US Knew Iraq was Using Chemical Weapons Against Iran

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.

 

See above.

 

Thank you, Your Honor.

 

Got ya. No worries, friend.

 

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.

 

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.

 

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.

After the Clinton administration you're going to argue morality. Come back from Fantasyland pal.

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?

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.

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.

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?

 

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.

 

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.

 

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?

 

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.

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.

 

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.

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.

 

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.

 

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.

 

Edit: double friggen post...

 

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...

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!...

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.

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 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...

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)

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.

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).

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.

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...

 

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.

 

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.