off. Yes, if it comes down to it: F* you, we're going to defend our own people. I hope you have enough sense to do the same." (you have to say that last bit, because most of Europe has totally forgotten what it's like to actually defend their populations from attack).

Some people would rather commit our troops to combat and lose a lot of lives so that we can strike Iraq first.

You DO NOT know what you're talking about here. No one - NO ONE - wants to go into combat. Speaking as one who is being deployed next friggen week - I know. We are not eager about such movements. We don't want to do it... You don't have a friggen clue what you're talking about, though.

Commitment to combat is always a last resort. Even with Bush Jr.

Well Iraq has never made any move to attack the U.S.

Why in the hell does everyone keep saying this?

Remember the 1993 World Trade Center bombing? That was an Iraqi Intelligence operation. It was actually better planned than the 9/11 bombings, too - it was supposed to collapse both towers simultaneously and instantaneously - and kill about 50,000 people in the process. Luckily, it was a relative dud...

I wonder how passivve people like yourself would be had the Iraqis been successful in 1993 - and killed 50,000 people, as opposed to the 2,800+ who died on 9/11? Saddam tried to do the exact same friggen thing, yet you appear to excuse him for it simply because he wasn't successful?

That is ridiculous. It also makes me sick to think about what might have happened... Thank God cooler heads - well, maybe not "cooler", but certainly more realistic - will prevail.

As I said in an earlier post, the invasion of Iraq has already begun. It is too late for such hand-wringing, and that's OK by me. The decision has already been made. You just won't notice when we get the "GO" order...

You won't see it on TV. Rather, when you DO actually see it on TV, everything will already be in motion...

[Refman]

I'll miss your posts when you're gone treeman. Thank you for serving our country.

We'll look forward to your eventual return to the BBS.

[treeman]

Ho-Ah.

I certainly plan on being back... Maybe in about a year, hopefully much sooner.

[Refman]

Originally posted by treeman
Ho-Ah.

I certainly plan on being back... Maybe in about a year, hopefully much sooner.
Having had many friends with a military background while I was at Texas A&M I gained an even deeper respect for the military.

[treeman]

Not a bad thing in my book. Respect for military, that is...

I'm Army. (that 'Ho-Ah' thing doesn't actually mean anything, no matter what anyone tells you - definitely not 'heard, understood, will comply'... If anything, it means 'yes' or 'OK, I'll do it'...)

In the Army one just says "Ho-Ah" all the time, and good things happen... ;) Never volunteer for duty, though - you'll end up cleaning latrines...

[Refman]

Originally posted by treeman
Not a bad thing in my book. Respect for military, that is...

I'm Army. (that 'Ho-Ah' thing doesn't actually mean anything, no matter what anyone tells you - definitely not 'heard, understood, will comply'... If anything, it means 'yes' or 'OK, I'll do it'...)

In the Army one just says "Ho-Ah" all the time, and good things happen... ;) Never volunteer for duty, though - you'll end up cleaning latrines...
My Dad was in the Air Force. His buddy and him did 2 weeks of KP. When they got back from that their CO said he needed 2 volunteers. My Dad and his buddy looked at each other like anything was better than KP. They both raised their hands. They did 2 more weeks of KP. True story.

[treeman]

Like I said, never volunteer. If they need you then they'll select you. Otherwise, don't raise your friggen hand... It all works out, often with alot of new guys cleaning something while the experienced guys get to do more productive tasks.

(as of this month all KP has been turned over to civilian contractors. Armywide. No sh*t - no more Kitchen Patrol for the guys in green. Millions heave a silent *sigh*... The phrase "never again" actually means something to me now :D )

[HayesStreet]

Originally posted by glynch
I see little difference between needlessly killing people with gas or by bombing as someone else noted above. For that matter the hundreds of thousands of Iraqi innocent killed nedlessly by our stupid sanctions against Iraq is IMHO no better morally than Sadam's gassing of Iranis with or without our support.

You do realize that those are UN sanctions, right Glynch? How is that relevant to US foreign policy unilateralism or immorality? In fact, don't you continuously argue FOR multilateralism, specifically the UN?

Oops.

[FranchiseBlade]

First of all Treeman, I wish you well in your service, and I hope to see you back in the U.S. safe and sound. While we disagree on these issues, you do always have information and rationale for what you do believe in.

Originally posted by treeman
What "world community"? Do you mean letting our own national security interests being held hostage just because some a*hole wants to make some cash off of Sierra Leone's diamond mines? Or because he wants to sell Iran a cache of copied Stingers? Or because he wants to transfer a copious amount of funds from Switzerland to China without it being noticed?

Screw that. I will certainly put my own nation's national security interests first - not to mention my own.

The U.N., and more specifically our other allies throughout the world are the world community I'm referring to. If there is such a compelling reason for the invasion it should be shared with them, and they should be brought on board.

Originally posted by treeman

Uh Huh. And aside from making a radical political statement that noone would hear, much less understand, how would this benefit the world? How would it benefit anyone? Do us all a favor and keep yourself alive.

I'm not saying I want to die. I'm saying that striking first, not out of self defense, and not out of aiding others is wrong, and immoral. I don't believe any Americans would die if we didn't invade Iraq at the present time. However rather than attack someone who hasn't attacked anyone else, I would rather not do that.
Originally posted by treeman

As far as invading out of paranoia - wouldn't such a definition necessitate delusional thinking? Those friggen chemical and biological warfare plants are real (I can send you pictures of them if you disbelieve me). All of the defectors coming out of Iraq say the same thing: Saddam is working feverishly to obtain a nuclear weapon. And he is very close - all he needs is the fissionable material (which can be bought), and his nuclear weapons program is a "GO"...

Do you really think it's just paranoia that's fuelling this? Or is it possible that it's actual fear? The difference being: paranoia is fear where no justification exists, while fear is justified by friggen satintel fotos...


I've seen the photos. The chemical plants may indeed be making weapons. Simply making weapons is not an excuse for an invasion. If that was the case we would have to invade almost every nation on the planet. I don't think those weapons are enough of a threat to the U.S. to warrant an unprovoked attack.
Originally posted by treeman

Well, uh, War is all about morality and the lack thereof (did you even understand my last post? Read it again). What will we do? May God help us (figuratively)take over the UN, because the UN has been ***totally*** ineffective without US guidance. I dare you to try to name even a single UNSC operation that has been successful in the absence of US leadership. You will not be able to do it, because guess what? Any time the UN ever does something worthwile, there are US troops (or scientists, or aid workers, etc) at the head. Whenever the UN does anything that actually succeeds, we are at the head - leading the way.

I dare anyone to argue against that simple friggen fact. Because it is a simple friggen fact.

The U.S. is involved, but most of the troops in the ground in Bosnia are European troops. But I agree the U.S. should be leading the way the U.N. I think a better question would be to show when the U.S. has acted outside the U.N. - were those endeavors worthwhile? I would say definitely not. Mining the harbors in Nicaragua, and funding supporters of the former dictator and tyrant in that country was not worthwhile.

Invading Panama supposedly because of drug traffic etc. through the canal, then installing people who have links to laundering drug money, and watching drug traffic increase through the canal after replacing Noriega is definitely not worthwhile.
Originally posted by treeman

We will *always* try to be diplomatic. But when diplomacy fails in a situation where we stand to lose millions of our own people, we should not hesitate to tell anyone else to F* off. Yes, if it comes down to it: F* you, we're going to defend our own people. I hope you have enough sense to do the same." (you have to say that last bit, because most of Europe has totally forgotten what it's like to actually defend their populations from attack).

In attacking Iraq, I don't think we are defending against anything. We are attacking a country.
Originally posted by treeman

You DO NOT know what you're talking about here. No one - NO ONE - wants to go into combat. Speaking as one who is being deployed next friggen week - I know. We are not eager about such movements. We don't want to do it... You don't have a friggen clue what you're talking about, though.

It might be true that no one wants to go into combat. But some policy makers obviously don't mind sending others into combat.
Originally posted by treeman

Remember the 1993 World Trade Center bombing? That was an Iraqi Intelligence operation. It was actually better planned than the 9/11 bombings, too - it was supposed to collapse both towers simultaneously and instantaneously - and kill about 50,000 people in the process. Luckily, it was a relative dud...

My best friend was in the WTC in '93. I definitely remember it. There may have been cooperation from some Iraqi intelligence officials, but it wasn't lead by them. Fortunately justice work in bringing down the 'blind cleric' and his henchmen for that attack.