WMD? Wonder what the spin will be on this.

[fintstone]

Originally posted by stuartj
"The only thing that saved hundreds of lives is the fact that they did not deliver it properly." Give it a rest. How, pray, do you know this? I'll wager the bomber didnt even know it had Sarin in it.

You, collectively, are apparently so desperate to legitaimise the actions of this Govt you will beleive any piece of rubbish that comes off FOX.

stuart

Dept of Defense analysis says so. Between 3 and 4 liters of sarin was in that device and would do that type damage if delivered properly...If you have more info than they do...please provide it.

[stuartj]

Originally posted by fintstone
That is easy. Soldiers identify themselves as such and follow the laws of war. Terrorists know no laws except that of their cause. Terrorists dress in civilian clothes and hide among women and children hoping to shoot a real soldier in the back when he is delivering food or building a school. They use ambulances, schools, and mosques to shoot from and hide weapons in....because it gives them an advantage....because they know a real soldier will follow the laws of war. A real soldier will hesitate when shooting at terrorists hiding behind civilians..and risk his own life to fight honorably. A terrorist plants bombs which indicriminately kill civilians. A terrorist doesn't hesitate to take hostages..and cut their throat for propaganda.

Sad how many in our nation rally behind the terrorists instead of their own soldiers.

Football practice clashed with your history classes, didnt it?

Just hypothetically, -I assume you have a gun per your Constitutional Right to bare arms and protect yourself from Govt tyranny- if (and remember, its hypothtical) your town was under occupation by a uniformed Iraqi military tonight, would be using your gun to resist?

stuart

[fintstone]

Originally posted by stuartj
Football practice clashed with your history classes, didnt it?

Just hypothetically, -I assume you have a gun per your Constitutional Right to bare arms and protect yourself from Govt tyranny- if (and remember, its hypothtical) your town was under occupation by a uniformed Iraqi military tonight, would be using your gun to resist?
stuart

Sorting coke clashed with your mental process, didn't it?

I do not have a gun in my house....But to follow your hypothesis..If I did, I would expect no protection from the Geneva Convention if I failed to identify myself as a combatant. If I intended to confront an invading army, I would do so on the battlefield as required by the convention. It would allow me to fight as an irregular..even without uniform if the attack was so sudden (it is a year later in Iraq) that I was unable to obtain one. Of course, I have a closet full, so that would be no problem.

[stuartj]

Thats not what I asked. And although the contents of your closet are fascinating, we are not discussing the battlefeild and organised armies. And the Geneva Conventions have manifestly gone out the window anyway.

We are discussing "resistance". One man's freedom fighter is another man's terrorist, after all. Its a perjoritve term. The Haganah, the Irgun Zvai Leumi and the Stern Gang, for example, all used "terrorism" to establish the state of Israel. The same state of Israel that today vigourously condemns the Palestinian "terrorists" while firing missiles into apartment blocks.

All depends on your POV, really.

[fintstone]

Originally posted by stuartj
Thats not what I asked. And although the contents of your closet are fascinating, we are not discussing the battlefeild and organised armies. And the Geneva Conventions have manifestly gone out the window anyway.

We are discussing "resistance". One man's freedom fighter is another man's terrorist, after all. Its a perjoritve term. The Haganah, the Irgun Zvai Leumi and the Stern Gang, for example, all used "terrorism" to establish the state of Israel. The same state of Israel that today vigourously condemns the Palestinian "terrorists" while firing missiles into apartment blocks.

All depends on your POV, really.

If you didn't want to discuss the contents of my home, you should not have brought it up.

All civilized nations still follow the Geneva Convention. I know our military is required to. Why do you think our soldiers should have to adhere to it (at their own peril), but others should not?

The UN established the state of Israel.

A terrorist is a terrorist. Anyone who thinks otherwise and makes excuses for them is either sick or is using them to advocate their political agenda....which in my opinon is providing them support (aid and comfort). It legitimizes their efforts and encourages them to continue their illegal activities.

[Staylo]

Originally posted by fintstone
Where do you guys get this stuff?

We did not put Saddam in power.

We did not give him WMDs.

Well Fint, it would seem that your selective knowledge on Iraq is about as deep as your knowledge of CA. (Or lack thereof)
Head to a library and read up on Iraqi history. We most certainly did help him come to power, and our support of him in the Iran-Iraq war is well documented, as are the origin of his weapons in that era. Don't be a hypocrite and use the Kurds as examples of his treachery, as we stood by and watched it happen and hedged our bets that he could outlast Iran. But wait......we weren't finished. We left him around in '91 to again commit atrocities against the Kurds and Shia. The only difference, he used helicopters instead of WMD's. What did we (Bush 1) do?
Ah jeeze, tough luck, that sucks, but it sure beats those damn Ayatollah’s messing with our influence and gaining more oil reserves, can't have that.......
And if you beg to differ, bring FACTS, not obscure or partisan opinion. A tall order for you I know....

[fintstone]

Originally posted by Staylo
Well Fint, it would seem that your selective knowledge on Iraq is about as deep as your knowledge of CA. (Or lack thereof)
Head to a library and read up on Iraqi history. We most certainly did help him come to power, and our support of him in the Iran-Iraq war is well documented, as are the origin of his weapons in that era. Don't be a hypocrite and use the Kurds as examples of his treachery, as we stood by and watched it happen and hedged our bets that he could outlast Iran. But wait......we weren't finished. We left him around in '91 to again commit atrocities against the Kurds and Shia. The only difference, he used helicopters instead of WMD's. What did we (Bush 1) do?
Ah jeeze, tough luck, that sucks, but it sure beats those damn Ayatollah’s messing with our influence and gaining more oil reserves, can't have that.......
And if you beg to differ, bring FACTS, not obscure or partisan opinion. A tall order for you I know....

I have read many versions of Iraqs history and Saddam's biography and not one implies that the US had anything to do with his rise to power. If you have a source that does so, please share it.

Although we did support Iraq to some extent in his war with Iran..we did not provide the chemical weapons he used or support their use.

The fact that we did not intervene in his nation's internal affairs earlier does not in any way mean we condoned them..it was simply unprecedented to attack a soverign nation for their internal affairs prior to our non-UN sanctioned attack on Yugoslavia under Clinton.

If you have found some sort of "secret" document that shows any of your claims...please share it with the rest of the world.

[lendaddy]

He read it on a liberal message board, hence it is law. Come now and and just admit you've been beat Flint

[BlueSkyJaunte]

WTF? One of the consistent Rep refrains is, "We KNOW Saddam had WMDs...we sold them to him!"

[fintstone]

Originally posted by BlueSkyJaunte
WTF? One of the consistent Rep refrains is, "We KNOW Saddam had WMDs...we sold them to him!"

The only place I have seen that quote is on liberal sites as Lendady suggests...not in any reliable sources...certainly not from any Republican leaders.

[Staylo]

Originally posted by lendaddy
He read it on a liberal message board, hence it is law. Come now and and just admit you've been beat Flint

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/longroad/etc/arming.html
http://www.gwu.edu/~nsarchiv/NSAEBB/NSAEBB82/
http://www.globalpolicy.org/security/issues/iraq/history/husseinindex.htm
http://www.representativepress.org/CIASaddam.html
http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn?pagename=article&node=&contentId=A52241-2002Dec29&notFound=true
http://www.cooperativeresearch.org/globalissue/usforeignpolicy/iraq1980scontent.html


Still in denial? Note sources are not all liberal bastions, but better yet, they are based on official documentation.
You too, can learn how to use the internet correctly and efficiently,
That is, If you really want to.

[lendaddy]

PLease post some exerpts, I am not going to read 80 pages to make YOUR point. If you have something post it and I can then search the article for data relating to it. Second I was referring to putting Sadaam in power, not weapons. That being said I believe we sold him some technology.

[Staylo]

Originally posted by lendaddy
PLease post some exerpts, I am not going to read 80 pages to make YOUR point. If you have something post it and I can then search the article for data relating to it. Second I was referring to putting Sadaam in power, not weapons. That being said I believe we sold him some technology.

Come on daddy, make the effort or get out of the argument. You and Fint wanted documentation, I am providing it Afraid you might learn something?
And before you throw out the blanket liberal propoganda card, consider the sources creditied in the text of the writings. Again, this may take a minimum effort, but what do you have to lose?
(besides ignorance)

[lendaddy]

Seeing how all you guys post links, I can only assume there is some website, a sort of liberal clearing-house, with these articles under headings. Am I right?

When a Repuke says "X" post these links lol.

[Staylo]

Originally posted by lendaddy
Seeing how all you guys post links, I can only assume there is some website, a sort of liberal clearing-house, with these articles under headings. Am I right?

When a Repuke says "X" post these links lol.

further demonstration of ignorance. It is clear why you are so uninformed, and have no credibility in this argument.

[lendaddy]

I think I'm right, give up the site Since you replied within 30 minutes and claim to have searched for and read all those article (as well as many more you must have deemed inappropriate). This would also assume you were searching within 1 minute of my post. Too funny, unless ofcourse the articles don't prove your point I guess, hmm. We'll see what you come up with as far as exerpts. You did read all those right

[Staylo]

Originally posted by lendaddy
I think I'm right, give up the site Since you replied within 30 minutes and claim to have searched for and read all those article (as well as many more you must have deemed inappropriate). This would also assume you were searching within 1 minute of my post. Too funny, unless ofcourse the articles don't prove your point I guess, hmm. We'll see what you come up with as far as exerpts. You did read all those right

This is hardly a fresh argument, there was no scrambling necessary. Bothered by the fact that some people read, rather than just listen?

[lendaddy]

Exerpts

[lendaddy]

By the way, I checked and there are 80 pages worth of articles there (damn I'm good) assuming you searched instantly, found nothing but good articles you would have had to read a page every 22 seconds. Not likely. This neither proves or disproves your point regarding WMD's or Sadaam rise to power, but it does make me laugh. Now just give up the site that tells you what to post and we'll call it a day.

[Staylo]

Originally posted by lendaddy
Exerpts

Since you are reluctant and lazy:

Saddam Key in Early CIA Plot
By Richard Sale
United Press International
April 10, 2003

U.S. forces in Baghdad might now be searching high and low for Iraqi dictator Saddam Hussein, but in the past Saddam was seen by U.S. intelligence services as a bulwark of anti-communism and they used him as their instrument for more than 40 years, according to former U.S. intelligence diplomats and intelligence officials.

United Press International has interviewed almost a dozen former U.S. diplomats, British scholars and former U.S. intelligence officials to piece together the following account. The CIA declined to comment on the report.

While many have thought that Saddam first became involved with U.S. intelligence agencies at the start of the September 1980 Iran-Iraq war, his first contacts with U.S. officials date back to 1959, when he was part of a CIA-authorized six-man squad tasked with assassinating then Iraqi Prime Minister Gen. Abd al-Karim Qasim.

In July 1958, Qasim had overthrown the Iraqi monarchy in what one former U.S. diplomat, who asked not to be identified, described as "a horrible orgy of bloodshed."

According to current and former U.S. officials, who spoke on condition of anonymity, Iraq was then regarded as a key buffer and strategic asset in the Cold War with the Soviet Union. For example, in the mid-1950s, Iraq was quick to join the anti-Soviet Baghdad Pact which was to defend the region and whose members included Turkey, Britain, Iran and Pakistan.

Little attention was paid to Qasim's bloody and conspiratorial regime until his sudden decision to withdraw from the pact in 1959, an act that "freaked everybody out" according to a former senior U.S. State Department official.

Washington watched in marked dismay as Qasim began to buy arms from the Soviet Union and put his own domestic communists into ministry positions of "real power," according to this official. The domestic instability of the country prompted CIA Director Allan Dulles to say publicly that Iraq was "the most dangerous spot in the world."

In the mid-1980s, Miles Copeland, a veteran CIA operative, told UPI the CIA had enjoyed "close ties" with [the] . . . ruling Baath Party, just as it had close connections with the intelligence service of Egyptian leader Gamel Abd Nassar. In a recent public statement, Roger Morris, a former National Security Council staffer in the 1970s, confirmed this claim, saying that the CIA had chosen the authoritarian and anti-communist Baath Party "as its instrument."

According to another former senior State Department official, Saddam, while only in his early 20s, became a part of a U.S. plot to get rid of Qasim. According to this source, Saddam was installed in an apartment in Baghdad on al-Rashid Street directly opposite Qasim's office in Iraq's Ministry of Defense, to observe Qasim's movements.

Adel Darwish, Middle East expert and author of "Unholy Babylon," said the move was done "with full knowledge of the CIA," and that Saddam's CIA handler was an Iraqi dentist working for CIA and Egyptian intelligence. U.S. officials separately confirmed Darwish's account.

Darwish said that Saddam's paymaster was Capt. Abdel Maquid Farid, the assistant military attaché at the Egyptian Embassy who paid for the apartment from his own personal account. Three former senior U.S. officials have confirmed that this is accurate.

The assassination was set for Oct. 7, 1959, but it was completely botched. Accounts differ. One former CIA official said that the 22-year-old Saddam lost his nerve and began firing too soon, killing Qasim's driver and only wounding Qasim in the shoulder and arm. Darwish told UPI that one of the assassins had bullets that did not fit his gun and that another had a hand grenade that got stuck in the lining of his coat.

"It bordered on farce," a former senior U.S. intelligence official said. But Qasim, hiding on the floor of his car, escaped death, and Saddam, whose calf had been grazed by a fellow would-be assassin, escaped to Tikrit, thanks to CIA and Egyptian intelligence agents, several U.S. government officials said.

Saddam then crossed into Syria and was transferred by Egyptian intelligence agents to Beirut, according to Darwish and former senior CIA officials. While Saddam was in Beirut, the CIA paid for Saddam's apartment and put him through a brief training course, former CIA officials said. The agency then helped him get to Cairo, they said.

One former U.S. government official, who knew Saddam at the time, said that even then Saddam "was known as having no class. He was a thug -- a cutthroat."

In Cairo, Saddam was installed in an apartment in the upper class neighborhood of Dukki and spent his time playing dominos in the Indiana Café, watched over by CIA and Egyptian intelligence operatives, according to Darwish and former U.S. intelligence officials.

One former senior U.S. government official said: "In Cairo, I often went to Groppie Café at Emad Eldine Pasha Street, which was very posh, very upper class. Saddam would not have fit in there. The Indiana was your basic dive."

But during this time Saddam was making frequent visits to the American Embassy where CIA specialists such as Miles Copeland and CIA station chief Jim Eichelberger were in residence and knew Saddam, former U.S. intelligence officials said.

Saddam's U.S. handlers even pushed Saddam to get his Egyptian handlers to raise his monthly allowance, a gesture not appreciated by Egyptian officials since they knew of Saddam's American connection, according to Darwish. His assertion was confirmed by former U.S. diplomat in Egypt at the time.

In February 1963 Qasim was killed in a Baath Party coup. Morris claimed recently that the CIA was behind the coup, which was sanctioned by President John F. Kennedy, but a former very senior CIA official strongly denied this.

"We were absolutely stunned. We had guys running around asking what the hell had happened," this official said.

But the agency quickly moved into action. Noting that the Baath Party was hunting down Iraq's communist, the CIA provided the submachine gun-toting Iraqi National Guardsmen with lists of suspected communists who were then jailed, interrogated, and summarily gunned down, according to former U.S. intelligence officials with intimate knowledge of the executions.

Many suspected communists were killed outright, these sources said. Darwish told UPI that the mass killings, presided over by Saddam, took place at Qasr al-Nehayat, literally, the Palace of the End.

A former senior U.S. State Department official told UPI: "We were frankly glad to be rid of them. You ask that they get a fair trial? You have to get kidding. This was serious business."

A former senior CIA official said: "It was a bit like the mysterious killings of Iran's communists just after Ayatollah Khomeini came to power in 1979. All 4,000 of his communists suddenly got killed."

British scholar Con Coughlin, author of "Saddam: King of Terror," quotes Jim Critchfield, then a senior Middle East agency official, as saying the killing of Qasim and the communists was regarded "as a great victory." A former long-time covert U.S. intelligence operative and friend of Critchfield said: "Jim was an old Middle East hand. He wasn't sorry to see the communists go at all. Hey, we were playing for keeps."

Saddam, in the meantime, became head of al-Jihaz a-Khas, the secret intelligence apparatus of the Baath Party.

The CIA/Defense Intelligence Agency relation with Saddam intensified after the start of the Iran-Iraq war in September of 1980. During the war, the CIA regularly sent a team to Saddam to deliver battlefield intelligence obtained from Saudi AWACS surveillance aircraft to aid the effectiveness of Iraq's armed forces, according to a former DIA official, part of a U.S. interagency intelligence group.

This former official said that he personally had signed off on a document that shared U.S. satellite intelligence with both Iraq and Iran in an attempt to produce a military stalemate. "When I signed it, I thought I was losing my mind," the former official told UPI.

A former CIA official said that Saddam had assigned a top team of three senior officers from the Estikhbarat, Iraq's military intelligence, to meet with the Americans.

According to Darwish, the CIA and DIA provided military assistance to Saddam's ferocious February 1988 assault on Iranian positions in the al-Fao peninsula by blinding Iranian radars for three days.

The Saddam-U.S. intelligence alliance of convenience came to an end at 2 a.m. Aug. 2, 1990, when 100,000 Iraqi troops, backed by 300 tanks, invaded its neighbor, Kuwait. America's one-time ally had become its bitterest enemy.