american drones - not so efficient

[bud]

I'm aware that you're going to allude to the usual crap that may or may not have actually had any bearing to events. Like the US supplying Saddam's actual chemical weapon program, for example. Or US supplied bacteria/viruses ending up actually being turned into weapons. Why not do a wee expose' of all the European and Arab companies that supplied Saddam's REAL chemical goodies for his various projects like gassing Kurds? Or is that something I have to rant on about AGAIN?

eh?

you said:

As for Saddam being 'Western backed'...that's a tad of a stretch. Although I understand he received satellite reports of Iranian positions from America

the u.s. and the rest of 'west' did a lot more than what you said and i listed a few of the things that they did in order to back saddam.

so contrary to what you said, it's not a 'tad of a stretch'. you shared misinformation and i called you on it.

[DogOnPorch]

eh?

you said:

the u.s. and the rest of 'west' did a lot more than what you said and i listed a few of the things that they did in order to back saddam.

so contrary to what you said, it's not a 'tad of a stretch'. you shared misinformation and i called you on it.

You gave a few folk's opinions...opinions are what you have.

Edited October 6, 2012 by DogOnPorch

[kraychik]

Well I guess we should all ignore the analysis and wisdom of Dwight Eisenhower, Admiral William D. Leahy, and Herbert Hoover. What do they know anyways?

Well, we can't disagree with leftist politicians, now can we?! It's sad how leftists like you always play follow-the-leader. It's not like there are other former presidents, generals, and other prominent politicians and historians who completely reject that narrative and destroy it.

[bud]

You gave a few folk's opinions...opinions are what you have.

oh no. there you go again, denying and trying to dismiss the truth. don't you get sick of yourself?

can you, for once, just admit that you were wrong instead of making me repeat the obvious?

i gave the comments and opinions from officials who were involved and those who investigated and reported on u.s.' role in helping saddam. like someone who was on the national security council and the director of political-military affairs. he actually accompanied rumsfeld to baghdad when he met saddam in 1983. there are also affidavits from former reagan/bush admin officials.

i gave comments by colonel patrick lang, a senior defense intelligence officer in regards to the use of gas and u.s.' involvement allowing them to happen and even blocking the u.n. from investigating them further, because guess what? people would be like, "whoa, u.s. gave them these chemical weapons and they allowed it to happen instead of stopping them."

seriously buddy, grow some balls and be truthful, instead of what you're doing now.

[DogOnPorch]

Whenever bud starts talking about 'truth' I start thinking of a certain popular Walt Disney movie about a puppet.

[bud]

Whenever bud starts talking about 'truth' I start thinking of a certain popular Walt Disney movie about a puppet.

you pressed reply, but failed to respond.

typical DoP. when faced with the truth and facts.

tell me when you're able to respond to this:

really? for a guy with a bachelor in wikipedia, i'm surprised you missed most of the information on 'western backed' iraq.

what about:

Howard Teicher served on the National Security Council as director of Political-Military Affairs. He accompanied Rumsfeld to Baghdad in 1983. According to his 1995 affidavit and separate interviews with former Reagan and Bush administration officials, the Central Intelligence Agency secretly directed armaments and hi-tech components to Iraq through false fronts and friendly third parties such as Jordan, Saudi Arabia, Egypt and Kuwait, and they quietly encouraged rogue arms dealers and other private military companies to do the same

or this:

According to retired Army Colonel W. Patrick Lang, senior defense intelligence officer for the United States Defense Intelligence Agency at the time, "the use of gas on the battlefield by the Iraqis was not a matter of deep strategic concern" to Reagan and his aides, because they "were desperate to make sure that Iraq did not lose." Lang disclosed that more than 60 officers of the Defense Intelligence Agency were secretly providing detailed information on Iranian deployments. He cautioned that the DIA "would have never accepted the use of chemical weapons against civilians, but the use against military objectives was seen as inevitable in the Iraqi struggle for survival." Despite this claim, the Reagan administration did not stop aiding Iraq after receiving reports affirming the use of poison gas on Kurdish civilians.

and this:

Iraqi military personnel received various types of guidance from their American counterparts on U.S. soil. According to Roque Gonzalez, an ex-Special Forces officer with multilingual expertise, Saddam's elite troops received instruction in unconventional warfare at Fort Bragg, North Carolina. "The idea was that, in the event of an Iranian victory, the Iraqi soldiers would be able to wage a guerrilla struggle against the occupying Iranian force"

and this:

The United States assisted Iraq through a military aid program known as "Bear Spares", whereby the U.S. military "made sure that spare parts and ammunition for Soviet or Soviet-style weaponry were available to countries which sought to reduce their dependence on the Soviets for defense needs."

back to the chemical weapons:

On February 9th, 1994, Senator Riegle delivered a report -commonly known at the Riegle Report- in which it was stated that "pathogenic (meaning 'disease producing'), toxigenic (meaning 'poisonous'), and other biological research materials were exported to Iraq pursuant to application and licensing by the U.S. Department of Commerce."

The executive branch of our government approved 771 different export licenses for sale of dual-use technology to Iraq.

how about some diplomacy:

In 1984, Iran introduced a draft resolution to the United Nations Security Council, citing the Geneva Protocol of 1925, condemning Saddam Hussein's use of chemical weapons on the battlefield. In response, the United States instructed its delegate at the UN to lobby friendly representatives in support of a motion to take "no decision" on the use of chemical munitions by Iraq. If backing to obstruct the resolution could be won, then the U.S. delegation were to proceed and vote in favour of taking zero action; if support were not forthcoming, the U.S. delegate were to refrain from voting altogether.

[DogOnPorch]

Save yourself some cutting and pasting, bud. You're not going to get away from the fact that it was mainly European and Arab companies that supplied Saddam's chemical weapons program. Most notably the Kim Al-Khaleej company out of Singapore but tied to the UAE. They supplied Saddam's nerve gas precursors. If you really want to rag on the US companies for duel-use technology, get on their case for supplying thiodiglycol to Saddam. While its 'intended' use was to be insecticides, I'm sure a good chunk of it got 'transferred' to Saddam's mustard gas factories for use on Iranians.

[bud]

Save yourself some cutting and pasting, bud. You're not going to get away from the fact that it was mainly European and Arab companies that supplied Saddam's chemical weapons program. Most notably the Kim Al-Khaleej company out of Singapore but tied to the UAE. They supplied Saddam's nerve gas precursors. If you really want to rag on the US companies for duel-use technology, get on their case for supplying thiodiglycol to Saddam. While its 'intended' use was to be insecticides, I'm sure a good chunk of it got 'transferred' to Saddam's mustard gas factories for use on Iranians.

stop trying to play dumb for the u.s. it looks kind of pathetic.

facts remain, the u.s. had a huge part in backing saddam. so why try to tippy toe around the truth:

On February 9th, 1994, Senator Riegle delivered a report -commonly known at the Riegle Report- in which it was stated that "pathogenic (meaning 'disease producing'), toxigenic (meaning 'poisonous'), and other biological research materials were exported to Iraq pursuant to application and licensing by the U.S. Department of Commerce." It added: "These exported biological materials were not attenuated or weakened and were capable of reproduction."

The report then detailed 70 shipments (including Bacillus anthracis) from the United States to Iraqi government agencies over three years, concluding "It was later learned that these microorganisms exported by the United States were identical to those the UN inspectors found and recovered from the Iraqi biological warfare program.

[Guest]

I guess it puts to rest the argument that there were no WMDs.

[DogOnPorch]

stop trying to play dumb for the u.s. it looks kind of pathetic.

facts remain, the u.s. had a huge part in backing saddam. so why try to tippy toe around the truth:

On February 9th, 1994, Senator Riegle delivered a report -commonly known at the Riegle Report- in which it was stated that "pathogenic (meaning 'disease producing'), toxigenic (meaning 'poisonous'), and other biological research materials were exported to Iraq pursuant to application and licensing by the U.S. Department of Commerce." It added: "These exported biological materials were not attenuated or weakened and were capable of reproduction."

The report then detailed 70 shipments (including Bacillus anthracis) from the United States to Iraqi government agencies over three years, concluding "It was later learned that these microorganisms exported by the United States were identical to those the UN inspectors found and recovered from the Iraqi biological warfare program.

Just another example of Saddam saying one thing and doing another.

You do know that anthrax and such are used for animal production, I assume. So, did Saddam launch any bio-weapons attacks during his wars? No? Well, keep trying...

[DogOnPorch]

I guess it puts to rest the argument that there were no WMDs.

[DogOnPorch]

The world watched Saddam's chemical weapons program cross into Syria before 'Shock n' Awe' under the guise of heavy truck traffic. It was a no-brainer win-win for those parties involved.

[bud]

Just another example of Saddam saying one thing and doing another.

You do know that anthrax and such are used for animal production, I assume. So, did Saddam launch any bio-weapons attacks during his wars? No? Well, keep trying...

what?

you 'assume' that u.s. gave saddam chemical weapons during its war with iran because they wanted saddam to use them for animal production?

how stupid do you think people are? you expect people to take you seriously with the garbage you say?

here is more information on u.s.' backing of saddam's use of chemical weapons against the kurds and iranians:

In 1984, Iran introduced a draft resolution to the United Nations Security Council, citing the Geneva Protocol of 1925, condemning Saddam Hussein's use of chemical weapons on the battlefield. In response, the United States instructed its delegate at the UN to lobby friendly representatives in support of a motion to take "no decision" on the use of chemical munitions by Iraq.

[DogOnPorch]

what?

you 'assume' that u.s. gave saddam chemical weapons during its war with iran because they wanted saddam to use them for animal production?

how stupid do you think people are? you expect people to take you seriously with the garbage you say?

here is more information on u.s.' backing of saddam's use of chemical weapons against the kurds and iranians:

In 1984, Iran introduced a draft resolution to the United Nations Security Council, citing the Geneva Protocol of 1925, condemning Saddam Hussein's use of chemical weapons on the battlefield. In response, the United States instructed its delegate at the UN to lobby friendly representatives in support of a motion to take "no decision" on the use of chemical munitions by Iraq.

Anthrax isn't a chemical.

Edited October 6, 2012 by DogOnPorch

[bud]

Anthrax isn't a chemical.

anthrax can be and has been used as biological warfare.

here is your 3rd chance to respond to these:

what about:

Howard Teicher served on the National Security Council as director of Political-Military Affairs. He accompanied Rumsfeld to Baghdad in 1983. According to his 1995 affidavit and separate interviews with former Reagan and Bush administration officials, the Central Intelligence Agency secretly directed armaments and hi-tech components to Iraq through false fronts and friendly third parties such as Jordan, Saudi Arabia, Egypt and Kuwait, and they quietly encouraged rogue arms dealers and other private military companies to do the same

or this:

According to retired Army Colonel W. Patrick Lang, senior defense intelligence officer for the United States Defense Intelligence Agency at the time, "the use of gas on the battlefield by the Iraqis was not a matter of deep strategic concern" to Reagan and his aides, because they "were desperate to make sure that Iraq did not lose." Lang disclosed that more than 60 officers of the Defense Intelligence Agency were secretly providing detailed information on Iranian deployments. He cautioned that the DIA "would have never accepted the use of chemical weapons against civilians, but the use against military objectives was seen as inevitable in the Iraqi struggle for survival." Despite this claim, the Reagan administration did not stop aiding Iraq after receiving reports affirming the use of poison gas on Kurdish civilians.

and this:

Iraqi military personnel received various types of guidance from their American counterparts on U.S. soil. According to Roque Gonzalez, an ex-Special Forces officer with multilingual expertise, Saddam's elite troops received instruction in unconventional warfare at Fort Bragg, North Carolina. "The idea was that, in the event of an Iranian victory, the Iraqi soldiers would be able to wage a guerrilla struggle against the occupying Iranian force"

and this:

The United States assisted Iraq through a military aid program known as "Bear Spares", whereby the U.S. military "made sure that spare parts and ammunition for Soviet or Soviet-style weaponry were available to countries which sought to reduce their dependence on the Soviets for defense needs."

back to the chemical weapons:

On February 9th, 1994, Senator Riegle delivered a report -commonly known at the Riegle Report- in which it was stated that "pathogenic (meaning 'disease producing'), toxigenic (meaning 'poisonous'), and other biological research materials were exported to Iraq pursuant to application and licensing by the U.S. Department of Commerce."

The executive branch of our government approved 771 different export licenses for sale of dual-use technology to Iraq.

how about some diplomacy:

In 1984, Iran introduced a draft resolution to the United Nations Security Council, citing the Geneva Protocol of 1925, condemning Saddam Hussein's use of chemical weapons on the battlefield. In response, the United States instructed its delegate at the UN to lobby friendly representatives in support of a motion to take "no decision" on the use of chemical munitions by Iraq. If backing to obstruct the resolution could be won, then the U.S. delegation were to proceed and vote in favour of taking zero action; if support were not forthcoming, the U.S. delegate were to refrain from voting altogether.

[jbg]

Well, we can't disagree with leftist politicians, now can we?! It's sad how leftists like you always play follow-the-leader. It's not like there are other former presidents, generals, and other prominent politicians and historians who completely reject that narrative and destroy it.

The leftists would need brains to have original thoughts. In many cases if they had an original thought it would be their first.

[eyeball]

The leftists would need brains to have original thoughts. In many cases if they had an original thought it would be their first.

Hah, I spoke too soon I guess.

[bud]

the label sociopath should be extended to people in this thread who defend the drone attacks that kill innocent people.

Joe Klein's sociopathic defense of drone killings of children

Reflecting the Obama legacy and US culture, the Time columnist says: "the bottom line is: 'whose 4-year-olds get killed?'"

On MSNBC's Morning Joe program this morning, which focused on Monday's night presidential debate, the former right-wing Congressman and current host Joe Scarborough voiced an eloquent and impassioned critique of President Obama's ongoing killing of innocent people in the Muslim world using drones. In response, Time Magazine's Joe Klein, a stalwart Obama supporter, offered one of the most nakedly sociopathic defenses yet heard of these killings. This exchange, which begins at roughly the 7:00 minute mark on the video embedded below, is quite revealing in several respects.

terrorists and terrorist supporters.

Edited October 24, 2012 by bud

[Guest]

the label sociopath should be extended to people in this thread who defend the drone attacks that kill innocent people.

Yeah, we can't have innocent people being killed in a war. Never have done in the past, so why should we start now?

Edited October 25, 2012 by bcsapper

[Mr.Canada]

the label sociopath should be extended to people in this thread who defend the drone attacks that kill innocent people.

You do understand that Obama himself has to sign off and give his permission on every single drone attack right?

[WIP]

I just came across this story that the CIA wants more drones....while refusing to acknowledge that they have and have used drones so far......hilarious!

All I can say on this issue is once again that the most important point about drone warfare is that it is one more technology that makes killing easier, more remote and free from direct consequences....a guy sitting behind a computer console in Arizona is not going to get shot down and either killed or taken prisoner. The era of manned warplanes at least put some skin in the game and made indiscriminate use of force less likely.

The problem with this kind of remote warfare is that the blowback from it....and there will be blowback....you can bet that for damn sure -- is going to come in the form of asymmetrical warfare from the places being bombed....in other words more terrorism! So, the CIA and Airforce can order more drones because there will be more terrorists and terrorist training camps to bomb! The only winners are those who profit financially from making them!

[WIP]

And don't forget to get your kids the hot new toy for Christmas: G.I. Joe: Drone Operator

[GostHacked]

Various reports indicated that there are 5 civilians deaths for each terrorist death with these drone strikes. Not a good ratio of 'collateral damage' if you ask me. Seems that there is some obvious shortcomings in the act of pressing a button half in the USA to kill someone in Pakistan. Intelligence failures galore!!

[bud]

Various reports indicated that there are 5 civilians deaths for each terrorist death with these drone strikes. Not a good ratio of 'collateral damage' if you ask me. Seems that there is some obvious shortcomings in the act of pressing a button half in the USA to kill someone in Pakistan. Intelligence failures galore!!

as long as you have them justifying it to themselves and believing: "the bottom line is: 'whose 4-year-olds get killed?'", then it's okay.

[DogOnPorch]

Various reports indicated that there are 5 civilians deaths for each terrorist death with these drone strikes. Not a good ratio of 'collateral damage' if you ask me. Seems that there is some obvious shortcomings in the act of pressing a button half in the USA to kill someone in Pakistan. Intelligence failures galore!!

The actual ratio is around 3.6-1 Terrorist---> Civilian. This is using the maximum reported numbers of killed and civilian* deaths. Not sure what 'reports' you're using. I'm also not always convinced civilian deaths are the result of the actual strike, as often there are numerous sympathetic explosions when the bad guy's ammo stores etc go off. There's numerous examples of this online...

*What exactly is a civilian in Waziristan?