Old 5th January 2007, 01:10   #1
discoleo
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2003
Posts: 209
Another Iraq Thread

There are ongoing hot disputes about the killing/assasination of Saddam Hussein. Now, I will try to offer some interesting facts, probably most of you don't know.

Iraq was factually in war with Iran during 1980-1988. Therefore I presume that the martial law was effectively set during this period. Saddam was sentenced to death, because ~140 people were killed after a failed assasination attempt in 1982 in Dujail. IF the US were in war and martial law would be set, I believe that they would have dome something similar. At least this is my impression from the many posts like "nuke them all" (on CNN and other sites).

This were known facts. Now come the more interesting ones. Actually, the real genocide occured during the attacks using chemical weapons on Iranian troops and civilians, and Kuridish civillians. However, Saddam was NOT convicted of these crimes.

Even more interesting, the US prevented the adoption of any resolution during the 80s that condemned the use of chemical weapons by Iraq.

The UN Security Council actually investigated the allegations of chemical weapons use (although very sparsely). Report S17911 confirmed the use of chemical weapons and stated specifically that Iraq was using them. Thereafter, the Security Council set to condemn this use. Because of opposition from some countries (speak US), NO legally binding resolution was ever adopted. Merely a presidential statement was issued (which has NO legal binding). THE ONLY country to vote against it, was - guess who -, the US. [3 Western European Countries also abstained from voting.]

The statement can be downloaded from the UN website, see page 147, article 306. A discussion of the legal implications of a presidential statement can be read here (Please download all relevant documents, I do NOT know if they will be available in the future.) The latter document also mentiones that presidential statement, see pages 457-458 (aka 39-40). The statement was announced in the session 2667 on 21 March 1986 (see the official UN list, p 8 (aka 64), "Statements placed on record at meetings of the Security Council". [For a forerunner resolution see this.

Another useful link is here.

Although I did NOT find the official document that states that US did oppose that statement, it was really so. The US was the ONLY nation to oppose that statement (besides France and 2 other W European countries who abstained). Therefore, I must presume that the US was directly interested AND involved in the use of the chemical weapons.

This is the only allegation against Saddam that holds. The use of chemical weapons violates the Geneva Protocol (from 1925) and the charter of the UN Security Council, therefore he should have been tried and convicted for this. [And that use killed > 100,000 people!!!]

However, obviously, the US opposed it during most of 1982(?)-1988 (war began in 1980, but first attacks were in ?1982-1983), and has done so even now.
discoleo is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 5th January 2007, 01:25   #2
S-uper_T-oast
Forum King
 
S-uper_T-oast's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2003
Location: Fnord?!
Posts: 2,657
Why thank you for your insightful post on these interwebs, I now accept your every idea about global politics.
S-uper_T-oast is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 5th January 2007, 02:08   #3
mistermeow
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Posts: 110
Send a message via AIM to mistermeow
The United States were good buddies with Saddam, and never had a problem with Saddam, even after all those killings.

The U.S. supplied Iraq with their chemical weapons, in fact.

The United States has a global agenda, and its not based on moral values. (I think most mature people realize this).
mistermeow is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 5th January 2007, 02:46   #4
S-uper_T-oast
Forum King
 
S-uper_T-oast's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2003
Location: Fnord?!
Posts: 2,657
It's not the united states. Stop pretending the US is in charge of everything. I think most mature people realize this. The US is hopelessly in debt, the culture is morally bankrupt, and has lost both it's edge in both manufacturing and education.

A more interesting thing to investigate in why Saddam got bumped out of power would be his dealing with various global financial concepts (world currency value, virtual wealth vs. real assets, global trade). Those are much better conspiracy theories.
S-uper_T-oast is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 5th January 2007, 12:22   #5
discoleo
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2003
Posts: 209
You can read also the addendum to the Summary Statement by the Secretary General on the official UN website. The fact is, that this statement was the first document to point towards Iraq. However, during (?1982)-1988, NO resolution was ever adopted to condemn/punish Iraq for its use of chemical weapons.

The interesting part is that mustard gas does NOT grow on trees. You cannot pick it up like cherries. It must have got somehow into IRAQ, first:
- Iraq did NOT have initially capabilities NOR the knowledge to synthesise/build chemical weapons
- Iraq did NOT ever have the capabilities to synthesize the precursors for the chemical gases

Even more interesting questions are:
- Did an Iraqi (e.g. Saddam) decided to start the process of chemical weapons production?
The alternative question is:
Was Saddam pointed towards the use of chemical weapons by a Westerner? Specifically by whom?

To build chemical weapons, Saddam needed both precursor materials AND knowledge AND significant support from the West!!!

It is most probably that high-level disussions did first take place, almost surely between Tariq Aziz and high ranking officials from the West.
Reasons:
- Tariq Aziz is a non-muslim (Christian)
- he had good relations with many Westerners
- Saddam almost never left Iraq; it was mostly Aziz!

Although he surely did NOT discuss any details of the program (because he would NOT know them), he surely agreed on and was responsible for the more general aspects. IF I worked for CNN or BBC or any other major broadcasting coorporation, I would go to hell to get an interview with Tariq Aziz, to learn Who from the West were the masterminds?

As a short sidenote, Tariq Aziz is in US custody and I haven't heard anything (relevant) about him in the past few years. He was regarded actually as a competent politician and many (including me) do NOT see any other reason for his arrest. It would be really tragic if something unexpected would happen to him (like an enexpected death). I really hope, that somebody manages to get a free interview (on many issues of the 1980-88 war) with him.
discoleo is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 5th January 2007, 15:38   #6
Mattress
Forum King
 
Mattress's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: Milwaukee
Posts: 4,577
So the US gave Iraq chemical weapons in the past and even supported Iraq's use of them. Then later the US realized that this was a mistake and it has gone in to try to fix the problem it caused.

What's wrong with that?

If you're driving in the wrong direction the solution isn't to stubbornly continue driving in the wrong direction just because you might be criticized for not behaving consistently.

Now, whether the current US actions are fixing the old problem or just causing new bigger problems remains to be seen.
Mattress is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 5th January 2007, 15:43   #7
Smeggle
Just Strolling By
(Major Dude)
 
Smeggle's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: A Long Winding Road.....
Posts: 3,250
Actually the US supplied Iraq with conventional weapons not Chemical. It was the |British that supplied the Chemical weapons to Iraq (And who was behind Hussein rising to power anyway)...

Music is Life, Love and Happiness :|: Life is Music. Serren - 1985 - 2005
Religion? Religion is a Blasphemy against humanity - From the film What the Bleep do we know

siggy link So stumbling? whats it all about
Smeggle is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 5th January 2007, 21:52   #8
mistermeow
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Posts: 110
Send a message via AIM to mistermeow
Saddam Hussein was the west's buddy when he did what they wanted to, and when he got out of line, they took care of him.

The US is not in charge of everythin, my point is the United States and 3000 troops from the UK did not knock him off because of some moral high ground. That is all I am saying.

The US did throw Saddam Hussein to the wolves when they gave the Iraqi's custody, and when they killed him so sloppily the US cries "oh we tried to get them to hold off". The US is the one who threw in the pond of pirannahs. What did they think the Iraqi's were gonna do with him?? Dress him up like a barbie?
mistermeow is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 5th January 2007, 22:12   #9
S-uper_T-oast
Forum King
 
S-uper_T-oast's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2003
Location: Fnord?!
Posts: 2,657
So now you are complaining that the US wants to become uninvolved in Iraq policies and government? I mean this is a pretty straight forward success of the process I'd have to say. The Iraqis held a trial with a jury and the judgment was that he got hanged. It's not like they can afford something as humane as lethal injection. Honestly, what's so hard about that?
S-uper_T-oast is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 5th January 2007, 23:47   #10
skryingbreath
Post initializing...
 
skryingbreath's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2005
Posts: 3,065
Bold font is cruise control for emphasis.
skryingbreath is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 6th January 2007, 00:16   #11
S-uper_T-oast
Forum King
 
S-uper_T-oast's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2003
Location: Fnord?!
Posts: 2,657
Seriously, italics are so much more effective.
S-uper_T-oast is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 6th January 2007, 01:07   #12
ScorLibran
Resident Floydian
 
ScorLibran's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2003
Posts: 6,222
I love it when people think the U.S. meddles too much in the affairs of other countries to disastrous consequence, saying we should stay out, while at the same time insisting that we vastly help out other countries because we're such a rich entity which should share its wealth. "Come help us, but stay out." Responsibility without authority.



I agree with the first part, we do meddle internationally while we have plenty of problems at home in need of our attention.

We should (1) build enough defenses - including ballistic missile defenses, treaty or not - to an extent that we'll be as well-protected as possible, (2) stay home and fix our domestic problems (education, economy, immigration, corruption, etc.) then (3) reach out and provide aid to foreign countries where needed.

It's a simple prioritization model with a complex implementation. If a country gets our aid, then we'll also have a proportionate amount of control over the country receiving it. Part of the "control" would be to bring in third-parties (Belgium? Switzerland?) to audit the aid provided to mitigate the risk of corruption that has plagued foreign aid for so long. We force the receiving country and its government, at gunpoint, to obey our efforts. Effectiveness trumps diplomacy. Responsibility WITH authority.

This would serve the causes of self-defense, domestic prosperity, and foreign benevolence while also serving to prevent the corruption that we and all other countries have suffered in all these areas throughout the history of civilization.

Today, people bad-mouth the U.S. for a mixed cause - some of it's true, and some is fad. We should strive to set an example to the world in order to ensure any U.S.-bashing could only be a fad and not based in truth. We need to care not who "acknowledges" any improvements, because it will likely always be a fad to bash the U.S. There is room to improve to an extent to satisfy the likes of me - taxpayers who give over 40% of their incomes to the public good and to the worldwide good - that we'd feel no guilt when the whiners continue to whine.

Bottom Line: (Speaking to anyone in the world...)
I agree with many of your complaints when you whine about the actions of the United States.
But no matter what we do, you'll always whine about the United States.
The former is a cause to always help ourselves before we help the world.
The latter is a cause to always ignore you.
ScorLibran is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 6th January 2007, 01:38   #13
ElChevelle
Moderator Alumni
 
ElChevelle's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2000
Location: the MANCANNON!
Posts: 22,436
I have to agree with Biden's speculation today:

Quote:
Sen. Joe Biden, D-Del., chairman of the Foreign Relations Committee, said Thursday that he believes top officials in the Bush administration have privately concluded they have lost Iraq and are simply trying to postpone disaster so the next president will "be the guy landing helicopters inside the Green Zone, taking people off the roof," in a chaotic withdrawal reminiscent of Vietnam.

"I have reached the tentative conclusion that a significant portion of this administration, maybe even including the vice president, believes Iraq is lost," Biden said. "They have no answer to deal with how badly they have screwed it up. I am not being facetious now. Therefore, the best thing to do is keep it from totally collapsing on your watch and hand it off to the next guy -- literally, not figuratively."
ElChevelle is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 6th January 2007, 01:48   #14
mistermeow
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Posts: 110
Send a message via AIM to mistermeow
Exactly, Bush wants to maintain status quo until he gets out of office, and let the next administration clean it up.

Then the republicans blame the Democrats for leaving Iraq, and the mess that Iraq was/is. "We had it all under control, until they (democrats) took over".
mistermeow is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 6th January 2007, 03:20   #15
ScorLibran
Resident Floydian
 
ScorLibran's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2003
Posts: 6,222
I'm not surprised Bush has no answer now. He had a plan with no criteria and a timeline with no milestones.

I've fired project managers for such performance.

Therefore, the management of a corporation must be more critical than the management of a nation.


I'm a psychosomatic sister running around without a leash.
ScorLibran is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 6th January 2007, 07:13   #16
mistermeow
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Posts: 110
Send a message via AIM to mistermeow
In 2nd grade we had chores to do each week. One week I had to water our class plant. Well I got to water it like the last 4 days of the week.

The next week it died on Fernando, and I can remember the teacher yelling at him for now watering the plant.

Thats what Bush is doing. He wants the plant to die on the next administrations watch. He just has to make it last just a little bit longer.

As for me, well I don't own any plants.
mistermeow is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 7th January 2007, 00:17   #17
rockouthippie
Banned
 
rockouthippie's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: Oregon
Posts: 11,002
Quote:
Originally posted by ScorLibran
I've fired project managers for such performance.
But I'll bet you didn't always.

Is the politics of 2007 and 2008 going to be attacking Bush or is it gonna be solving our problems?.

Life in america has become too much of a soap opera.

Bush made a mistake. It was an experiment. It failed. I think everyone except the democrat leadership would have wished that he succeeded.

A constitutional democracy for Iraq is a noble goal. They'd be happier, everyone would be happier.

I think most of the people in Iraq aren't killers. These guys put their shoes on one at a time, just like me.

I think it's wrong to leave them as buzzard bait for every crazy asshole with an AK and some plastic explosive.

I'd consider my mission to be important enough to risk my life, if I was there. Unless partisan bickering was gonna get me killed.

Hell with the Iraqis, I'd be more scared of Congress.
rockouthippie is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 7th January 2007, 01:02   #18
ElChevelle
Moderator Alumni
 
ElChevelle's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2000
Location: the MANCANNON!
Posts: 22,436
War is NO experiment.
ElChevelle is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 7th January 2007, 01:33   #19
rockouthippie
Banned
 
rockouthippie's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: Oregon
Posts: 11,002
War is always an experiment. Why do you think they have war games?.

Like chess, strategy is always experimental and subject to revision. Unlike chess, it's possible to make no mistakes and still lose.

The UN sanction experiment failed. Clinton bombing the hell out of Saddam failed. Bush Sr. failed his experiment in 1991. W has failed so far. A minor success is that Saddam is dead. The experiment worked that far.

With the democrats we might find a different experiment. That's what happens when we run away like a beat dog. I think the outcome of that experiment might be worse than the one Bush tried.

Our entire dealings with the middle east is a failed experiment. Iran has nukes, Afghanistan went nuts, Iraq didn't fly straight, and our trade centers went missing courtesy of our good friends, the Saudis.

There are some marginal successes in there, but nothing to write home about.

Other failed experiments include Cuba and Vietnam. Semi successful ones include Korea, Granada and Libya. Although the Koreans now have nukes, so that was part of the experiment too.

We will have to experiment to keep the peace. Sometimes it will work, sometimes it won't. Pointing fingers is not gonna help.

I think Bush's new approach of a troop surge and a shotgun wedding between Iraqs elected goverment and it's insurgents is worth trying.

I am interested in other opinions, but the only idea the democrats have come up with is to investigate Bush and some mumbling about diplomacy.

There is another measure of success. Nothing else has gone missing since the Trade Centers.

Part of the experiment of Bush 1 worked. Iraq never developed nukes or bio-chemical weapons. They would have by now, had we done nothing.

The bickering on Capitol Hill has nothing to do with lives, strategies or anything else. It's another experiment. Can the democrats blame Bush enough to regain the control they had before we fired them?.

Apparently, that experiment was successful. However, I am really uncertain about the long term viability of that experiment.

If the democrats take over and it becomes more of a mess, that will backfire hard.

Last edited by rockouthippie; 7th January 2007 at 02:31.
rockouthippie is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 7th January 2007, 03:17   #20
ertmann|CPH
Forum Viking
(Forum King)
 
ertmann|CPH's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: The North
Posts: 3,541
Quote:
Originally posted by ScorLibran
I love it when people think the U.S. meddles too much in the affairs of other countries to disastrous consequence, saying we should stay out, while at the same time insisting that we vastly help out other countries because we're such a rich entity which should share its wealth.
What exactly is the paradox here? that's how official ODA from most European countries have worked for decades. You pick and fund projects (as a reward) in countries, you believe are on the right path - or in some cases donate around currupt goverments directly to suffering populations. You don't need to meddle with a countries domestic policy to do that - the carrot vs the stick - you know. US official aid is disgracefully low compared to the size of the economy.

Quote:
We should (1) build enough defenses - including ballistic missile defenses, treaty or not
If you ask me, that concept is flawed, it will not protect you from terrorism, it would discourage rather than encourage, nuclear disarmament, and the mindboggeling amount of money it will cost, could be spend so much better on human development in terrorist hotbeds - you know, well fed, educated, thankfull populations are much less likely feel like bombing anyone...


Quote:
It's a simple prioritization model with a complex implementation. If a country gets our aid, then we'll also have a proportionate amount of control over the country receiving it.
What's wrong with auditing how the money is spend, and cut funding if you don't feel it's spend right - you really don't need a "proportional control" over an independent countrys affairs to do that.

Quote:
We force the receiving country and its government, at gunpoint, to obey our efforts. Effectiveness trumps diplomacy.
You know, i think a dictorship, would just refuse your aid then - they're not the ones starving - it's merely their population. In such cases you could fund aid agencies to run farming programs or schools outside goverment control.

Quote:
No matter what we do, you'll always whine about the United States. The former is a cause to always help ourselves before we help the world. The latter is a cause to always ignore you.
I don't know, certainly america(ns) have never been so unpopular, as is the case now...

Personally my approach to this whole deal, is to support the disolving of NATO, move defence responsibilites to the EU, and have the European Rapid Reaction Force put under EU parliamentary control, so Europe can act independently from an "Ally" that clearly don't consider the other side of the pond their Allies anymore.

This would a) force Europe to formulate it's own foreign policy, b) distance Europeans from american foreign policy and break up the concept of a "west", to make europeans much less prone to terrorist acts. c)... and hence make only America accountable for Americas blunders on foreign soil.

Can only speak for myself, but it would certainly make me a lot less indifferent to American foreign policy.
ertmann|CPH is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 7th January 2007, 05:09   #21
ScorLibran
Resident Floydian
 
ScorLibran's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2003
Posts: 6,222
And the cycle marches on...

Quote:
Originally posted by rockouthippie
But I'll bet you didn't always.
I assure you, I've done so every single time. I don't tolerate poor management, nor will I ever.
ScorLibran is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 7th January 2007, 05:12   #22
ertmann|CPH
Forum Viking
(Forum King)
 
ertmann|CPH's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: The North
Posts: 3,541
ertmann|CPH is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 8th January 2007, 18:24   #23
discoleo
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2003
Posts: 209
Quote:
Part of the experiment of Bush 1 worked. Iraq never developed nukes or bio-chemical weapons. They would have by now, had we done nothing.
He never would have developed any of them. Actually, when the West cut the supply for chemical weapons (precursor substances), Iraq was NOT able to build any new.

That happened even before the Kuwait invasion.

Nuclear weapons - NOT a chance.

Biological weapons - a remote possibility exists, BUT I am inclined to think more than certain this could NOT happen either.

Actually, even a biology student could build a biological weapon (even by chance), and it could also arise de novo in the nature. It is only a question of time.

However, the greatest danger is described below:
Quote:
Our enemies are innovative and resourceful, and so are we. They never stop thinking about new ways to harm our country and our people, and neither do we.

George W. Bush
discoleo is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply
Go Back   Winamp & Shoutcast Forums > Community Center > General Discussions

Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump