Syrian Civil War

[Rue]

uhmmm... the post you replied to had the source. the page included copies of letters and memos from the u.s. government which showed that the u.s. helped saddam use chemical weapons.

you're so busy pounding your keyboard that you can't even pay attention to what you're replying to.

focus rue. focus.

Did you even read what you provided lol? Bud speaking about focus-go read what you are relying on. Lol. You clearly didn't. You are relying on an unsubstantiated and unproven article that says Reagan knew about Hussein's chemical weapons capacity. The whole world knew.

Knowing about Hussein having a chemical capacity and using it against Iran during their war is one issue. Using it as Hussein did against innocent Kurds is a separate issue not that your mind seems to be able to grasp the difference.

The US initially saw Iraq as their best interest in buffering Iran. So did all of the West.

Using the very argument you are now for stating the US should not get involved they did not. Because of that-precisely because not just the US but the West and Russia and China looked the other way as this bloody war raged, thousands died and it was able to escalate and give Hussein the false sense of support he then needed to go on to gas the Kurds and that is precisely when the US started having second thoughts and it was not until Israel said no enough, the Kurds were gassed and sent in a medical team on the ground, pissing off Turkey that told Nato, Israel and the US to stay out of Kurd areas of Iraq, that the US on

Israeli and humanitarian ngo pressure said no more Hussein has got to go he's turned rogue.

They did not as I say supply the chemicals to Hussein which is what you inferred. Sure they would have known they were being used in the war. The entire world did, So would Britain, France, China, Russia, North Korea, who all sold chemicals unlike the U.S.

At best you show the US looked the other way during the Iraq-Iran war and now provide an excellent reason why they can not again with Syria.

You provide the very lesson that they have probably learned from, not to sit backwhile two sides kill each other because it necessarily spills over to killing innocent civilians.

So Bud anything else to say other than proving this is exactly why the US is saying we can't sit by and let this happen yet again?

All you have shown once again is you have a ridiculously selective mind and live in a world where only the US is to blame for the Iran-Iraq war or any other humanitarian crisis. No one else manages to make it to your radar except for the world's Jews of course-because as you constantly advance there is a world Jew conspiracy controlling the US and making up these false flag operations right Buddy?

Edited September 7, 2013 by Rue

[Rue]

It is precisely because of what happened to the Kurds in Iraq we must do something about Syria today as I shall now argue.

Keep in mind the North of Iraq has been the land of the Kurds. It was artificially cut off from parts of Turkey, Iran and forced into Iraq by imposition of the British and Ottoman Empire.

Kurds have been considered the enemy of Turkey, Iraq and Iran and during the war between Iraq and Iran both sides while engaged in war along with Turkey still considered them a mutual enemy of all three.

The mustard gas mass killing of Kurds now referred to as the Kimyabarana Helebce was carried out on Friday, March 16, 1988, towards the end of the Iran–Iraq in Southern Kurdistan (town of Halabja).

The attack was ordered by Hussein in response to an Iranian offensive ( Operation Zafar 7 which had taken over Halabja. Hussein felt Kurdish guerillas enabled this successful victory by Iran so 48 hours after the Iraqis lost this battle to Iran occupation, ordered the attack.

It is believed mustard gas was used to kill up 5,000 civilians and injured 7,000 to 10,000 more who would go on to die of medical complications. Some use the number 20,000.

This is a classic example of how a war between two nations turned into a pretext for the gassing of thousands of innocent civilians and this is exactly what is happening in Syria. As Assad's forces (Alawites reinforced by Shiite Hezbollah and Iran troops) battle his opposition (a mix of Sunni groups ranging from extremists like Al Quaeda to ordinary moderates forced into war) and towns get caught in the middle of cross fire, Assad has used chemical weapons, cluster bombs, white phosphorous weapons, helicopter gunships skud missiles, guided missiles from jets to deliberately kill civilians en masse to frighten them from siding with the rebels.

Assad has ordered other has attacks. This latest one has gotten to large to hide. In Iraq there were over23 gas attacks. For example in Anfal another Kurdish town people were gassed.

Mustard gas and napalm were the prime agents used in over 23 attacks on Kurd civilian populations in Iraq to warn them not to side with Iran.

In Syria is appears napalm and white sulphur weapons are being used as well as Safarin gas which kills more quickly.

Interestingly those who support Assad first said there was no proof, then when Assad stated, well o.k. you have proof, fine, it was used, just not by us, the pro Syrian groupies like Russia suddenly changed their tune from absolute denial to well it was the rebels who did it.

Intelligence reports from Germany, France, Israel and the US all indicate the gas was used, has been found on the ground and in blood systems of dead and living civilians, and film proof of napalm, chemical

and white sulphur injuries and deaths is now in classified information including some tapes the media

were given of dead children suspected to have been leaked by Syrian military on Assad's side who disagree with what he did.

Russia which sells over 4.5 billion in weapons to Syria yearly including those chemicals, now has the audacity to state no one should interfere-the same country that screamed out loud that the US refusing to

interfere with Iraq to end the war with Iran was wrong?

The Chinese? They and the North Koreans sold chemicals to Syria, Iraq and Iran. In fact only the US and Israel have not sold chemicals in that area of the world. Belgium, Germany, France and even Brazil have.

So let's not play Buddy Boy revisionism and twist this as US hippocracy. It was the US that said to Hussein no more. We have stood by long enough. The world pressured the US not to involve itself in Hussen's affairs and when they invaded, to this day the world says, it was only for oil no other reason.

Meanwhile irony or ironies, just three days ago the government of Iraq sold to China, the rights to drill most of the oil now in Iraq. Talk about travesties.

Was Iraq only oil? I do not doubt Haliburton so clearly tied to the Bush regime through Chaney an Rumsfeld assured that company trillions in contracts in Iraq. The US flooded the area with more private soldiers than conventional ones. The US armed forces were used as front line grunts to do all the dirt work while armed mercenaries did what ever they felt like not subject to anyone's laws.

You want to criticize US corporate corruption go ahead. However do not criticize the US soldiers who

defeated brutal Hussein goons who terrorized their citizens. Do not criticize the US army for finally bringing to justice Hussein when no one else would.

It is precisely because the US put itself on the line and apprehended Hussein chemical attacks on the Kurds no longer take place although today both Iran and Turkey continue to attack their civilians.

It is precisely from the lessons learned in Iraq and the mistakes the US is saying do you want that again-do you think if we sit back and do nothing and these gas attacks continue they will not escalate just as they did in Iraq from 1, to 6 to 25 in less than a year?

The chemical attacks have escalated in the last year due to world silence.

Russia and China with their own internal Muslim civil wars see nothing wrong with an ally brutally wiping out people. It is the justification they use to tell people mind your own business when they engage in civil war with their Muslims and make no mistake China and Russia are engaged in wars against Sunni Muslims and feel their best bet is to side with the Shiite Muslim constellation (Syria, Hezbollah, Iran).

Bud can turn his selective eye but Russia and China's open support of Iran and Syria as well Sudan condoned and enabled genocides. This trying to twist it around as if the Americans did is utter revisionist clap trap.

The US has made mistakes but their mistakes are open to scrutiny. What about China and Russia?

Well Bud? When will you speak out against the genocide in Kurdistan that was aided by China and Russia?

Where are you criticizing Turkey which wipes out innocent Kurd civilians and in the next breath chastises

Syria? Where are you when Turkey embraces violence against its own citizens on the streets for expressing dissent and sides with the Egyptian Muslim brotherhood which disbanded any right to free speech in Egypt and was slaughtering Coptic Christians?

Well? Where is your silence as Russia continues its civil war against Chechnyens and China continues to engage in war against Muslim extremists in its country/

Hmm? Why the selective silence Bud-Naomi-Hudson Jones whatever. What's the matter? Your script handlers don't allow fulsome discussion.

Lol.

[Shady]

Cite?

There won't be any citation, because it's an urban legand believed only by the far leftwing of society.

[sharkman]

He also told Saddam on the "down low" that it was OK to invade Kuwait in the first place.

Come on buddy, where's the link? It is a leftwing type response.

[Shady]

Come on buddy, where's the link? It is a leftwing type response.

Yep, anything to give Saddam a pass.

[DogOnPorch]

Come on buddy, where's the link? It is a leftwing type response.

Let's see it, dre.

[Shady]

Let's see it, dre.

It's an old leftwing urban legand. The only cites will be to other leftwingers insisting that it's true.

[dre]

Cite?

This is what the US Ambassador said to Hussein prior to the war.

I think I understand this. I have lived here for years. I admire your extraordinary efforts to rebuild your country. I know you need funds. We understand that and our opinion is that you should have the opportunity to rebuild your country. But we have no opinion on the Arab-Arab conflicts, like your border disagreement with Kuwait. I was in the American Embassy in Kuwait during the late 60's. The instruction we had during this period was that we should express no opinion on this issue and that the issue is not associated with America. James Baker has directed our official spokesmen to emphasize this instruction. We hope you can solve this problem using any suitable methods via Klibi or via President Mubarak. All that we hope is that these issues are solved quickly. With regard to all of this, can I ask you to see how the issue appears to us?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/April_Glaspie

He was told by James Baker through the US admbassador to Iraq, that the US had no opinion on the matter. This was as Saddam was amassing troops on the kuwaiti border.

Edited September 7, 2013 by dre

[dre]

Come on buddy, where's the link? It is a leftwing type response.

LOL... I provided a link within 10 minutes of seeing a request for it. Unlike you guys I dont spend the entire weekend sitting at my computer.

[Guest American Woman]

LOL... I provided a link within 10 minutes of seeing a request for it. Unlike you guys I dont spend the entire weekend sitting at my computer.

You've provided no such link. Your link in no way says that "[bush] told Saddam on the 'down low' that it was OK to invade Kuwait."

Edited September 7, 2013 by American Woman

[Shady]

This is what the US Ambassador said to Hussein prior to the war.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/April_Glaspie

He was told by James Baker through the US admbassador to Iraq, that the US had no opinion on the matter. This was as Saddam was amassing troops on the kuwaiti border.

Yes, just as I thought. Several "versions" of the transcript of the meeting. In other words, just an urban legend you like to believe is true. Regardless, stating no opinion of Arab conflicts is not tantamount to giving approval of an invasion. You're being absurd.

[dre]

Yes, just as I thought. Several "versions" of the transcript of the meeting. In other words, just an urban legend you like to believe is true. Regardless, stating no opinion of Arab conflicts is not tantamount to giving approval of an invasion. You're being absurd.

The transcripts have been authenticated by Glaspie herself, and were recently declassified.

And while its true they did not directly express approval of an invasion, the message was basically "we dont care".

[Guest American Woman]

And while its true they did not directly express approval of an invasion, the message was basically "we dont care".

In other words, your claim was a false claim.

[dre]

April in July On July 25, 1990, eight days before the Iraqi invasion of Kuwait, a quiet, largely unreported meeting took place between Saddam Hussein and U.S. Ambassador to Iraq April Glaspie at the Presidential Palace in Baghdad, which has since been destroyed by the war. The transcript of this meeting is as follows:

U.S. Ambassador Glaspie:

"I have direct instructions from President Bush to improve our relations with Iraq. We have considerable sympathy for your quest for higher oil prices, the immediate cause of your confrontation with Kuwait. (pause) As you know, I have lived here for years and admire your extraordinary efforts to rebuild your country. We know you need funds. We understand that, and our opinion is that you should have the opportunity to rebuild your country. (pause) We can see that you have deployed massive numbers of troops in the south. Normally that would be none of our business, but when this happens in the context of your other threats against Kuwait, then it would be reasonable for us to be concerned. For this reason, I have received an instruction to ask you, in the spirit of friendship - not confrontation - regarding your intentions: Why are your troops massed so very close to Kuwait's borders?"

Saddam Hussein:

"As you know, for years now I have made every effort to reach a settlement on our dispute with Kuwait. There is to be a meeting in two days; I am prepared to give negotiations only this one more brief chance. (pause) When we [the Iraqis] meet [with the Kuwaitis] and we see there is hope, then nothing will happen. But if we are unable to find a solution, then it will be natural that Iraq will not accept death."

U.S. Ambassador Glaspie:

"What solutions would be acceptable?"

Saddam Hussein:

"If we could keep the whole of the Shatt al Arab - our strategic goal in our war with Iran - we will make concessions (to the Kuwaitis). But, if we are forced to choose between keeping half of the Shatt and the whole of Iraq (which, in Saddam's view, includes Kuwait) then we will give up all of the Shatt to defend our claims on Kuwait to keep the whole of Iraq in the shape we wish it to be. (pause) What is the United States' opinion on this?"

(Pause, then Ambassador Glaspie speaks carefully)

U.S. Ambassador Glaspie:

"We have no opinion on your Arab-Arab conflicts, such as your dispute with Kuwait.

Secretary (of State James) Baker has directed me to emphasize the instruction, first given to Iraq in the 1960's that the Kuwait issue is not associated with America."

(Pause, then Ambassador Glaspie speaks carefully)

[dre]

In other words, your claim was a false claim.

No I would call it tacit approval.

"Dad, can I have some Icecream?"

"I dont care."

Edited September 7, 2013 by dre

[Shady]

You've provided no such link. Your link in no way says that "[bush] told Saddam on the 'down low' that it was OK to invade Kuwait."

Exactly. The lengths in which the pro-Saddam/anti-American types around here will go never ceases to amaze me.

[Shady]

The transcripts have been authenticated by Glaspie herself, and were recently declassified.

And while its true they did not directly express approval of an invasion, the message was basically "we dont care".

No, there are differing versions of the events. As to your interpretation of we don't care, that's also absurd. Regardless, it doesn't give a nation a right to invade because another nation claims to not care.

[Guest American Woman]

Exactly. The lengths in which the pro-Saddam/anti-American types around here will go never ceases to amaze me.

And now there's an attempt to rewrite it to say what he claimed it said, even as he's not even quoting Bush.

[Guest American Woman]

No I would call it tacit approval.

"Dad, can I have some Icecream?"

"I dont care."

You may call it tacit approval, but it's not what you claimed. You made a false claim. Furthermore, your little dialog here never took place; I don't see Saddam asking Bush if he can attack Kuwait. Perhaps you could point that out to me?

[jbg]

Rue, I agree with you on the no gassing position. It's genocide, mass murder and to think a leader did it to, not his enemy which is bad enough, but his own people, it's the act of a mad man.

But look with me at the world's response if you will. There is agreement that it's wrong, but no will to do anything about it. They make excuses like they don't want another Bush situation, or that Russia might ratchet up the response, or there's no good guy to support. But at the heart of it might be an indifference. A "so what, it's only Arabs killing Arabs" attitude. Like it doesn't quite add up to being worth all the trouble. This appears to me to be some kind of tipping point, a new bench mark, if you will.

The kind of lack of horror at the carnage that never used to exist. It bothers me a bit, because it sort of allows for a minor amount of genocide that the world has gotten used to. Which begs the question, what if it's only a little bit more next time, you can see a shoulder shrug occurring at that too. Or even another war. If Saudi Arabia took over Kuwait today, would the world respond? I mean, the Saudis know how to keep the oil flowing, so it's not like a Saddam situation. Or if China enlarged its borders just a little. Sanctions maybe, but hey, nobody wants to start a war over it.

It leaves room for the kind of stuff that started really big wars.

COULD NOT HAVE SAID IT BETTER SHARK

I agree that Sharkman said it well.

I must add that the world has often found ample excuses to do nothing:

1. The Ukrainian Holodomer;
2. The Nazi Holocaust;
3. 1956 in Hungary;
4. Pol Pot in the Khmer Republic;
5. Myanmar;
6. Burundi;
7. Central African Republic (or Empire, depending on which iteration of tyrant was in power);
8. Current slavery in Saudi Arabia;
9. Pakistan

The list goes on.

[dre]

Exactly. The lengths in which the pro-Saddam/anti-American types around here will go never ceases to amaze me.

I never said anything about being pro-saddam. I personally think the guy was a dirt bag. I would say that because I think it was a mistake for the US to be using this kind of Ambiguous language while Saddam was amassing troops and tanks on the Kuwaiti border makes me anti American either. Lots of Americans have said the same thing.

[Shady]

And now there's an attempt to rewrite it to say what he claimed it said, even as he's not even quoting Bush.

Yep. I've seen the same thing claimed by others in the past. It's like they all meet in the same echo chamber, and then dispers eto spread false information. And using Wikipedia as a source to back up disputed information is ridiculous.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kFBDn5PiL00

[dre]

And now there's an attempt to rewrite it to say what he claimed it said, even as he's not even quoting Bush.

Thats how communication worked between the Bush government and Saddam Husseign. Through the US state department, and the US ambassador.

[dre]

Yep. I've seen the same thing claimed by others in the past. It's like they all meet in the same echo chamber, and then dispers eto spread false information. And using Wikipedia as a source to back up disputed information is ridiculous.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kFBDn5PiL00

Its not false information. Nobody has ever denied what April told Hussein. Not Baker, and not Glaspie herself. And this has nothing to do with any echo chamber. US congressmen and senators from both parties accused Baker and Glaspie of the same thing. And they also accused her of lying about it.

WASHINGTON — Key senators demanded Friday that Secretary of State James A. Baker III explain why the State Department did not set the record straight after April Glaspie, the former U.S. ambassador to Iraq, allegedly misled Congress about her talks with President Saddam Hussein shortly before his troops invaded Kuwait.

In March, Glaspie told the Senate Foreign Relations Committee that she took a tough line with Hussein, specifically warning against any Iraqi military aggression, when she met with him in Baghdad only eight days before the invasion last Aug. 2.

But the cable she sent to the State Department to summarize her session with Hussein was entitled "Saddam's Message of Friendship to President Bush," the senators said, and its contents indicated that she took a "soft, conciliatory tone" with the dictator.

Although Iraqi military forces already were massing near the Kuwaiti border, Glaspie cabled Washington after the two-hour meeting that Hussein's "emphasis that he wants a peaceful settlement is surely sincere," according to a source familiar with her report.

Sen. Claiborne Pell (D-R.I.), chairman of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, said the secret cables that Glaspie sent to Washington after the Baghdad meeting on July 25, 1990, contradicted her statements before his panel in March of this year.

Another committee member, Sen. Alan Cranston (D-Calif.), called on Baker to declassify the cable and suggested that Glaspie be called before the committee again to provide sworn testimony on the matter. She did not speak under oath in March.

Late Friday, Deputy Secretary of State Lawrence S. Eagleburger reportedly sent a letter to Pell asking to appear before the committee with Glaspie to respond to the charges.

In the letter, Eagleburger asked to appear at the panel's earliest convenience "to respond to any questions senators may have about any misimpressions there may be," a senior State Department official told the Reuters news service.

Sen. Jesse Helms (R-N.C.), the panel's ranking Republican, said the Senate should look into the apparent discrepancies between Glaspie's statements before the committee and the content of her cables. Helms also asked for an FBI investigation to determine who leaked portions of the Glaspie cables to the Washington Post, which published excerpts on Friday.

"April Glaspie deliberately misled the Congress about her role in the Persian Gulf tragedy," Cranston said at a news conference. "Because the real record is at such variance with the public record . . . I call upon the Administration to declassify the materials made available to the Senate Foreign Relations Committee."

Cranston noted that the State Department was aware that Glaspie's cable differed on many important points with her statements to the Senate panel. "The Glaspie transcripts raise broad and troubling questions about the Administration's willingness to be a party to false statements to Congress," he said.

In addition, Cranston said that "a stern warning to Saddam Hussein at that time could have prevented the invasion (of Kuwait) and all the death and destruction it caused."

In her statements to the committee, Glaspie said she delivered a tough message to Hussein. But Pell said her cable summarizing the meeting reflected a more cordial atmosphere, with no explicit statement of how the United States would respond to an Iraqi takeover of Kuwait.

"No place (in the cable) does she report clearly delivering the kind of warning she described in her (statement) to the committee," Pell said. "In some instances, her statement is contradicted by the reporting cable."

Pell said, for example, that in the cable Glaspie said she told Hussein: "We have no opinion on Arab-Arab conflicts like your border disagreement with Kuwait."

Even when asking the Iraqi leader about his huge military buildup near the Kuwaiti border, Glaspie reportedly said in her cable that she posed the question gently, "in the spirit of friendship, not confrontation."

While Glaspie was not under oath when she spoke before the committee, Senate aides said that it is a misdemeanor to mislead Congress even by unsworn statements.

Glaspie has been appointed diplomat in residence at UC San Diego, but she is not expected to arrive in that post until late August, a university official said.

Edited September 7, 2013 by dre

[Guest American Woman]

Its not false information.

It's not "Bush telling Saddam that it's ok to attack Kuwait."