| Posted by: ickle | | What a joke. These are the same kind of opinions of people who were absolutely sure that we'd kill Saddam, not capture him. Oops, wrong again! I'm sure we can all remember how many times this was predicted after his two lovely sons put up a fight and were killed.
What does the Bush administration have to fear from a fair and open trial? Sure, there's some things the US did to support Saddam in the past - BIG FRICKIN SURPRISE - NOT!!!! And what has the Bush 43 admin done to support Saddam? Zero, zip, nada.
Even if there were any skeletons in the Bush closet, its' highly unlikely that Saddam's trial will be conducted before the next election. (Based on reports I've read of how long it takes to prepare both the prosecution and defense in a trial ofthis magnitude.)
So, IMO, this article is a typical bunch of malarkey. | | Reply To this Message
|
| Posted by: USA1 | | Another load of crap.
Did you know that the chemical weapons in Iraq didn't come from the U.S. to Iraq and that the technology was given to Iraq in a 3rd party agreement out side of any American involment?
It's not like we shipped him barrels of VX. They used our technology not our material. | | Reply To this Message
|
| Posted by: h@ts | | "The Reagan administration used its influence to kill a Senate bill banning the export of U.S. military technology to Iraq to punish Saddam for using chemical weapons against Iran. When Saddam used poison gas against his own Kurdish population in 1988, killing 6,800 innocent people, U.S. diplomats were instructed to blame the incident on Iran."
So this is "a joke" and another "load of crap"? Are you saying the allegations are false, or are you, in you're own subtle way apologists for a US administration's involvement in this kind of killing. | | Reply To this Message
|
| Posted by: Controversial J | | You're obviously not very familiar with the author's works. The man in question calls almost every move the US makes long before they do. He also speaks of fact not fiction and happens to be highly credible throughout the world. How sad a mind is so one tracked that it couldn't even begin to see reality if it was laid out in front of him.
You rely too heavily on the administrations commentary. The US could state today that they did not capture Saddam and you'd dispute that claiming they were brainwashed by Saddam while he was in custody. The fact is that the US is notorious for withholding information and either you don't consider history or you are too weak minded to ponder another angle.
I do not try and pollute people's minds with speculation but instead choose to listen to all sides of the story and arrive at my own conclusions. In my book everyone gets a fair say and it's because i listen to arguments from all sides and remain, for the most part, neutral on almost any topic. The ability to remain neutral allows for a more accurate perception of the big picture. | | Reply To this Message
|
| Posted by: Controversial J | | HERE
Either this will keep you busy for the day or prove the inability to make a fair judegment of the truth. I'm not saying to believe everything this guy says but perhaps make a slight consideration toward any of the things he says.
THIS was an interesting read prior to the war commencing... | | Reply To this Message
|
| Posted by: jvstr | |
| quote: |
h@ts said this in post #4 :
"The Reagan administration used its influence to kill a Senate bill banning the export of U.S. military technology to Iraq to punish Saddam for using chemical weapons against Iran. When Saddam used poison gas against his own Kurdish population in 1988, killing 6,800 innocent people, U.S. diplomats were instructed to blame the incident on Iran."
So this is "a joke" and another "load of crap"? Are you saying the allegations are false, or are you, in you're own subtle way apologists for a US administration's involvement in this kind of killing. |
Yes, it's a load of crap... and the 'military technology' that the author speaks of was not 'chemical weapons'. Germany was the principal supplier of chemicals to Iraq and Singapore was the largest exporter of chemical weapons precursors.
Gulf War veterans suing companies for chemical exports
January 17th, 2003
http://www.cnn.com/2003/LAW/01/18/iraq.chemical.suit/
"The Iraqi list names 56 suppliers of chemicals and equipment to process them. A majority are based in Europe."
"Germany is home to the most major suppliers listed in Iraq's 1998 U.N. declaration. The Netherlands and Switzerland each are home to three companies on the list. France, Austria and the United States each are home to two. The declaration says Singapore was the largest exporter of chemical weapons precursors. Other countries home to alleged chemical exporters to Iraq include India, Egypt, Spain and Luxembourg, with one each."
--JV
| | Reply To this Message
|
| Posted by: h@ts | |
| quote: |
jvstr said this in post #7 :
Yes, it's a load of crap... and the 'military technology' that the author speaks of was not 'chemical weapons'. Germany was the principal supplier of chemicals to Iraq and Singapore was the largest exporter of chemical weapons precursors.
Gulf War veterans suing companies for chemical exports
January 17th, 2003
http://www.cnn.com/2003/LAW/01/18/iraq.chemical.suit/
"The Iraqi list names 56 suppliers of chemicals and equipment to process them. A majority are based in Europe."
"Germany is home to the most major suppliers listed in Iraq's 1998 U.N. declaration. The Netherlands and Switzerland each are home to three companies on the list. France, Austria and the United States each are home to two. The declaration says Singapore was the largest exporter of chemical weapons precursors. Other countries home to alleged chemical exporters to Iraq include India, Egypt, Spain and Luxembourg, with one each."
--JV |
You didn't refute the evidence in the article, you just pointed to another article that said that there were many countries besides the US that supported Iraq with chemical weapons technology, some more so. Very valid point, why should the US take all the blame. This of course does not mean they are innocent either. Saying - well they did it too! isn't much of a defense.
| | Reply To this Message
|
| Posted by: Optics | | Yes America did give equiment and aid to Sadam at one time but so DID hundrends of other countries. Why pin this all on the US's lappel ? Every other country would be brought into this also. The US will not even be the one in court with Sadam.
Refute what evidence... he only stated facts about only ONE country that have aided Sadam through out the years what about everyone else?
Oh yea thats right its the World against America. | | Reply To this Message
|
| Posted by: USA1 | | Maybe the Iraqi people should use the Saddam style trial for him. At least untill they get their constitution in place.
I'm sure he wouldn't object the dull sord across the neck Jury. | | Reply To this Message
|
| Posted by: ryanvii | | I think a fair trial would be the best punishment for Saddam. Something he failed to give the thousands of people he murdered, tortured, etc. Why should we sink to his level? | | Reply To this Message
|
| Posted by: jvstr | |
| quote: |
h@ts said this in post #9 :
You didn't refute the evidence in the article, you just pointed to another article that said that there were many countries besides the US that supported Iraq with chemical weapons technology, some more so. Very valid point, why should the US take all the blame. This of course does not mean they are innocent either. Saying - well they did it too! isn't much of a defense. |
Sure I did. I just told you that the 'military technology' exported to Iraq was not chemical weapons... and that is the absolute truth.
There were at least 56 companies that sold chemicals to Iraq with at least two from the U.S. They were all private commercial companies, not government agencies, and they sold chemicals, not chemical weapons.
Alcolac, for example, exported thiodiglycol to Iraq. Thiodiglycol is a chemical that is used in the textile industry... but can also be used as one of the ingredients for mustard.
Alcolac was busted and fined in 1989 when they were caught selling Thiodiglycol to Iraq.
In March 1984, in response to Iraq's warning to Iran of using chemical weapons on them, the State Department intervened to prevent a U.S. company from shipping 22,000 pounds of phosphorous fluoride, a multi-purpose chemical that can also be used as a chemical weapons precursor, to Iraq.
When speaking of chemicals and U.S. government, you must be confused with biologicals... the samples of Anthrax, E Coli, etc... that the Center for Disease Control (CDC) had sent to the University of Bagdhad in Iraq, and many other countries, for research. The CDC is a governmental organization. Although, the American Type Culture Collection sent out samples to quite a few nations, too, including Iraq, except they are a non-profit organization.
There was no U.S. policy to arm Saddam with chemical and/or biological weapons... the claims that they did are nothing but outright lies.
--JV
| | Reply To this Message
|
Post-9/11 Era Forum: Fair trial for Saddam?
|
