NationStates Jolt Archive

In response to a thread yesterday here:http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=9806676&postcount=48

My husband could not find the article he wrote two years or so ago. However was able to point me in the right direction. As Saddam's trial grows closer for the Halabjah incident, one has to wonder how he can be found guilty of this crime given even the Americans have basically cleared him if not at least call into question who was really responsible for the incident. Or even if it was Saddam who his real target was. As America's own investigation shows with sources I have provided Iraq never used chemical weapons were Iranians were not present in Iraq, while both countries were in a state of war with each other. However The War College Report itself brings into question if Iraq really had anything to do with it at all.

No one disputes that Iran and Iraq fought a battle over that town where many Kurdish insurgents allied with the Iranians were holed up. Nobody disputes that BOTH sides tossed chemical weapons at each other during that battle (as they did with many others) What IS in dispute is who dropped the volley's into the town, and as such it is not reasonable to include it as most do - an act of aggression by Saddam against the Kurds. If the Iranians had not marched into Halabja, and if the Peshmerga had not joined up with them, there would never have been a battle fought there.

As a side note: how many people here are calling foul on this event who also are the type to talk about using extreme tactics against Islamic fundies and insurgents when it's the Americans who are involved?

Overview: http://www.prisonplanet.tv/articles/july2004/070704callcia.htm

However, I'm sure you'll want a better source.

Source: MARINE CORPS HISTORICAL PUBLICATION - http://www.fas.org/man/dod-101/ops/war/docs/3203/

Page 100;

Blood agents were allegedly responsible for the most infamous use of chemicals in the war - the killing of Kurds at Halabjah. Since the Iraqis have no history of using these two agents - and the Iranians do - we conclude that the Iranians perpetrated this attack. It is also worth noting that lethal concentrations of cyanogen are difficult to obtain over an area target, thus the reports of 5,000 Kurds dead in Halabjah are suspect.

(The War College Report): http://www.fas.org/man/dod-101/ops/war/docs/3203/appb.pdf


The CIA report that documents ZERO cases of Saddam using WMD against Kurds where it wasn't primarily against Iranians during the war:

http://www.cia.gov/cia/reports/iraq_wmd/Iraq_Oct_2002.htm#05

So you may draw your own conclusions, the Americans certainly did and their conclusion was it was most likely Iran and not Iraq who was responsible for Halabjah.

So you may draw your own conclusions, the Americans certainly did and their conclusion was it was most likely Iran and not Iraq who was responsible for Halabjah.

And the last time you trusted the Americans on the subject of the use of WMD was when?

And the last time you trusted the Americans on the subject of the use of WMD was when?

Sorry dude, you can't have it both ways.. ;)

As a side note: how many people here are calling foul on this event who also are the type to talk about using extreme tactics against Islamic fundies and insurgents when it's the Americans who are involved?when we Saddam or Osama were killing for us...It was fine...

Because we are the Good Guys...

Sorry dude, you can't have it both ways.. ;)
You're the one who wants to accept the US report on who used WMD at Halabja (in fact, the one from the Marines). And at the same time, you never wanted to accept the US report on WMD in Iraq that was used as a pretext for the war.

You're the one wanting it both ways.

You're the one who wants to accept the US report on who used WMD at Halabja (in fact, the one from the Marines). And at the same time, you never wanted to accept the US report on WMD in Iraq that was used as a pretext for the war.

You're the one wanting it both ways.

Nope, in fact my belief that Iraq had no WMD was from people like Hans Blix and UN inspectors who (never got to finish their job because Bush invaded) said they did not believe that Iraq had WMD.

i was just watching a report this morning on husseins upcoming trial. he's not being tried on this case. he'll be executed for authorizing murder long before the alleged gassing of the kurds ever comes up.

Nope, in fact my belief that Iraq had no WMD was from people like Hans Blix and UN inspectors who (never got to finish their job because Bush invaded) said they did not believe that Iraq had WMD.

I guess you never read the final UNSCOM report that said that 9 tons of anthrax was still missing and unaccounted for. Not a US report, and not based on US information.

Hans Blix has no record of competantly running weapons inspections, and is politically biased. He changed his tune repeatedly during 2002-3 to increasingly favour Saddam.

The fact is that Saddam never proven that he had completely abandoned chemical, biological and nuclear weapons programs. The Duelfer report showed that Saddam planned to show Blix what he wanted him to see, and when the sanctions were lifted, as the French and Russians assured him, "normal service shall be resumed".

Blix saw what he was meant to see. The UN Secretariat who sent him (a man who said that North Korea didn't have a nuclear weapons program!) was thoroughly corrupted by Saddam, giving clear incentive to send an incompetant inspector.

I guess you never read the final UNSCOM report that said that 9 tons of anthrax was still missing and unaccounted for. Not a US report, and not based on US information.

Saddam may of been guilty of bad book-keeping, however, 9 tons of Anthrax is hardly considered WMD by any stretch of the imagination that could of been any threat to America. Hans Blix was rather clear that he did not believe that Iraq had any more WMD.

Besides, are you now saying that you don't believe your own government either?

Hans Blix has no record of competantly running weapons inspections, and is politically biased. He changed his tune repeatedly during 2002-3 to increasingly favour Saddam.

The fact is that Saddam never proven that he had completely abandoned chemical, biological and nuclear weapons programs. The Duelfer report showed that Saddam planned to show Blix what he wanted him to see, and when the sanctions were lifted, as the French and Russians assured him, "normal service shall be resumed".

Blix saw what he was meant to see. The UN Secretariat who sent him (a man who said that North Korea didn't have a nuclear weapons program!) was thoroughly corrupted by Saddam, giving clear incentive to send an incompetant inspector.


But as we all know that Saddam stopped playing ball only after at the time Sec. of State Madeline Albright said that sanctions would never be lifted as long as Saddam held power, thus breaking their cease fire agreement first!

Oh and it wasn't just Blix, America's own team after the major part of the conflict backed up what Blix had said before the war. So, going no where there either, sorry.

But as we all know that Saddam stopped playing ball only after at the time Sec. of State Madeline Albright said that sanctions would never be lifted as long as Saddam held power, thus breaking their cease fire agreement first!

What, you're not going to blame Bush for that?

Oh and it wasn't just Blix, America's own team after the major part of the conflict backed up what Blix had said before the war. So, going no where there either, sorry.

9 tons of weaponized anthrax (as noted by Dr. Taha, the woman who manufactured it) is enough to kill everyone on Earth. Handily.

The only way we discovered where it went to was by interrogating her, and having her walk us to the site where she had secretly dumped it without telling Saddam. She was NEVER going to tell the inspectors. Saddam was not only NEVER going to tell the inspectors - he didn't even know where it was. And Hans Blix couldn't find his own sphincter with both hands and a crowbar.

No, someone had to talk to Dr. Taha, in an environment where she knew she would be safe from Saddam - where he couldn't kill her for dumping his pet anthrax project outside one of his palaces.

North Korea is the classic example of how UN and IAEA inspections DO NOT WORK. WILL NEVER WORK. Iran is going down the same path - because they know now that no one will tolerate US intervention, and the UN and IAEA will never do anything to stop them.

My husband could not find the article he wrote two years or so ago.

what do you mean by not being able to find it? i remember you posting about this not too too long before you left us last time. im thinking you posted a link to his article or quoted bunches from it.

i found it very convincing

how far back to the jolt archives go? perhaps you could find that thread still on the jolt server.

But as we all know that Saddam stopped playing ball only after at the time Sec. of State Madeline Albright said that sanctions would never be lifted as long as Saddam held power, thus breaking their cease fire agreement first!

Oh and it wasn't just Blix, America's own team after the major part of the conflict backed up what Blix had said before the war. So, going no where there either, sorry.

Where does the ceasefire agreement, or the UN resolutions relating to sanctions bind the US to any conditions? If it did, it would have to be the first surrender in history to bind the victors.

Blix said that Saddam had abandoned his WMD programs in the 1990's therefore war was unjustified.

The US team said he suspended them until sanctions were lifted.

Saddam may of been guilty of bad book-keeping, however, 9 tons of Anthrax is hardly considered WMD by any stretch of the imagination that could of been any threat to America. Hans Blix was rather clear that he did not believe that Iraq had any more WMD.

Your explaination of bad book-keeping is totally unjustified. It did constitute a threat to the US in the hands of a man like Saddam Hussein.

Another thing, that it existed at all constituted non-compliance with the ceasefire agreement, which necessitated war. Whether some Swedish diplomat thinks Saddam disarmed or not is not worthy of consideration. All that matters is what the Swede can prove, and he did not prove that Saddam Hussein complied fully with his obligations.

I guess you never read the final UNSCOM report that said that 9 tons of anthrax was still missing and unaccounted for. Not a US report, and not based on US information.


Or perhaps she had read:

the IAEA's report (http://www.commondreams.org/views04/0804-11.htm) that stated there was no indication Iraq ever achieved nuclear capability or had any physical capacity for producing weapons-grade nuclear material in the near future.

Or the CIA report (http://www.odci.gov/cia/reports/721_reports/jan_jun2000.htm) of 2002 that said : “We do not have any direct evidence that Iraq has used the period since Desert Fox to reconstitute its weapons of mass destruction programs

Or noted Colin Powell's speech BEFORE 9-11 where he stated that Saddam Hussein “has not developed any significant capability with respect to weapons of mass destruction.”

Or the CIA and STATE departmen'ts considereed opinion (http://www.ceip.org/files/projects/npp/pdf/Iraq/declassifiedintellreport.pdf) that the evidence did not “add up to a compelling case that Iraq is currently pursuing what [we] consider to be an integrated and comprehensive approach to acquiring nuclear weapons.”


But still we heard all that fearmongering about not wanting the proof to come in the shape of a mushroom cloud....


meanwhile, the DIA (http://www.fas.org/irp/news/2003/06/dod060703.html) was talking about there being no evidence that Iraq was producing or stockpiling chemical weapons..

An agreement that Donald Rumself himself supported (http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/4125720/) when he chaired a government commission on WMD.


Meanwhile, the LA Times got a hold of the vetting documents where Powell's people told him that half of his speech to the UN was bullshit (http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/4125720/)



There were LOTS of reports that indicated that the WMD issue was not what this administration was trying to sell it as. And yes, not everything had been accounted for. Some of that related to issues where the UN expected to have had every chemical shell used in the Iran/Iraq war to have been documented - which it hadn't been.

But the heads of the UN inspection teams - including Ritter - were pretty universal in their opinion that there was ZERO clear an present danger from Iraq. And most US agencies thought this too.... right up until September 10.

I think that Steph is completely unfamiliar with the details of Dr. Taha and the 9 tons of anthrax.

It was not "bookkeeping" error.

The missing anthrax was one of the stated reasons for the Iraq war and was emphasized by then-U.S. Secretary of State Colin Powell during his February 2003 speech to the Security Council. However, according to an Iraq Survey Group report published on October 6, 2004, Taha has told American investigators that she and her colleagues dumped the missing anthrax near the gates of one of Saddam's palaces in April 1991, but were afraid to admit to this for fear of incurring Saddam's wrath. The Iraqi biologists therefore told the UN weapons inspectors that the missing anthrax had never existed.

9 tons of weaponized anthrax.

See that is where you hit the wall, there was never any proof that any of the missing anthrax had been weaponized. Therein lies the rub. Do you just read only half of the story about things? This is what I'm starting to believe, because you seem to have a little bit of knowledge on these subjects but yet always seem to fall short of the whole story.

See that is where you hit the wall, there was never any proof that any of the missing anthrax had been weaponized. Therein lies the rub. Do you just read only half of the story about things? This is what I'm starting to believe, because you seem to have a little bit of knowledge on these subjects but yet always seem to fall short of the whole story.

Taha says it was weaponized. Should we believe her, or you?

I think that Steph is completely unfamiliar with the details of Dr. Taha and the 9 tons of anthrax.

It was not "bookkeeping" error.

The missing anthrax was one of the stated reasons for the Iraq war and was emphasized by then-U.S. Secretary of State Colin Powell during his February 2003 speech to the Security Council.

Haha, so you're going to rely on what Colin Powell now says was the lowest point in his career? Funny, just freaking funny. He knew it was bullshit when he gave that little UN show then and he has all but admitted it. Sorry, try again.

He's relying on the testimony of Dr. Taha, who is more of an authority on Saddam's WMD programs than a Swede who say what he was meant to see.

I think that Steph is completely unfamiliar with the details of Dr. Taha and the 9 tons of anthrax.

It was not "bookkeeping" error.

The missing anthrax was one of the stated reasons for the Iraq war and was emphasized by then-U.S. Secretary of State Colin Powell during his February 2003 speech to the Security Council. However, according to an Iraq Survey Group report published on October 6, 2004, Taha has told American investigators that she and her colleagues dumped the missing anthrax near the gates of one of Saddam's palaces in April 1991, but were afraid to admit to this for fear of incurring Saddam's wrath. The Iraqi biologists therefore told the UN weapons inspectors that the missing anthrax had never existed.


Except that when Gen. Hussein Kamel was debriefed after defecting (http://www.fair.org/index.php?page=1845) (and before Saddam killed him) he was VERY specific that all WMD had been destroyed by '95.


And BushCo USED some of Kamel's testimony as evidence during making their own case for the war, but left out that little tidbit.


Taha's self-serving and uncorroberated testimony to the contrary... which is not to say that the destruction of the Anthrax was uncorroberated because it happened.

Just like Kamel SAID it had.

But serving herself up as a savior after the fall of Baghdad and stating (uncorroberated) that no-one else knew sure did her a world of service now didn't it?

Except that when Gen. Hussein Kamel was debriefed after defecting (http://www.fair.org/index.php?page=1845) (and before Saddam killed him) he was VERY specific that all WMD had been destroyed by '95.


And BushCo USED some of Kamel's testimony as evidence during making their own case for the war, but left out that little tidbit.


Taha's self-serving and uncorroberated testimony to the contrary...

Taha's testimony was corroborated by the Survey Team when they dug up the anthrax exactly where she dumped it.

Read the Survey Team report.

Also, no one, not even the good General, knew Taha's secret.

One of your sources says that the deaths in Halabja were due to blood agents (commonly used by Iran), and admits that getting large concentrations of blood agents over a town would be difficult. A source I quote below shows that while some blood agents may have been present, blister agents and nerve gas (Iraq's chemicals) were definately there.

Iranian troops may have been in or near the Kurdish territory, but it seems to me that Iraqi forces did the gassing.



Saddam Hussein's forces reportedly killed hundreds of Iraqi Kurds with chemical agents in the Kurdish town of Halabja in March 1988. The poison gas attack on Halabja was the largest-scale chemical weapons (CW) attack against a civilian population in modern times. Halabja had a population of about 80,000 people who was predominantly Kurdish and had sympathised with Iran during the Iran-Iraq war in the 1980s. Troops from the Kurdish Patriotic Union of Kurdistan (PUK) entered Halabja on 15th March 1988, accompanied by Iranian revolutionary guards. The Iraqi CW attack began early in the evening of March 16th, when a group of eight aircraft began dropping chemical bombs; the chemical bombardment continued all night. The Halabja attack involved multiple chemical agents -- including mustard gas, and the nerve agents SARIN, TABUN and VX. Some sources report that cyanide was also used.


So blood agents might have been present at Halabja, but blistering agents and nerve gas, chemicals Iraq was known to use, were definately present.






"Chemical Ali" in his own words

According to a 1988 audiotape of a meeting of leading Iraqi officials published by Human Rights Watch, al-Majid vowed to use chemical weapons against the Kurds, saying:

"I will kill them all with chemical weapons! Who is going to say anything? The international community? Fuck them! the international community, and those who listen to them!

"I will not attack them with chemicals just one day, but I will continue to attack them with chemicals for fifteen days."

To read more from "Chemical Ali" audiotapes:

http://www.hrw.org/reports/1993/iraqanfal/APPENDIXA.htm

To read more background on the War in Iraq, please see:

http://www.hrw.org/campaigns/iraq/

So Saddam's regime was pretty open about the fact that they were going to gas the Kurds.

Taha's testimony was corroborated by the Survey Team when they dug up the anthrax exactly where she dumped it.

Read the Survey Team report.

Also, no one, not even the good General, knew Taha's secret.


Prove that.

Kamel was clear that all WMD had been destroyed.

He headed the WMD work for Saddam.

He was already dead.


So besides it serving her very well, how can you state for sure that she did not destroy the Anthrax where she did and when she did, but with the slight change in story being that it was sone under orders


You've only got her sayso on that.

One of your sources says that the deaths in Halabja were due to blood agents (commonly used by Iran), and admits that getting large concentrations of blood agents over a town would be difficult. A source I quote below shows that while some blood agents may have been present, blister agents and nerve gas (Iraq's chemicals) were definately there.

Iranian troops may have been in or near the Kurdish territory, but it seems to me that Iraqi forces did the gassing.

So blood agents might have been present at Halabja, but blistering agents and nerve gas, chemicals Iraq was known to use, were definately present.

So Saddam's regime was pretty open about the fact that they were going to gas the Kurds.

Steph doesn't believe SIPRI, or Human Rights Watch, or anyone else - now she believes a portion of the US military (the Marines) when it concludes who did it in Halabja.

Of course, she won't buy the Survey Team's report on Taha, how she was NEVER ordered to destroy the anthrax, and how no one except her and a handful of lab assistants knew.

Steph doesn't believe SIPRI, or Human Rights Watch, or anyone else - now she believes a portion of the US military (the Marines) when it concludes who did it in Halabja.

Okay, so then if we believe Human Rights Watch, who also has the USA marked as using torture and other human rights abuses (even on their own citizens) as does Amnesty International, the next time I use them as a source to back up my argument, you better not say a word. :)

Steph doesn't believe SIPRI, or Human Rights Watch, or anyone else - now she believes a portion of the US military (the Marines) when it concludes who did it in Halabja.

Of course, she won't buy the Survey Team's report on Taha, how she was NEVER ordered to destroy the anthrax, and how no one except her and a handful of lab assistants knew.


Actually, it looks to me like she just said that available reports clearly showed that a battle took place around Halabja by two armies who both used CBW, and that the actual party (or parties) who shelled the town is not conclusively known. And she has provided some official support from sources to back that statement.

I don't know how it happened. Neither do you.

But it does run counter to the generally accepted perception in the puclic (often supported by media stories) that Halabja was a case where Saddam went in to route a city of Kurds for no reason besides Genocide.


The fact that Kurdish rebels and Iranians were BOTH there on his territory does put that into a very diferent light.



Interesting though Sierra how you have been a vocal proponenet of rounding up and "dissapearing" any Muslims who you feel might be possible militants, or when the US surrounds and pummels a city to drive out militants, and lament that fact the US is nopt willing to be as brutal as you think they need to be to stop the insurgency, but then you jump on the bandwagon of crucifying Saddam for fighting insurgents in his country, and doing so using the sort of tactics that you suggest are appropriate.....


Is that a slight wiff of hypocricy on the air I smell?

Actually, it looks to me like she just said that available reports clearly showed that a battle took place around Halabja by two armies who both used CBW, and that the actual party (or parties) who shelled the town is not conclusively known. And she has provided some official support from sources to back that statement.

I don't know how it happened. Neither do you.

But it does run counter to the generally accepted perception in the puclic (often supported by media stories) that Halabja was a case where Saddam went in to route a city of Kurds for no reason besides Genocide.

The fact that Kurdish rebels and Iranians were BOTH there on his territory does put that into a very diferent light.

Interesting though Sierra how you have been a vocal proponenet of rounding up and "dissapearing" any Muslims who you feel might be possible militants, but you jump on the bandwagon of crucifying Saddam for fighting insurgents in his country.....or when the US surrounds and pummels a city to drive out militants.

Is that a slight wiff of hypocricy on the air I smell?


Stephen Pelletiere, a reporter who went over the ground at Halabja, says that indeed the Iraqis and Iranians fought there, but the gas was Iraqi.

The hypocrisy you speak of doesn't exist. The dead at Halabja were unarmed women and children - deliberately targeted.

Most of the insurgents in Iraq deliberately target unarmed civilians.

US policy seems to be different, eh? Shoot at military targets - at people who shoot at you - with a precision weapon when available. Before pounding Fallujah, give anyone and everyone time to get out before fighting - so even some bad guys can run away.

In the event that the militant Islamist movement eventually does use WMD in the United States, at that point, I would "take the gloves off" and resort to wholesale extermination. But that would be in response to a grievous lethal civilization-dooming threat. Saddam was under no such pressure.

Is that a slight wiff of hypocricy on the air I smell?

Actually in fairness, I think he only reads or believes what he chooses to. While it is often that he knows some of the story, it usually becomes pretty obvious as the thread goes on he certainly has only limited knowledge on the actual history of events. At least this has been my experience with him. I believe it to be more ignorance than actual hypocricy, although I could be wrong, but it's sure one or the other.

Actually in fairness, I think he only reads or believes what he chooses to. While it is often that he knows some of the story, it usually becomes pretty obvious as the thread goes on he certainly has only limited knowledge on the actual history of events. At least this has been my experience with him. I believe it to be more ignorance than actual hypocricy, although I could be wrong, but it's sure one or the other.

As we all know, only Stephistan is capable of digesting the news and forming an accurate picture of the world.

Stephen Pelletiere, a reporter who went over the ground at Halabja, says that indeed the Iraqis and Iranians fought there, but the gas was Iraqi.

The hypocrisy you speak of doesn't exist. The dead at Halabja were unarmed women and children - deliberately targeted.

Right, no collateral damage ever happens in American wars..lol.. given that America has the most advanced technology in the world when it comes to war, you can't expect that a war that happened 20 years ago by two middle eastern countries to not of had collateral damage. Hell, the USA has killed how many innocent civilians in Iraq since 2003? And this is the most advanced army in the world and 20 years later. There is also no supporting evidence that Iraq deliberately targeted unarmed civilians, could of just been a case of collateral damage, that is if Iraq even did it at all.

Right, no collateral damage ever happens in American wars..lol.. given that America has the most advanced technology in the world when it comes to war, you can't expect that a war that happened 20 years ago by two middle eastern countries to not of had collateral damage. Hell, the USA has killed how many innocent civilians in Iraq since 2003? And this is the most advanced army in the world and 20 years later. There is also no supporting evidence that Iraq deliberately targeted unarmed civilians, could of just been a case of collateral damage, that is if Iraq even did it at all.

I like how the media and the left predicted that there would be millions killed by collateral damage from US strikes in the initial Iraq invasion.

Didn't happen. Not even close. If we had deliberately targeted civilians, in the same way that insurgents do today (by putting car bombs in the middle of crowded markets), there wouldn't be a matchstick left of any building, nor one bone next to another of any human.

They are not morally equivalent, and your wishful stretching doesn't make it so.

Stephen Pelletiere, a reporter who went over the ground at Halabja, says that indeed the Iraqis and Iranians fought there, but the gas was Iraqi.

The hypocrisy you speak of doesn't exist. The dead at Halabja were unarmed women and children - deliberately targeted.

Most of the insurgents in Iraq deliberately target unarmed civilians.

US policy seems to be different, eh? Shoot at military targets - at people who shoot at you - with a precision weapon when available. Before pounding Fallujah, give anyone and everyone time to get out before fighting - so even some bad guys can run away.

In the event that the militant Islamist movement eventually does use WMD in the United States, at that point, I would "take the gloves off" and resort to wholesale extermination. But that would be in response to a grievous lethal civilization-dooming threat. Saddam was under no such pressure.


Learn some facts. Stephen Pelletier was not a reporter, he was the CIA's senior political analyst on Iraq and worked with the Army War College.

And he cowrote the War College's report that included the analysis of CBW used by both sides in that battle, and they concluded that it was likely Iranian shells that hit the town.


As to the rest, I'm not arguing the hypocricy of your attitude because of what the US IS DOING, I'm calling you for hypocricy on what you say that they should do.

You have called for indescriminate murder of muslims for simple suspicion, and the discouragement of insurgency by killing the familly and friends of any known insurgent.

So, once again, if that is what you feel the US needs to do to win, then even if Halabja WAS the work of Saddam - wasn;t he just following your rules of conduct in an insurgency? Because Halabja WAS a peshmurga insurgent stronghold.

Stephen Pelletiere, a reporter who went over the ground at Halabja, says that indeed the Iraqis and Iranians fought there, but the gas was Iraqi.

At least I know who Stephen Pelletiere is, which is more than you can say.. lmao.

The CIA officer Stephen C. Pelletiere was the agency’s senior political analyst on Iraq during the Iran-Iraq war. As professor at the Army War College from 1988 to 2000, he says he was privy to much of the classified material that flowed through Washington having to do with the Persian Gulf.

In addition, he says he headed a 1991 Army investigation into how the Iraqis would fight a war against the United States, and the classified version of the report went into great detail on the Halabja affair.

http://www.prisonplanet.tv/articles/july2004/070704callcia.htm

Learn some facts. Stephen Pelletier was not a reporter, he was the CIA's senior political analyst on Iraq.

And he cowrote the War College's report after the fact that included the analysis of CBW used by both sides in that battle, and that it was likely Iranian shells that hit the town.


As to the rest, I'm not arguing the hypocricy of your attitude because of what the US IS DOING, I'm calling you for hypocricy on what you say that they should do.

You have called for indescriminate murder of muslims for simple suspicion, and the discouragement of insurgency by killing the familly and friends of any known insurgent.

So, once again, if that is what you feel the US needs to do to win, then even if Halabja WAS the work of Saddam - wasn;t he just following your rules of conduct in an insurgency? Because Halabja WAS a peshmurga insurgent stronghold.


Only if insurgents and their movement pose a threat to civilization in general.

Only if insurgents and their movement pose a threat to civilization in general.

Like the USA does?

the same way that insurgents do today (by putting car bombs in the middle of crowded markets.

No one was discussing today's insurgents, this thread is about Halabjah.

Only if insurgents and their movement pose a threat to civilization in general.


Well, that would be the same argument that the Muslim extremists use to justify their attacks on the west too wouldn't it?


And are you saying that the Kurdish militants weren't a threat to Saddams self-defined concept of civilization?


Sorry, but that sort of namby-pamby statement can be used by anyone to justify anything....

Well, that would be the same argument that the Muslim extremists use to justify their attacks on the west too wouldn't it?

And are you saying that the Kurdish militants weren't a threat to Saddams self-defined concept of civilization?

Sorry, but that sort of namby-pamby statement can be used by anyone to justify anything....

If the insurgents have WMD, that qualifies.

If the insurgents have WMD, that qualifies.

Like the USA does?

Like the USA does?

Posit:

If al-Qaeda had a nuclear weapon, they would immediately smuggle it into the US and detonate it.

We have thousands of nuclear weapons. It's been a long, long time since we detonated one as a hostile act. In fact, it's been so long that the threat of the use of nuclear weapons by the US is hardly credible.

Big difference. If they had smallpox, they would infect themselves immediately and fly over here so they could walk around spreading it.

You're so big on moral equivalence where there is none.

If the insurgents have WMD, that qualifies.


Soooooooooooooooooo.... first it was Saddam having WMD, which he didn't, and now it's the insurgents?

Fuck! Call CNN!

This IS NEWS!!!


Pray tell when did this event happen?

and did they get them from his non-existant stockpiles?

Or did they buy their own?


And ... ummmm ..... why haven't they used them?

Posit:

If al-Qaeda had a nuclear weapon, they would immediately smuggle it into the US and detonate it.

We have thousands of nuclear weapons. It's been a long, long time since we detonated one as a hostile act.

Yes, in fact you're the only people ever in the history of the world to use a nuclear bomb on civilians or anyone for that matter.

Must do lunch, will be back.. :)

Oh and it wasn't just Blix, America's own team after the major part of the conflict backed up what Blix had said before the war. So, going no where there either, sorry.
Actually, the US report primarily stated 2 things. #1 is that Saddam was far from doing anyhting nuclear. #2 is that there were no large stockpiles present in Iraq during their investigations, or if there was it's buried under the sand somewhere. That report conspicuously does NOT state that there were not any WMD's present leading up to the invasion. In fact, in one of the major footnotes, it states that they were unable to follow the leads they did have because of political tensions(read, didn't want to piss off Syria).

Actually, the US report primarily stated 2 things. #1 is that Saddam was far from doing anyhting nuclear. #2 is that there were no large stockpiles present in Iraq during their investigations, or if there was it's buried under the sand somewhere. That report conspicuously does NOT state that there were not any WMD's present leading up to the invasion. In fact, in one of the major footnotes, it states that they were unable to follow the leads they did have because of political tensions(read, didn't want to piss off Syria).

Really? I seen an interview that the president of Syria gave to CNN, he tells a much different story. In fact says he was working with the USA until Bush wouldn't shut his gate about him, then he tried to go through a third party in Europe to help America, but apparently no one is returning his phone calls.. the interview was just last week, might still be on CNN's website. Bush & co are simply full of shit. I think his approval ratings speaks for the majority of America and has been the feeling of the world for some time now.

Really? I seen an interview that the president of Syria gave to CNN, he tells a much different story. In fact says he was working with the USA until Bush wouldn't shut his gate about him, then he tried to go through a third party in Europe to help America, but apparently no one is returning his phone calls.. the interview was just last week, might still be on CNN's website. Bush & co are simply full of shit. I think his approval ratings speaks for the majority of America and has been the feeling of the world for some time now.

Is this the same President of Syria whose intelligence agency assassinated a prominent Lebanese politician? The same one whose head of intelligence shot himself in the head because he knows the UN investigation is going to hang the Syrian government out to dry?

Oh, yeah, I would believe the President of Syria, any day. Yeah.

Is this the same President of Syria whose intelligence agency assassinated a prominent Lebanese politician? The same one whose head of intelligence shot himself in the head because he knows the UN investigation is going to hang the Syrian government out to dry?

Oh, yeah, I would believe the President of Syria, any day. Yeah.

Well we don't know that he did or did not do it. He was asked and denied he had anything to do with it. Stated that if high level people in his government were found to have taken part they would be tried for treason. I suspect he is no more full of shit than Bush, I mean really, aren't they all just full of shit?

Well we don't know that he did or did not do it. He was asked and denied he had anything to do with it. Stated that if high level people in his government were found to have taken part they would be tried for treason. I suspect he is no more full of shit than Bush, I mean really, aren't they all just full of shit?

So far, I only remember two newsworthy incidents in which a prominent person put a gun to their head and blew their brains out.

1. Vince Foster
2. The late head of Syrian Intelligence, shortly after an interview in which he announced that "you probably won't be hearing from me again".

When someone in the Bush Administration blows their brains out, I'll buy you a drink.

snip

A few observations:

1. I suppose all this makes the rape rooms perfectly acceptable.

2. Shouldn't you be out trying to indict Warcriminal Paul Martin, and Warcriminal Jean Chretien.

3. If in fact, Saddam had no weapons of mass destruction, doesn't this make it a purely humanitarian effort which in the words of Warcriminal Chretien make it: "a war for principle, for human values, for protection of minorities, for helping people living together. This is the Canadian model," and therefore a good noble canadian type thing to do.

Oh, and I agree with what DCD said about the blister and nerve agents.

A few observations:

1. I suppose all this makes the rape rooms perfectly acceptable.

2. Shouldn't you be out trying to indict Warcriminal Paul Martin, and Warcriminal Jean Chretien.

3. If in fact, Saddam had no weapons of mass destruction, doesn't this make it a purely humanitarian effort which in the words of Warcriminal Chretien make it: "a war for principle, for human values, for protection of minorities, for helping people living together. This is the Canadian model," and therefore a good noble canadian type thing to do.

Oh, and I agree with what DCD said about the blister and nerve agents.


Steph doesn't believe that Chretien and Martin committed a warcrime by bombing Serbia.

Really? I seen an interview that the president of Syria gave to CNN, he tells a much different story. In fact says he was working with the USA until Bush wouldn't shut his gate about him, then he tried to go through a third party in Europe to help America, but apparently no one is returning his phone calls.. the interview was just last week, might still be on CNN's website. Bush & co are simply full of shit. I think his approval ratings speaks for the majority of America and has been the feeling of the world for some time now.

Yes, because in the popularity = being right. And therefore, low approval ratings make this wrong. :rolleyes:

Steph doesn't believe that Chretien and Martin committed a warcrime by bombing Serbia.

Tough shit. She can't have it both ways. And like I pointed out, the fact that there were no WMDs should actually this palatable, (if not praiseworthy) in the eyes of Canadians judging by Chretien's own words.

A few observations:


2. Shouldn't you be out trying to indict Warcriminal Paul Martin, and Warcriminal Jean Chretien.

Wow, your continued lack of knowledge on how the Canadian government works just has me laughing to no end sometimes. First of all. Canada's role in the NATO peacekeeping mission that was led by the USA was that of peacekeeper. Not of aggressor.

Second, Paul Martin was the FM, since when does the FM of the government have anything to do with these decisions? When you illegally waged war on Iraq, did Bush consult with the federal reserve? Because that is basically the role Paul Martin played in the Canadian government at the time, so unless you also believe that Alan Greenspan helps Bush decide what wars they fight, you can stop at least trying to paint Paul Martin with the same brush that you're trying to use on Jean Chretien. And when you can show me where peacekeeping missions are an act of aggression in international law, I will concede to Chretien, but Paul Martin had nothing to do with it, he was our freaking Finance Minister at the time. Sheesh!

but Paul Martin had nothing to do with it, he was our freaking Finance Minister at the time. Sheesh!

Lacadaemon will probably point this out, but at the time, Paul Martin said that "we don't need the UN anymore".

Representative of an attitude he's reiterated over Darfur - he thinks Canada should bomb Sudan without waiting for the UN.

Lacadaemon will probably point this out, but at the time, Paul Martin said that "we don't need the UN anymore".

Representative of an attitude he's reiterated over Darfur - he thinks Canada should bomb Sudan without waiting for the UN.

Well I've never seen it sourced, but if he did say it, I disagree with that statement as do most Canadians. However, like I said, I've only ever seen the assertion with no source to back it up. However, basically irrelevant, maybe that was his opinion, but it wasn't his decision to make, he was our FM at the time. Quite frankly he had nothing to do with it. Now he is our PM, but the only conflict we are involved in at the moment is helping save your asses in Afghanistan. So, talk is cheap when the story is good, until it happens, you got nothing.

Well I've never seen it sourced, but if he did say it, I disagree with that statement as do most Canadians. However, like I said, I've only ever seen the assertion with no source to back it up. However, basically irrelevant, maybe that was his opinion, but it wasn't his decision to make, he was our FM at the time. Quite frankly he had nothing to do with it. Now he is our PM, but the only conflict we are involved in at the moment is helping save your asses in Afghanistan. So, talk is cheap when the story is good, until it happens, you got nothing.

So far, I'm not the only one who has seen the comments of Martin about the UN. And Paul Martin seems far more concerned about bombing Sudan now.

BTW, there aren't enough Canadian forces in Afghanistan to save anyone's asses. As though US forces in Afghanistan needed to be saved.

BTW, there aren't enough Canadian forces in Afghanistan to save anyone's asses. As though US forces in Afghanistan needed to be saved.

Well truth be known there aren't enough forces in Afghanistan period!