Cpt.Caveman Posted October 2, 2002 Share Posted October 2, 2002 He used them on his own people that were living near the border. Check your facts Belive what they tell you I have seen films. [ 10-01-2002, 05:24 PM: Message edited by: Cpt.Caveman ] Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sk Posted October 2, 2002 Share Posted October 2, 2002 quote: Originally posted by Off White: quote:Originally posted by sk: the middle is a good place to be Like Jim Hightower (a Texan I might add) says, "Ain't nothing in the middle of the road 'cept yellow lines and dead armadillos." being in the middle just means that you arn't buying anyones line, you bother to think for yourself Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Off_White Posted October 2, 2002 Share Posted October 2, 2002 quote: Originally posted by Cpt.Caveman: He used them on his own people that were living near the border. Check your facts Belive what they tell you I have seen films. Oh, I believe it, its just the phrase "his own people" that strikes me as odd. I'm just playing semantic games, I agree he gassed people who were living within Iraqi borders. Here's some facts: quote: It is suddenly de rigueur for US officials to say, "Saddam Hussein gassed his own people." They are evidently referring to the Iraqi military's use of chemical weapons in the Iraqi Kurdistan town of Halabja in March 1988 during the Iran-Iraq War, and then in the area controlled by the Teheran-backed Kurdish insurgents after the cease-fire in August. Since Baghdad's deployment of chemical arms in war as well as peace was known at the time, the question is: What did the US government do about it then? Nothing. Worse, so strong was the hold of the pro-Iraq lobby on the Republican administration of President Ronald Reagan, it succeeded in getting the White House to frustrate the Senate's attempt to penalize Baghdad for violating the Geneva Protocol on Chemical Weapons, which it had signed. This led Saddam to believe that Washington was firmly on his side--a conclusion that paved the way for his invasion of Kuwait and the 1991 Gulf War, the full consequences of which have yet to play themselves out. full article: Iraq and Poison Gas Note that Iraq has not used poison gas since the Gulf War, so it does not function as proof of current capabilities. You're right that it is pretty despicable, like using Sarin on the WTO protesters instead of tear gas. Lots of other regimes do it with conventional weapons too, like the Indonesians, our oil rich anti-communist allies, who killed off about 600,000 East Timorese in an action that was green-lighted by Ford and Kissinger, our old freedom fighters the Contras, Pol Pot (never a friend of ours) in Cambodia, and our former friend Pinochet in Chile. My point is not that its okay, but that lots of places do it by various means (gas, bullet, machete, or burning: dead is dead) and we don't usually do anything about it. The Yugoslav situation, Bosnia, Kosovo, and such are the only occasion I know of the US getting militarily involved specifically over ethnic/ideological murder. For the Bush administration to suggest that we should attack Iraq because they "gassed their own people" is totally bogus. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
erik Posted October 2, 2002 Author Share Posted October 2, 2002 post you hateful shit here fuck no one fuckin cares...... no one Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cpt.Caveman Posted October 2, 2002 Share Posted October 2, 2002 die die die kill all. You are all weenies and must die by nuclear destruction now! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
allthumbs Posted October 2, 2002 Share Posted October 2, 2002 I'm horny Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Greg_W Posted October 2, 2002 Share Posted October 2, 2002 quote: Originally posted by trask: I'm horny Yeah, what else is new? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cpt.Caveman Posted October 2, 2002 Share Posted October 2, 2002 Go hum a treestump or something Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
vegetablebelay Posted October 2, 2002 Share Posted October 2, 2002 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Stefan Posted October 2, 2002 Share Posted October 2, 2002 now vege. you aint a republican by chance? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cpt.Caveman Posted October 2, 2002 Share Posted October 2, 2002 die all of you. Hatred greed hatred Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Greg_W Posted October 2, 2002 Share Posted October 2, 2002 I want it known that I didn't bring this up, but that whole McDermott thing is disgusting. He makes me sick. Loser has to do something to get attention because he has absolutely NO pull in Congress. Greg W Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dr_Flash_Amazing Posted October 2, 2002 Share Posted October 2, 2002 Who's this McDermott fellow, please? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Greg_W Posted October 2, 2002 Share Posted October 2, 2002 quote: Originally posted by Dr Flash Amazing: Who's this McDermott fellow, please? Congressional Rep. from WA who pulled a "Hanoi Jane" the other day on CNN live from Bagdad (sp?). Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
iain Posted October 2, 2002 Share Posted October 2, 2002 That's D. Bonior of Michigan on the left Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
allison Posted October 2, 2002 Share Posted October 2, 2002 To Jim McDermott: Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RopeGunHooker Posted October 2, 2002 Share Posted October 2, 2002 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
iain Posted October 2, 2002 Share Posted October 2, 2002 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cpt.Caveman Posted October 2, 2002 Share Posted October 2, 2002 quote: For the Bush administration to suggest that we should attack Iraq because they "gassed their own people" is totally bogus.[/QB]You are an idiot for taking my statements out of context like that. It's merely an example of his will and desperation. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
chucK Posted October 2, 2002 Share Posted October 2, 2002 Right, an example of Saddaam's will. As someone already stated, he is in it for the power. He likes being a leader. He knows that doing something like gassing Isreal or using some "weapons of mass destruction" on some other US interest will get him dead dead dead right now. He does not have the motive of an Islamic Jihad. He is only in it for himself. He's not gonna act up right now and perhaps that is the whole point of this trumped up sword waving of the Bush admin. Matt's comment about the drunk German/Swiss guy speaking for all of Europe seems sort of ludicrous, but is food for thought. But we aren't going to attack Saudi Arabia. We don't NEED to. All we need is an intimidating Sadaam prancing around next door, and the Saudi's will do whatever we want 'em to (for a little protection). We are not going to attack Iraq. We're doing just fine intimidating Sadaam by acting like belligerent drunks. And how handy that is too, because you know belligerent drunk name-calling and fight mongering is just what will sell to a big chunk of voting idiots in a month. It's a brilliant win win strategy. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jim Posted October 2, 2002 Share Posted October 2, 2002 Very interesting article on US designs on the oil fields by the Cheney gang: http://www.sfgate.com/columnists/sorensen/ Little Georgie is in too much of a rush to get this done. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sexual_chocolate Posted October 2, 2002 Share Posted October 2, 2002 Hey erik and greg w, here's some documentation that was passed my way. Seems pretty valid to me. It seems to be from Reuters, not the source I originally received the info from (I still think it was NY Times). Note that it is the former CHIEF weapons inspector making the case.... Former UN chief inspector confirms Iraqi claim of US spying Reuters. 30 July 2002. US exploited UN arms teams -- ex-UN chief inspector. STOCKHOLM --The former chief U.N. arms inspector has accused the United States and other powers of exploiting United Nations inspection teams in Iraq for their own political ends,including tracking President Saddam Hussein's movements. Rolf Ekeus, the Swedish diplomat who led the first inspections for Iraq's weapons of mass destruction programs from 1991-1997, said that, at times, crises were created that could possibly form the basis for military action. The comments by Ekeus, who has in the past harshly criticised Iraqi actions towards the inspectors, are bound to enforce Iraq's view that some U.N. inspectors were sent by Washington to spy on Baghdad. His remarks were posted on a Swedish Radio website after an interview with him was broadcast on Sunday. "There is no doubt that the Americans wanted to influence the inspections to further certain fundamental U.S. interests," Ekeus said. "I don't think this was the case during the first few years as there was, at that time, a genuine concern about the weapons of mass destruction that Iraq could have." He said such efforts had been made while he was head of UNSCOM but he did not think they had been successful. "But there were always different interests, from all powers, from the United States and also from the Russians," he said. Nevertheless he said the pressure had "increased with time" and included attempts to "create crises in relations with Iraq, which to some extent was linked to the overall political situation -- internationally but also perhaps nationally." [N.B.]He said the United States had wanted information about how Iraq's security services were organised and what its conventional military capacity was. [N.B.] And he said he was "conscious" of the United States seeking information on where President Saddam Hussein was hiding, "which could be of interest if one were to target him personally." "There was an ambition to cause a crisis through pressure for, shall we say, blunt provocation, for example by inspection of the Department of Defence, which at least from an Iraqi point of view must have been provocative," Ekeus said. Although this inspection took place after he left office, Ekeus said he did not believe this building had housed materials connected to Iraq's weapons of mass destruction programs. At the same time he said there had been situations when the inspection teams might have conducted tough searches. "And then they were put under pressure from the United States to halt them as, all of sudden, a confrontation was no longer wanted, owing to wider political interests in the game." What I found particularly interesting here was the revelation that Saddam's movements were being tracked. From another source, I remember reading that an actual bombing run had taken place, targeting a location where Saddam was thought to be (the veracity of this I can't be certain of). Remember please that these activities were not approved by the UN resolutions, NOR the terms of the cease-fire. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jim Posted October 2, 2002 Share Posted October 2, 2002 Also some interesting comments coming from Scott Ritter - the head US guy on the prior inspections. He is saying that contrary to the Little Georgie administration comments, the inspections got 95% of Iraq's arsenal. This guy is an ex-marine, voted for Bush, and is pissed at the lies the administration is trying to use to push Congress into action. Ritter suggests going back in and inspecting, using coercive measures if necessary, as suggested by the Carnagie Institure. What's the friggin rush? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
erik Posted October 2, 2002 Author Share Posted October 2, 2002 thanks for the read choc! though in reading it, the inspector admits or aludes to admitting that he never actualyl saw it happening. and he never backs up his sources to it. i disagree with g dub standpoint, but i still think the liberal agend is as tainted... who cares!! climbing!!!! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Off_White Posted October 2, 2002 Share Posted October 2, 2002 quote: Originally posted by Cpt.Caveman: quote:For the Bush administration to suggest that we should attack Iraq because they "gassed their own people" is totally bogus.You are an idiot for taking my statements out of context like that. It's merely an example of his will and desperation.[/QB] Work on your reading comprehension Cpt. Flamethrower: unless you are a member of the Bush administration I in no way stated that it was your suggestion. All I did was use a snippet of one of your brief posts as a springboard for my own spray. I know it always pisses you off, but I just can't help myself. No harm intended though. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.