? about saddam...

[jackhabit]

ok, so no significant stockpiles of WMDs were found in iraq. this is not exactly breaking news. now that's not to say there never were WMDs in iraq, because saddam had to have gassed the kurds with something. from what i've read, it was some type of chemical agent. anyway, and i'm just curious tp hear from anyone who might know, who armed saddam?

[Bumblebee]

We sold them arms to fight against Iran, but nothing like WMD's. Other countries sold them arms too.

[Argonath]

I think it was Reagon (or Nixon, probably Nixon, can't remember for sure) who had given the Iraqis the chemicals, if not the chemical reactants, to gas the kurds. Of course, They were to be used against the Soviets, but there were some extra tanks of the stuff. Then Ali must've taken the components and gathered more of the stuff to make the gas that Saddam used on the kurds. I'm pretty sure now that it was Nixon, but I can't really remember. Reagon did give Iraq weapons, but I dont think anything like that stuff. The WMDs you mentioned? The materials we gave and other materials from other collective nations probably got gathered for the WMDs, Saddam probably didn;t have the people to work the stuff to well, though.

[RightisRightLeftisWrong]

All I have to say is Saddam Hussian is a douche bag, and his trial is taking to damn long I also heard he has over 1,000 lawyers and he killed 2 of his so far.

[Wadi66]

Jack, on the surface your question would appear easy to answer, but it isn't. It issue is really quite complex. It isn't just a case of which country gave what as much as it is "why" did so and so country give such and such. This war goes all the way back to pre cold war.

[Argonath]

How do you mean?

[Wadi66]

Sometimes we wonder why its important to study history. After all, most of it happened before we were ever born. That was then, this is now. But in studying history, one can follow events that lead to current day affairs.

After WWI, the Ottoman Empire collapsed. At its peak, it constituted one of the great civilizations in human history. The rest of the non-Arab Muslim world ( Pakistan, Malaysia, Indonesia) had been occupied by Europeans and subjected to “Christian” oppression. Between the fall of the Ottoman Empire and the collapse of European imperialism, the Muslim world was in complete disarray. A void never remains a void for long. Individual states immerged, led by corrupt governments and rulers who maintained their power by accommodating foreign powers.

It would be foolish indeed to think though that at least some Muslims didn’t continue to wish for a return to the good ole days of Islamic superiority. The Caliphate if you will.

At the close of WWII, the United States (who had been the victor in every global conflict) now must deal with the Soviet Union and the spread of Communism. The North Koreans and North Vietnamese were supported by the Soviet Union in their quest to bring communism to their countries. The Viet Nam war was particularly bitter for America. Realizing that we were once again on the verge of victory, the communist invoked a strategy that brought this great nation to its knees. Internal conflict. Our freedom of speech allowed a propaganda war. Financed and led by communist from within, idealistic youth took to the streets demanding withdrawal and the excitement fueled the media to cover every event. Not enough war supporters availed themselves to convince Congress to stay the course.

Pay back time. Russia pushes into Afghanistan seeking access to the oceans of the world and to shore up Afghanistan’s Soviet friendly government, being threatened by locals seeking a less suppressive life. Seeing the threat, and expecting severe ulterior motives, the USA renders support to resistant fighters. It was a long and bitter war, ending with the defeat of the Soviet Union. But whats important here is not that the Soviet Union lost, but that what emerged from that war were seasoned Muslim warriors. Warriors who until that time had felt powerless in their quest for the return of the Caliphate. Rag tag though they were, they had been successful in defeating a superpower.


Well folks, it time I headed off to work. If you want, I’ll tell you the rest of the story later.

[WhiteAfricanAmerican]

and i'm just curious tp hear from anyone who might know, who armed saddam?

What exactly are you trying to demonstrate?

Somehow I think this is going to be another lame attempt to paint the US as the pig in the story.

[Guns R Cool]

What exactly are you trying to demonstrate?

Somehow I think this is going to be another lame attempt to paint the US as the pig in the story.

I was thinking that too.

[Madcowhunter]

Thank you jackhabbit, that was really eye opening.

It's funny how I never hear liberals condemning the enemy. Take the beheading of Nick Berg for example. Liberals used that against the US as well. "What do you expect when an enemy occupies their territory?" "Look and see what Abu Ghraib has done!" Jackhabbit, why is it so hard for liberals and anarchists like yourself to accept that your nation is fighting the REAL enemy?

Wadi, nicely said. I have explained the same thing to one of my anti-war peers, just less extensive (off course, he had completely dodged the truth in it).

[Madcowhunter]

But I was merely thinking of the bandwidth consumption. Jackhabbit calls himself an anarchist, not a liberal. So if I were to just say liberal, he might of made another post to correct, then I would've had to make a post to make myself clearer. So, by referencing both, I would have saved IHL of a whole two pointless posts... But now tha you replied, my actions were in vein... THANKS A LOT!:icon_evil (:icon_smil)

P.S.
Liberals and Anarchists are different. A liberal sways towards a Communist government, and is in favor of total government control. Anarchy is in favor for absolutely NO government. So, they are different. They just rub shoulders and have the same assholeish, anti-American attitude.

[jackhabit]

I think he was going to blame america first, just like all the liberals but he got facts and p'wnd

haven't quite got all the facts yet, but thanks for playing.

[jackhabit]

Thank you jackhabbit, that was really eye opening.
It's funny how I never hear liberals condemning the enemy. Take the beheading of Nick Berg for example. Liberals used that against the US as well. "What do you expect when an enemy occupies their territory?" "Look and see what Abu Ghraib has done!" Jackhabbit, why is it so hard for liberals and anarchists like yourself to accept that your nation is fighting the REAL enemy? Wadi, nicely said. I have explained the same thing to one of my anti-war peers, just less extensive (off course, he had completely dodged the truth in it).

it wasn't eye opening at all. all i did was ask a question that only 4 people attempted to answer.

and i'll condemn ANYONE who kills, asshole, whether i consider them my own personal "enemy" or not. as far as i see it, i have no enemies. just a strong hatred of bad people foisting their views on others via the medium of violence of oppression. do you think i want to hug the lunatics responsible for taking my pal danny away from me in the WTC nightmare? of course not, but i'm also not so naive as to believe that it is impossible for our nation to be guilty of pushing it's own opressive adgendas. if you think that your's is the 100% right way all the time and without question, then you're an asshole. good or bad, every has a side and their own version of "the way things should be." unfortunately, most are wrong and misguided.

now, as i just told WAA, this thread is about who armed saddam. i don't know so i'm asking around. any thoughts on THAT?

[jackhabit]

But I was merely thinking of the bandwidth consumption. Jackhabbit calls himself an anarchist, not a liberal.

i'll wash your car every weekend for a year if you can give me even one example of any time i've EVER referred to myself as an anarchist. i TRY not to call myself anything as i don't want to be lumped into any subset of the narrow-minded world view you hold. save your labels for some other stooge MCH.

[Wadi66]

Before I get too far, it should be remembered that the US supported the Shah of Iran. We helped stage his rise to power in 1953. He remained our ally during the oil embargo in 1973. That embargo stirred up tremendous resentment against Arabs in general. His was a secular government resented by faithful Islamist. So in November 1979 the Ayatolla Khomeini took advantage of the dissent and led others in a revolution and seized control of Iran. He established a Western-style republic based on Islamic law. To Islamist, it represented the best of both worlds. After the embassy in Teheran was seized, frustrated Americans felt powerless and felt the Arabs were trying to take over the world. It was following this that Russia invades Afghanistan in December of that same year. We fear the advancement of Russia, giving them access to the oceans of the world and quite possibly the oil fields. Saudi Arabia fears Iran’s possible encroachment and seizure of the oil fields. But they also fear the advancement of Irans’ brand of Islam which is very different from the Saudi’s form. The US, seeing Russia invade Afghanistan fears Russia will also invade Iran since Iran no longer has our support and would be unable to resist. Right now though, Russia is busy in Afghanistan and they need to be stopped.

Funded by Saudi Arabia, the US lends military support to the resistance fighters against Russia. We no longer have the capital as we’re recovering from a severe recession. We provide the knowledge, Saudi’s provide the money, Afghanistan provides the men. In the end, Islamist from all over the Muslim world join together to fight the Russians. So when Russia lost that war, it wasn’t’ seen (by the Muslims) as a victory for Afghanistan, but rather a victory for Islam.

Under Carter the CIA underwent a massive house cleaning. And as sometimes happens, it went too far. A lot of old blood was removed, but also a lot of very valuable and experienced intelligence personnel that ended up being needed later. So when we embarked on this agreement with Saudi Arabia, they realized we weren’t coming to the table with much leverage. We needed them and they knew it.

Now Saddam is starting to get a little out of hand. Since we are fearful of Iran, we do nothing to stop Saddam’s invasion. In fact we kinda like it. Tone those Iranians down a mite. We don’t want Iran to win, but we don’t want Iraq to either. So, we support them both with arms. Saddam is told if he beats Iran, he can have Kuwait. Opps, Iraq wins. That comes as a big surprise. And in the meantime, we’ve had a change in administration. Saddam thinks he can still have Kuwait, so when he invades, he’s thinking we’re cool with that and our military preps are just for show. The US thinks other Muslims countries would welcome our freeing Kuwait, but did they didn’t. It wasn’t that they supported Saddam’s taking Kuwait, they deeply resented our military on holy land.

Is there more? You know there is, but I need to leave for work. Cheers everyone……….

[Madcowhunter]

it wasn't eye opening at all. all i did was ask a question that only 4 people attempted to answer.

and i'll condemn ANYONE who kills, asshole, whether i consider them my own personal "enemy" or not. as far as i see it, i have no enemies. just a strong hatred of bad people foisting their views on others via the medium of violence of oppression. do you think i want to hug the lunatics responsible for taking my pal danny away from me in the WTC nightmare? of course not, but i'm also not so naive as to believe that it is impossible for our nation to be guilty of pushing it's own opressive adgendas. if you think that your's is the 100% right way all the time and without question, then you're an asshole. good or bad, every has a side and their own version of "the way things should be." unfortunately, most are wrong and misguided.

now, as i just told WAA, this thread is about who armed saddam. i don't know so i'm asking around. any thoughts on THAT?

I realize I misunderstood your first post. I'm the majority here at IHL was aware that US had sold weapons to Saddam. And then you came along and brought up who armed him. In the past, this issue as been used as a tool by liberals to corner and demoralize the United States. So I, and others, were under the impression that you knew exactly what happened. So for misunderstand your post I am sorry. I would post my knowledge on the issue, but it is irrelavent now that Wadi has already taken care of that. And her knowledge on the issue is much more extensive than mine.

As for the rest of your post... I know I am not right 100% of the time. I realize the United States has done evil before. But there are times, as I had mentioned, when it isn't right to parade that around. Take Nick Burg and 9/11, those were times when wrong was done to us, and those were not the times to play the blame America game as most on the left did, it is a time for punishment.

I also apologize for when I called you an anarchist. I distinctly remember you saying you were. Someone had called you a liberal, and you corrected them by saying you were an anarchist. That must not have been you, I just looked up your posts and you never said that you were an anarchist. I'm sure that post does exist somewhere though, just by a different user.

[jackhabit]

I also apologize for when I called you an anarchist. I distinctly remember you saying you were. Someone had called you a liberal, and you corrected them by saying you were an anarchist. That must not have been you, I just looked up your posts and you never said that you were an anarchist. I'm sure that post does exist somewhere though, just by a different user.

no hard feelings here. i think that someone implied before that because i consider myself a liberal thinker that i'm a member of, or traditionally vote for, the democratic party. that got me mad because i hold democrats in the same ill regard i do republicans. for me, the repubicans are the party of the rich, reactionary, war profiteering, and ramapant white greed. the democrats are just as bad (maybe worse) because they stand for NOTHING and pretend to be the friend of the minority and the oppressed. however, they are anything BUT that and will say and do whatever it takes to court that vote. yes, they're bleeding hearts, but minus any genuine concern for those they fake affinity for.

also, i am in no way shape or form an anarchist. i do dig some anarchist philosophy regarding the criminal justice system and i dig some anarchist bands, but i feel society needs structure, just laws, and good leaders to keep things in order.

as for saddam's WMD, of course i have my own theory on that (one word: reagan - and that's the LAST i'll say about that.) that wasn't the point of this thread though. i wanted to learn what OTHER people thought about it, mainly through their collected facts, because my theory is just that: a theory. i didn't want to argue, debate, or paint anyone as the "pig" as WAA put it. just wanted to see what people knew and what i could make of that knowledge. it's that simple.

[Wadi66]

A continuation..........

Okay, so since the Islamist defeated a super power, Russia, their feelings of being capable are renewed. Their anger isn't so much against America as it is against Muslim countries with secular governments. The Islamist conclude that these governments are secular because they rely so heavily on the USA for support is one fashion or another. Mostly in our support of the current secular Muslim countries. To eliminate the dependency and basically force these Muslim nations to return to Islamic governments, they must show the USA to be unwilling to stay the course. Afterall, we've shown them we lack staying power. Our pull out of Viet Nam (viewed as a USA defeat) our being humiliated over the Iran hostage situation, our pulling out of Beirut in 1983 after the Marine barracks was destroyed, our withdrawal from Somalia after a handful of Americans were killed and our failure to destroy Saddam in 1991. All this pointed to a weak USA.

All they had to do was draw us into a war. They believed we would quit and thus show all Muslims countries and peoples how brave and powerful Islamist were and that they COULD restore the Caliphate.

[Wadi66]

Was thumbing through a site that I like to frequent (although haven't been there for a couple weeks) and found this link. Enjoy.

http://www.newsmax.com/archives/ic/2005/11/16/122915.shtml

Some of us of course have known about this for quite some time. Liberals... open mouth, insert foot.

EDIT: You might like this one too.

http://www.spiritoftruth.org/iraqlinks.htm

[namvet]

Hussein is a WMD. i recently read the iraq government uncovered documents that prove he had WMD and the components to make them. there location has not been revealed at this time. standby............G

[Argonath]

Do you have a link to that, yet?

[Madcowhunter]

Argo, Wadi's top link....

[Wadi66]

Come on Argo (and anyone else who hasn't bothered to read the link) the reason I put these links up is for you to gain some knowledge. That is what sets conservatives apart from liberals. Conservatives soak up the info that the liberals pretend doesn't exist. If you're privy to this kind of info, then you can't be accused of just following the conservative "talking points" which for the most part are a more factual redition of news released by the media. Book marking info like this and presenting it to them stunts their argument.

[RightisRightLeftisWrong]

Hussein is a WMD. i recently read the iraq government uncovered documents that prove he had WMD and the components to make them. there location has not been revealed at this time. standby............G

Exactly namvet! even if he did witch I cant imagine him not having them just aks the Kurds about that one Hussein is a WMD himself.


Come on Argo (and anyone else who hasn't bothered to read the link) the reason I put these links up is for you to gain some knowledge. That is what sets conservatives apart from liberals. Conservatives soak up the info that the liberals pretend doesn't exist. If you're privy to this kind of info, then you can't be accused of just following the conservative "talking points" which for the most part are a more factual redition of news released by the media. Book marking info like this and presenting it to them stunts their argument.

I havent found time to read it wadi I apologize, I have family matters and just went to the track to race my car the other day so Ill try to find some time tomorrow, if I can.

[Bumblebee]

Did you notice the date on wadi's link, when it was reported, Nov. 16? No wonder the Democrats are not talking about WMD's, lately. The are saying instead, that this was a faulty war. :rolleyes: