the historic iran deal and its opponents

[bud]

The report claims it was Iran...not Iraq. You're free to disagree as usual.

where in the report? what are you reading in rue's first link? because this is what i'm reading:

In fact, until that point, no civilian in the world ever had. The mustard-gas bombs dropped on Sardasht on that afternoon were the first time a chemical weapon was used on a civilian town. In the following months, Saddam Hussein’s troops would drop these deadly bombs on several other villages in Iran as well as on Kurdish settlements in Iraq itself, including the infamous bombing of Halabja.

As Saddam’s inhumane campaign progressed, the consequences of a chemical attack quickly became known. But on this June afternoon, the people of Sardasht were bewildered by what was happening.

Edited November 30, 2013 by bud

[DogOnPorch]

Meh...you'll disagree regardless what anything says. Either way, Iran's mullahs used child soldiers and are not above using children again.

[bud]

Meh...you'll disagree regardless what anything says.

i will disagree with misinformation and lies, regardless. yes. as you did.

the article he posted says nothing about iran using chemical weapons. it talks about iraq using it. if we can't be honest and forward and agree on simple facts like this and instead engage in lying and misrepresentation, then what is the point of debating?

[DogOnPorch]

i will disagree with misinformation and lies, regardless. yes. as you did.

the article he posted says nothing about iran using chemical weapons. it talks about iraq using it. if we can't be honest and forward and agree on simple facts like this and instead engage in lying and misrepresentation, then what is the point of debating?

Then I suggest you read the links again carefully this time. It certainly is a possibility. Or do you believe that chemical weapons...like you do with atomic weapons...are of no interest to the Iranian dictatorship?

Edited November 29, 2013 by DogOnPorch

[DogOnPorch]

bud: some bring up long range missiles, which are their right to have.

Sure. But, what are ballistic missiles with a 3km CEP for? Conventional warheads?

[bud]

Then I suggest you read the links again carefully this time. It certainly is a possibility. Or do you believe that chemical weapons...like you do with atomic weapons...are of no interest to the Iranian dictatorship?

i was pointing to the first link he posted. when everyone already knows that it was iraq who used CW against the iranians and kurdish civilians and the first link he posts actually counters whatever fantasy he's trying to create, why is there a need to take anything else he spews seriously?

it would be a shame for you to ruin the moment of honesty and integrity by trying to apologize for rue.

[DogOnPorch]

Heh...you're the one claiming Iran has zero nuclear ambitions. So...why does Iran need ballistic missiles with a 3km CEP, anyways? Surely you're up enough on Iran's non-existent programs to comment.

Edited November 29, 2013 by DogOnPorch

[bud]

Heh...you're the one claiming Iran has zero nuclear ambitions. So...why does Iran need ballistic missiles with a 3km CEP, anyways? Surely you're up enough on Iran's non-existent programs to comment.

baby steps dop.

we're talking about rue's spreading of misinformation and now you're changing the subject.

regarding iran's nuclear weapons programs. no need to take my word for it, take the word of both the u.s. intelligence organizations and israeli intelligence organizations - but not bibi's personal intelligence agency that shows no proof and it contradicts the others - they all say, that iran does not have a nuclear weapons program. all of them.

here is the national intelligence estimates for iran: nuclear intentions and capabilities

if you have a problem how far their missiles can travel, go have a debate with the intelligence agencies in u.s. and israel.

[DogOnPorch]

CEP = circular error probability. A CEP of 3km means your ballistic missile...on a good day...will land on average 3km away from the intended impact point. This leads to the conclusion that either:

a] Iranians, as a people, are stupid and are wasting their billions (which they don't apparently have) on useless ballistic missiles.

or

b] There are plans to put atomic warheads on top when all the fuss has settled.

But, sure...Iran is only interested in putting chimps into space.

[Rue]

read your own links, rue. the only controversy is in your head.

your link talks about iraq using chemical weapons on iranians. i don't know if these displays by you are on purpose to spread misinformation or you are spreading misinformation because you have a terrible attention span and cannot tell the difference between iran and iraq.

your display here is extremely pathetic.

Bud I stated and I quote:

"Dog Iran used chemical weapons against Kurds according to kurd refugees and towards the end of the Iraq-Iran war. It is true Iraq initiated their use."

I made it clear both sides used gas on the kurds and that is why I presented two sites, one discussing the Iraq attacks on Kurds with chemicals, the other the Iranian ones.

Interesting Bud you try manipulate that to be misinformation. How is it misinformation Bud? How is it misrepresentation to show both sides of that Kurd issue. Lol.

Bud not only do you again try attack me personally to avoid debating but you again show how disingenuine you are.

You refuse to acknowledge the other sites. Your entire response tries to take one response and ignore the rest.

The one site you manipulate only talks of the Kurd attacks.

The very sites you claimed I could not provide because you called me a liar are there...and what do you do? Lol you refuse to respond to them, just like you refuse to disclose your tribe, religion, connection to Iran and give proper details on this alleged thesis you wrote where you tried to pose as an arms expert.

Lol Bud walk away. Every time you try avoid debating and instead engage me in personal attack it just exposes your tactics.

You Bud have come on this board and demanded people be held to a standard you show you yourself won't abide by.

You attacked my religion and Jewish identity under the pretext of Israeli policy criticism and have the nerve to hide your own identity.

You claim to write a thesis and won't respond explaining who you wrote it to and where.

Go on Bud, finish what you started. What university? Who did you write it for. What was it for. Do give us a web-site so we can read it.

Do explain how you are not of a religion and tribe that makes you bias in favour of Iran...go on Bud finish what you started.....explain how those sites referring directly to Iranian chemical attacks don't exist, and are misrepresented. Finish it Bud. Or are you going to run from me again.

Lol.

Edited November 29, 2013 by Rue

[Rue]

we're talking about rue's spreading of misinformation and now you're changing the subject.

Bud the sites are up on the board. They clearly indicate Iran used chemicals at the end of the war. Attacking me personally has not worked.

Misinformation? How Bud is it misinformation when you ignore those sites?

Bud do you think you are being clever trying to take one article and ignore the rest?

You think if you ignore the rest they don't exist?

You think if you refuse to finish what you started and indicate your tribe, religion, connection to Iran and details of your thesis they are magically

forgtten?

Bud I will tighten the noose even further each time you use these disineguine propoganda tactics.

[Hudson Jones]

As usual, Rue is trying to do what he can to help the Zionist PR machine by making things up and then when called on, try to weasel himself out of it.

Let's look at a few of the links:

Dog Iran used chemical weapons against Kurds according to kurd refugees and towards the end of the Iraq-Iran war. It is true Iraq initiated their use. There is contraversy as to whether some attacks were by Iranians or in fact Iraqis against their own soldiers. Here are some sources you can look at Dog,

1-victims of Iran chemical attacks:

http://www.campaigniran.org/casmii/index.php?q=node/623

The link you have provided, attributes all chemical weapons attack to Iraq. Nothing about Iran using them.

0/1

2-a concise paper on use of chemicals by both sides during Iran-Iraq war (hint it was not written by Bud)

http://cns.miis.edu/npr/pdfs/81ali.pdf

also a reference to Iran's use of chemical weapons:

http://www.globalsecurity.org/wmd/world/iran/cw.htm

Here's an article that advances the position Kurds were attacked by Iran:

http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article5257.htm

There has never been any concrete evidence showing that Iran used chemical weapons. Just accusations, including the ones from the Americans, which were later shown to be invalid.

This is pretty much the only information in this piece that says Iran used chemical weapons:

"..there are reports that Iranian forces also began to retaliate with chemical attacks either from captured Iraqi chemical stores or indigenously produced agent stockpiles."

"There are reports".. The above refers to American reports which were later shown to be made up. Why? Because U.S. was on the side of Iraq and was even giving Iraq intelligence to use its chemical weapons (as it has be revealed from U.S. government papers). Another case of U.S. being an 'honest broker' in a war that they've picked a side and are active in.

Here is information from the same link:

Skeptics argue that the only evidence for the claim that Iran used chemical weapons during the war were unsubstantiated claims of the US government. There were allegations by the US Government at the time that Iran had used chemical weapons against the Kurdish village of Halabja in March 1988. Subsequently, these attacks were attributed by the US Government to Iraq alone.

0/2

Here is a wiki leak on China chemical weapons technology transfer to Iran (after the war of course):

http://shanghaiist.com/2011/04/22/wikileaks_chinese_company_zibo_chem.php

here's a citation for Iran supplying Libya with gas weapons-the interesting thing is this was done after Iran had condemned the use of chemical weapons:

http://www.ynetnews.com/articles/0,7340,L-4150853,00.html

So what if they had a chemical weapons program? So do hundreds of other countries including Israel (who happen to have a nuclear weapons program as well). This is not proof that Iran used chemical weapons. What a desperate attempt at trying to prove something else.

0/3

You are an irresponsible poster and not a good person for trying to spread misinformation.

[eyeball]

Meh...you'll disagree regardless what anything says. Either way, Iran's mullahs used child soldiers and are not above using children again.

Go figure...

[DogOnPorch]

Go figure...

Ah...John Clem. The youngest general in history. This photo is from about the summer of 1862 when he was a drummer boy with the Army of the Tennessee. The musket is for looks, btw. Disney made a movie about him called "Johnny Shiloh" to mark the 100th anniversary of John Clem running away to join-up with the Union.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tv-OGa8H6Ys

[DogOnPorch]

Now...am I to assume that eyeball is drawing some sort of moral equivalence to the use of drummer boys (volunteers...go figure) in the US Civil War to the drafting of child soldiers into modern combat situations?

Nahhhhh....

[DogOnPorch]

So...bud...do you have any ideas as to why Iran needs so many types of ballistic missiles with such poor accuracy since they have no interest in nuclear weapons? I didn't get your answer to that question.

[Rue]

So its "Hudson Jones" now not Bud now is it. Lol. What that's supposed to mean you can comment on the quotes Bud

has ignored? Lol. Say now you will take over right and his refusal to respond directly to the quotes I provided and his tribe, religion and connection to Iran? What poof? He does not have to respond because you coincidentally have stepped in now and this is supposed to distract from that refusal to disclose?

Say now I will just forget because you are here?

Lol So tell me "Hudson Jones" because I provide quotes I am asked for and because you do not agree with them that makes them "irresponsible"? Lol. Is that how it works? You need to pre-screen them and agree with them before they are "responsible"? Ahah. Right. No no. Remember I don't work for your editors "Hudson Jones".

Hudson this latest tactic of trying to isolate one site's wording that you think favours your position and ignoring the rest failed with Bud and you come right back and engage in the exact same syntax and tactic?

I deliberately provided the quotes I did because unlike you I have nothing to hide or worry about if some of the quotes provide two sides of the debate. You mistake me for you 'Hudson Jones" or "Bud". No I do not reason as you do. I am not the one who believes that in a debate there is only one side of the argument and if someone shows both it makes them lack credibility. That is your absurd thought process not mine. In fact Hudson I stated when I quoted the sites I was asked to provide-I stated in my introduction to those quotes that some accused Iran of using gas in some instances when others said Iraq did it to their their own soldiers or the Kurds. I said that in my intro and I have never denied ever that Iraq never used gas.

"Hudson Jones" the fact that Iraq may have used gas does not automatically mean Iran did not. It means sure there are certain reports where what is blamed on Iran could be Iraq's doing but then the inverse would also hold true.

You see "Hudson Jones" some of us see both sides to every argument and we don't see one as contradicting the other automatically. We see shades of grey not black and white.

In any illegal use of chemicals during war, the opponents will of course lie to their self advantage.

So for you to try come on this board and misrepresent it as proving Iran did not use chemicals is absurd.

More to the point Hudson, you have provided nothing, absolutely nothing to counter the quotes I provided other than to do what Bud does and we are all familiar with the tactic-name call.

Instead of providing proof or evidence to show the quotes I provided are wrong you make the absurd accusation that since the US supplied Iraq with chemical weapons, Iran never used chemical weapons.

That of course shows the exact same illogic Bud uses. You to write exactly in the same syntax and references. Amazing how that works.

Go on Hudson Jones, explain if the US provided Iraq chemicals this automatically means any information that suggests Iran used chemicals is part of American lies as you have stated.

You can't.

Interesting isn't it "Hudson Jones" that when you and "Bud" provide quotes you pass them off as absolute truth.

On the other hand if I provide one you disagree with is a "Zionist" or "American"lie.

You provide zero basis to dispute the quotes and think you can write them off by simply suggesting they are part of a conspiracy.

No "Hudson Jones" or "Bud" or whoever wants to come back on now-simply dismissing all these sites as an American conspiracy is not working now is it.

Name calling will not fill the void for your lack of response or ability to provide information to dispute what you demanded.

As I said Hudson Jones, Bud, whatever, as fast as you think you can plaster up one sided partisan, subjective, anti-Semitic, name calling and unsubstantiated opinions I will with ease counter them and then read with great amusement as you try attack me personally because you can't respond to the points I raised.

Lol.

Go on boys, anything else?

By the way "Hudson Jones' you do know Bud demanded I provide the quotes and suggested I was a liar for not providing them-how about him? Why do you think he demands I disclose things but he won't. How is it he attacks me for being a Jew and suggests this is a tribal affiliation and is the reason I support Zionism but after repeated requests to him he refuses to disclose his tribe and religion? Say now is that a double standard "Hudson Jones"?

Say now "Hudson Jones" you attacked me for being a Jew tribe member and as a result Zionist zealot,w ill you do the same if Bud is a Shiite Muslim? Will you insult him like you did me and accuse him of only supporting Iran because he is a Shiite? Would you or is that simply reserved for Jew tribe members?

Tell me "Hudson Jones" why is it he would state he wrote a thesis, but then suddenly refuse to disclose who he wrote it for? How does he pose as an academic expert on Iran-Iraq military weapons but won't reveal his thesis?

Say now, while we are at it, tell me "Hudson Jones" is the fact that you are part German as you said, indicative of a Nazi past and therefore bias against Israel? Also, did your Christian heritage and being exposed to the passion play expose you to your bias you now hold that Jews should not have the right to own land and live in their own state?

Say now Hudson Jones could it be your bias in favour of Christian institutions connected to their states that encouraged and promoted anti-Semitic attacks is why you are create a double standard and will not criticize Christian state institutions, only Jewish ones?

Bud clearly won't finish what he started, what about you?

Now Hudson, when you want to take the quotes I provided and prove them wrong, go ahead. Until then attacing me personally for being a Jew and trying to deflect from both your inability and Bud's to respond to the quotes I provided by trying to focus only on one quote will not work.

Bud's hiding from me and your latest intervention to not detract from his refusal to disclose his thesis, tribe and religion and ties to Iran.

Get this clear as well "Hudson Jones". I am not you. When I present information backing what I said, I am not afraid to also present information from the other side to balance it. This is why when I present it, I provide balancing in my responses. I specifically stated when I provided the quotes that some people have blamed certain Iran chemical attacks on Iraq. That proves I read the information you claim I never did and further proves how absurd it is for you to try argue I was hiding this information. I bloody well presented it out in the open.

Unlike you I present both sides of the argument.

You just can't flex past your script and reasoning process that can only see black and white. Here let me spell it out.

The fact that Iraq used chemical weapons does not automatically mean Iran did not. That is illogical.

Even if we were to believe as you stated that the US provided chemicals to Iraq, this does not mean automatically that Iran did not also acquire and use chemical weapons.

No Hudson the fact that Iraq used them does not necessarily have to mean Iran did not. That makes no sense at all.

Its not working "Mr.Jones".

Iran now possesses, and has used chemical weapons in the Iraq war and you have failed to prove otherwise.

As we speak Iran continues to develop them while condoning their use. They condone their use but had no problem giving them to Syria, Hezbollah, Libya.

What you want to persist with this hilarity that Iran does not have chemical weapons and did not supply them to Syria and Hezbollah and Libya to name but 3 parties?

Get this clear as well. Kurds await a state. They are the largest population, far larger than Palestinians, without a state.

They have been attacked by Iraq, Turkey and Iran. If your script won't allow you to acknowledge Iran's role in these attacks both in Iraq and Iran as wells Turkey and what weapons they all used against these Kurds-this does not mean Iran did not use gas it just means you are not allowed to admit that in your scripts.

Go tell your editors I said, hah hah and tutt tutt.

By the way let me know when Bud is back and reveals his tribe,religion, connection to Iran and thesis.

Edited November 30, 2013 by Rue

[Rue]

Hudson to show you how ludicrous your attempt at dismissing any information

suggesting Iran has chemicals is part of an American government lie enjoy

this anti American site which states Iran possesses chemical weapons and has used

them against their neighbours. Oh do explain how this site is an American

conspiracy site.

www.antiwar.com/orig/hirsch.php?/articleid=7542.

[eyeball]

Now...am I to assume that eyeball is drawing some sort of moral equivalence to the use of drummer boys (volunteers...go figure) in the US Civil War to the drafting of child soldiers into modern combat situations?

Nahhhhh....

Speaking of moral equivalence, mullahs and modern combat situations. What about the military assistance the US provides to countries that still use kids?

The US is actually lower than the mullahs when you think about it. The arms length vicarious nature of US complicity in the use of child soldiers certainly doesn't lessen it's guilt - given it knows better and even has laws against it only exacerbates it.

The White House on Monday afternoon announced that it had issued blanket waivers to three countries, allowing them to receive military aid despite their ongoing use of child soldiers despite a 2008 law to the contrary. Link

[bush_cheney2004]

The US is actually lower than the mullahs when you think about it. The arms length vicarious nature of US complicity in the use of child soldiers certainly doesn't lessen it's guilt - given it knows better and even has laws against it only exacerbates it.

No more "guilty" than the Canadian mining companies who directly benefit from such conflicts, or the "complicit" CIDA funding, or the Canadian pension plans that invest in "warmonger" arms corporations and mining concerns.

In September, the Canadian International Development Agency announced a controversial multimillion-dollar grant to three leading international charities who will partner with major Canadian mining firms on development initiatives in African and Latin American countries in which these companies operate.

http://www.mapleleafweb.com/forums/topic/23175-the-historic-iran-deal-and-its-opponents/page-5#entry933050

Fortunately for some, a smug sense of superiority about such things is free.

[eyeball]

USA? USA? USA?

[DogOnPorch]

Speaking of moral equivalence, mullahs and modern combat situations. What about the military assistance the US provides to countries that still use kids?

The US is actually lower than the mullahs when you think about it. The arms length vicarious nature of US complicity in the use of child soldiers certainly doesn't lessen it's guilt - given it knows better and even has laws against it only exacerbates it.

I don't speak for the USA and they have long stopped the use of drummer boys. But, if I was 'in charge', there'd be a few changes, indeed. You'd complain I was too harsh in dealing with dictatorships, at that point, I imagine.

[bud]

So...bud...do you have any ideas as to why Iran needs so many types of ballistic missiles with such poor accuracy since they have no interest in nuclear weapons? I didn't get your answer to that question.

any idea why israel needs them? why over 40 other countries have them?

any idea why israel needs over 200 nuclear weapons? any idea why they won't sign the NPT?

any idea why israel needs chemical and biological weapons? any idea why they won't ratify the chemical weapons convention?

[DogOnPorch]

Can I assume that means you are in agreement with me in that Iran ultimately plans to put nuclear warheads on top of their ballistic missiles? Or are you going with the Iranians = Stupid scenario?

Conversely, can you name 5 of these forty countries using Iran's missiles?

Edited December 1, 2013 by DogOnPorch

[GostHacked]

Lemme guess, all 5 of those countries surround Israel too right??

Child soldiers eh?

We have reports of Syrian children being targeted by snipers and used by BOTH sides. But yet the west is supporting known terrorists.

When is Israel coming clean with it's nuclear stockpile?