Enjoy an Ads-Free Jets Insider - Become a Jets Insider VIP!
Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast
Results 1 to 20 of 23

Thread: when ruumy was friends with saddam

  1. #1
    All Pro
    Join Date
    Jul 2003
    Posts
    5,108
    Post Thanks / Like
    Iran Court Orders U.S. to Pay $600 Million
    1 hour, 8 minutes ago Add World - Reuters to My Yahoo!



    TEHRAN (Reuters) - An Iranian court has ruled the United States should pay $600 million in compensation for supplying ousted Iraqi leader Saddam Hussein (news - web sites) with chemical weapons, the official IRNA news agency said on Wednesday.



    IRNA said the money in the case, brought by Iranian war veterans and disabled, should be paid to survivors of attacks on the town of Sardasht which borders Iraq (news - web sites).


    Iraqi gas attacks killed thousands of Iranians and Iraqi Kurds in the 1980-1988 Iran-Iraq war. Hundreds of thousands died on both sides and Iran has thousands disabled by chemical arms.


    No further details were available and Iranian officials were unavailable for any immediate comment.


    "The court has ordered the American government to pay the money for furnishing Saddam with chemical weapons to attack Iran," IRNA reported.


    The United States and Iran have been at odds since 1979 when more than 50 Americans were held hostage by Iranian student militants at the U.S. Embassy in Tehran for 444 days after the Islamic revolution.


    The verdict was submitted to the Swiss Embassy which has covered U.S. interests in Iran since Washington cut ties with Tehran in 1980.

  2. #2
    Hall Of Fame
    Join Date
    Apr 2003
    Location
    Boston
    Posts
    11,692
    Post Thanks / Like
    Who should we make the check out to? :blink:

  3. #3
    All Pro
    Join Date
    Jul 2003
    Posts
    5,108
    Post Thanks / Like
    I do think it's kind of funny when the war administration (aka Bush/cheney/rummy/wolfi) claims that Saddam had to be taken out b/c he has a history of using chemical weapons against his enemys...
    It's hysterical b/c he used the same chemical weapons we gave him!
    We also gave him Iranian troop locations so he new where to use them!

    OH how regular working men and women get caught up in the stupid power wars of stupid power mongers.

  4. #4
    All Pro
    Join Date
    Mar 2004
    Posts
    6,408
    Post Thanks / Like
    [quote][i]Originally posted by bman[/i]@Apr 28 2004, 12:10 PM
    [b] I do think it's kind of funny when the war administration (aka Bush/cheney/rummy/wolfi) claims that Saddam had to be taken out b/c he has a history of using chemical weapons against his enemys...
    It's hysterical b/c he used the same chemical weapons we gave him!
    We also gave him Iranian troop locations so he new where to use them!

    OH how regular working men and women get caught up in the stupid power wars of stupid power mongers. [/b][/quote]
    Its interesting that you believe anything the Iranian courts say and yet you call our president a liar. The only light this sheds is on your backwards logic.

  5. #5
    All Pro
    Join Date
    Jul 2003
    Posts
    5,108
    Post Thanks / Like
    yo..
    ITS FACT! look it up

  6. #6
    Hall Of Fame
    Join Date
    Apr 2003
    Location
    Detroit, Michigan
    Posts
    8,682
    Post Thanks / Like
    The only bad part in that whole thing is that Saddam didn't kill more Iranians.

  7. #7
    All Pro
    Join Date
    Jul 2003
    Posts
    5,108
    Post Thanks / Like
    [url=http://www.gwu.edu/~nsarchiv/NSAEBB/NSAEBB82/press.htm]http://www.gwu.edu/~nsarchiv/NSAEBB/NSAEBB82/press.htm[/url]

  8. #8
    All Pro
    Join Date
    Jul 2003
    Posts
    5,108
    Post Thanks / Like
    Fear of Iraq Collapse in Iran-Iraq War Motivated Reagan Administration Support;
    U.S. Goals Were Access to Oil, Projection of Power, and Protection of Allies;
    Rumsfeld Failed to Raise Chemical Weapons Issue in Personal Meetings with Saddam



    Washington, D.C., 25 February 2003-- "The National Security Archive at George Washington University today published on the Web a series of declassified U.S. documents detailing the U.S. embrace of Saddam Hussein in the early 1980's, including the renewal of diplomatic relations that had been suspended since 1967. The documents show that during this period of renewed U.S. support for Saddam, he had invaded his neighbor (Iran), had long-range nuclear aspirations that would 'probably' include 'an eventual nuclear weapon capability,' harbored known terrorists in Baghdad, abused the human rights of his citizens, and possessed and used chemical weapons on Iranians and his own people [Halabja attack has since been disputed as Iranian gas]. The U.S. response was to renew [diplomatic and military] ties, to provide intelligence and aid to ensure Iraq would not be defeated by Iran, and to send a high-level presidential envoy named Donald Rumsfeld to shake hands with Saddam [Hussein] (20 December 1983)."

  9. #9
    All Pro
    Join Date
    Mar 2004
    Posts
    6,408
    Post Thanks / Like
    [quote][i]Originally posted by bman[/i]@Apr 28 2004, 12:21 PM
    [b] Fear of Iraq Collapse in Iran-Iraq War Motivated Reagan Administration Support;
    U.S. Goals Were Access to Oil, Projection of Power, and Protection of Allies;
    Rumsfeld Failed to Raise Chemical Weapons Issue in Personal Meetings with Saddam



    Washington, D.C., 25 February 2003-- "The National Security Archive at George Washington University today published on the Web a series of declassified U.S. documents detailing the U.S. embrace of Saddam Hussein in the early 1980's, including the renewal of diplomatic relations that had been suspended since 1967. The documents show that during this period of renewed U.S. support for Saddam, he had invaded his neighbor (Iran), had long-range nuclear aspirations that would 'probably' include 'an eventual nuclear weapon capability,' harbored known terrorists in Baghdad, abused the human rights of his citizens, and possessed and used chemical weapons on Iranians and his own people [Halabja attack has since been disputed as Iranian gas]. The U.S. response was to renew [diplomatic and military] ties, to provide intelligence and aid to ensure Iraq would not be defeated by Iran, and to send a high-level presidential envoy named Donald Rumsfeld to shake hands with Saddam [Hussein] (20 December 1983)." [/b][/quote]
    I'm sorry. I missed the part where it says that we handed Saddam Chemical weapons. Could you highlight that for me. Thanks.

  10. #10
    Hall Of Fame
    Join Date
    Apr 2003
    Location
    Boston
    Posts
    11,692
    Post Thanks / Like
    bman - this says that Saddam harbored terrorists in Baghdad...how does that reconcile with your previous assertion?

    I suppose the US should have let Iran (backed by the Soviets) to simply take over the entire ME. That would have been just dandy and nothing bad would have come from it.

    That war was unbelievably costly for BOTH sides, substantially weakening both countries.

    What should the USA have done, boss? Seriously - I want to know what you think we should have done. Often, circumstances are such that tough choices have to be made. Ah, but half-assed kids like you, who hate Bush presently, can go back and cherry-pick history and take things wildly out of context to prove some lame "point" about how our attitudes towards Saddam has changed over the years.

    Guess what? We trained OBL too! We helped those guys fight off "invaders" and potential "occupiers" in the 80's. Then we left them alone, and we are blamed for doing that! We are blamed for NOT pre-empting 9-11, yet blamed for pre-empting Saddam. We are blamed for "interfering" in some countries, than blamed for NOT interfering in others.

    Pretend it 1945 - WWII has just ended and ther Soviet menace is growing unabated. What do you do?? Huh? I am waiting with bated breath for your reply....

  11. #11
    All Pro
    Join Date
    Jul 2003
    Posts
    5,108
    Post Thanks / Like
    we provided weaponry and troop locations to saddam to fight the iranians..We also provided helichopters that were used to disperse the chemicals..We knew he had them and didn't care when he used them against the iranians..

    so if hypocritical to cite his use of them in the 80's as a reson for war in 2003.

  12. #12
    Hall Of Fame
    Join Date
    Apr 2003
    Location
    Detroit, Michigan
    Posts
    8,682
    Post Thanks / Like
    [quote][i]Originally posted by bman[/i]@Apr 28 2004, 01:35 PM
    [b] we provided weaponry and troop locations to saddam to fight the iranians..We also provided helichopters that were used to disperse the chemicals..We knew he had them and didn't care when he used them against the iranians..

    so if hypocritical to cite his use of them in the 80's as a reson for war in 2003. [/b][/quote]
    You're on crack.

    Where did you hear this?

    I want legitimate proof from an independent source online.

    Relying on the liberal methods of sole accusations without proof will not work. I want evidence, and it can't come from a liberal leaning publication.

    Making wild and ridiculous accusations without facts to back it up won't work anymore. Your boogeyman theories have grown tiring.


    BTW take it from a guy with a history degree concentrating in military history, their (Iraq) major method of chemical munition delivery was via Artillery, not crop dusting hilocopters.



    One more thing. I suppsoe that FRENCH Exocet missle fired from that FRENCH Mirage fighter that hit the USS Stark was what....delivered by us too???

  13. #13
    All Pro
    Join Date
    Jul 2003
    Posts
    5,108
    Post Thanks / Like
    it's a fact that we provided satellite photos of iranian troop locations to saddam during his war..
    we also knew he had chemical weapons and didn't care that he used them

  14. #14
    Hall Of Fame
    Join Date
    Apr 2003
    Location
    Detroit, Michigan
    Posts
    8,682
    Post Thanks / Like
    [quote][i]Originally posted by bman[/i]@Apr 28 2004, 01:48 PM
    [b] it's a fact that we provided satellite photos of iranian troop locations to saddam during his war..
    we also knew he had chemical weapons and didn't care that he used them [/b][/quote]
    It's a [u][b]fact[/b][/u] eh? Who says so? Where do you read this?

    And it's interesting that you've went from "[u]We provided chemical weapons and their methods of delivery[/u]" to "[u]We knew they had them and didn't care[/u]".

  15. #15
    Hall Of Fame
    Join Date
    Apr 2003
    Location
    Boston
    Posts
    11,692
    Post Thanks / Like
    [quote][i]Originally posted by bman[/i]@Apr 28 2004, 12:35 PM
    [b] we provided weaponry and troop locations to saddam to fight the iranians..We also provided helichopters that were used to disperse the chemicals..We knew he had them and didn't care when he used them against the iranians..

    so if hypocritical to cite his use of them in the 80's as a reson for war in 2003. [/b][/quote]
    Really? So Saddam is merely a victim?

    Look - Back then it was in our interest to stop the Iranians and the Soviets from gaining a stranglehold on the ME, which they tried to do, aggressively. We ushered in a coup in Iran, helped the mujahadeen in Afghanistan, and aided Iraq in the Iran-Iraq War, among other things. We could have done nothing, or we could have used our own troops to achieve our goals in those areas. You are telling me that letting the Soviets prop up their own puppets, or outrightly control that region would not have engendered cries of "foul!" by arabs?? C'mon - it was not even a decade since the US brought out all the stops to save the Europeans from themselves, now, one of our allies in WWII was trying to take away land from the Muslims and you think we could have just sat back and done nothing? Even if oil and Israel are removed from the equation, the Muslims would have blamed us for our inaction! They would have said that the USA only cares about European, white Christians and not for the arabs.

    You also think the country was ready for another major-scale war, so soon? So, in light of these circumatances, the USA, beig forced to choose between several bad options, chose to support groups that were already in place and able to be effective. Do you think we LIKED doing that coup? Do you think we LIKED supporting Saddam? Do you think we didn't realize that this had potential ramifications down the line? Do you think we liked all of that? Do you think we are just "evil?" C'mon man, think! Terrorism had been growing before and during this time - it is foolish to connect the genesis of Islamic, anti-western terror to a few actions here and there. The pressing danger back then was communism, and it is laregely why we did what we did in the ME, although oil and Israel are parts of it, and is why we did what we did in Korea and Vietnam. (Oil does not ONLY mean "profits for Enron" as the left would have you believe, the world economy, which is largely reliant on the US, would have been severely damaged by a Soviet supply-side monopoly on ME oil. Then, areas of the world would have becmoe depressed. Soviets most definitely would have butcherd and oppressed their ME underlings, as they even did to their own people! The USA would have been slammed for ALLOWING it to happen)

    Spare me this revisionist nonsense. Yeah - it's unfortunate that we had to support Saddam. The alternative was to fight that war using our own men or to allow the Soviets to dominate. It's unfortunate that terrorists are trying to kill westerners. That is the present danger we face and we are in the process of taking care of the problem. EVERY problem seems insurmountable while it is going on. After we accomplish our goals, some other problem or threat will face us, and everyone will trip over themselves trying to freach back into history in order to blame the USA for the problem. It's just pointless - as if there was this magical other option that could have ensured a 100% chance at lasting world peace without any threats of terror, only the USA knowingly didn't choose it because they wanted to "profit" or be "imperialist" or "isolationist" or whatever the conspiracy-du-jour is at the time.

    So keep on keeping on and ripping Bush and bending over backwards to villify America. Serious people who can think past Stage One, with perspective, will cotinue on with the thankless and tough business of running the world.

    If America is so bad - how come people are riding in small rafts through shark-infested waters to get IN, and not OUT? How come millions of Texans and Californians aren't feeling to Mexico? Why do you live here? What is so bad about your life that you have to resort to lazy investigations?

  16. #16
    All Pro
    Join Date
    Jul 2003
    Posts
    5,108
    Post Thanks / Like
    so in order to have freedom and kive in America we have to invade and occupy other countrys..
    I don't think so..
    Did I ever say I hate America? Believe me the Bush administration does NOT represent you or myself..
    why is it that conservatives always have to resort to this "love it or leave it crap!

  17. #17
    All Pro
    Join Date
    Mar 2004
    Posts
    6,408
    Post Thanks / Like
    [quote][i]Originally posted by bman[/i]@Apr 28 2004, 12:48 PM
    [b] it's a fact that we provided satellite photos of iranian troop locations to saddam during his war..
    we also knew he had chemical weapons and didn't care that he used them

    bman - this says that Saddam harbored terrorists in Baghdad...how does that reconcile with your previous assertion?

    I suppose the US should have let Iran (backed by the Soviets) to simply take over the entire ME. That would have been just dandy and nothing bad would have come from it.

    That war was unbelievably costly for BOTH sides, substantially weakening both countries.

    What should the USA have done, boss? Seriously - I want to know what you think we should have done. Often, circumstances are such that tough choices have to be made. Ah, but half-assed kids like you, who hate Bush presently, can go back and cherry-pick history and take things wildly out of context to prove some lame "point" about how our attitudes towards Saddam has changed over the years.

    Guess what? We trained OBL too! We helped those guys fight off "invaders" and potential "occupiers" in the 80's. Then we left them alone, and we are blamed for doing that! We are blamed for NOT pre-empting 9-11, yet blamed for pre-empting Saddam. We are blamed for "interfering" in some countries, than blamed for NOT interfering in others.

    Pretend it 1945 - WWII has just ended and ther Soviet menace is growing unabated. What do you do?? Huh? I am waiting with bated breath for your reply....
    [/b][/quote]
    Did you not read 5eva's previous post?? Of coorse we helped saddam against the Iranians. It made sense at the time. The greater enemy was USSR.

  18. #18
    All Pro
    Join Date
    Jul 2003
    Posts
    5,108
    Post Thanks / Like
    I agree..
    but don't cite his chemical weapon usage as a reson to go to war..
    we helped him.

  19. #19
    All Pro
    Join Date
    Mar 2004
    Posts
    6,408
    Post Thanks / Like
    [quote][i]Originally posted by bman[/i]@Apr 28 2004, 01:29 PM
    [b] I agree..
    but don't cite his chemical weapon usage as a reson to go to war..
    we helped him. [/b][/quote]
    The reason we went to war is 3 fold.

    1) In 1991 when Iraq surrendered in the Gulf War he agreed to certain terms which he had violated. That alone was justification for the resumption of hostilities.

    2) In the post 9/11 era it was more important than ever before to deal with rogue states with WMD. The possibility of some of Saddams WMD ending up ravaging US soil was too great to ignore.

    3) The historic opportunity to affect change in the ME by planting the seeds of Democracy in the Heart of the Axis of Evil.

  20. #20
    Hall Of Fame
    Join Date
    Apr 2003
    Location
    Boston
    Posts
    11,692
    Post Thanks / Like
    Bman -

    How do you get "in order to have freedom we have to invade and occupy other countries" from my post? Seriously - cause I am beginning to regret wasting effort on you.

    Nothing boils down to "love it or leave it" that is nonsense. Your animus for Bush has warped your ability to reason. I systematically pointed out the flaws in your half-assed implications and 'gotcha!' style of debate. You resort to clinging to "Bush is wrong! Bush is wrong!" even as you are being spanked.

    I think I'm done with this...Weeb is right - there's no use discussing things with some people. Bush is evil, the Iraq War is evil, America is the cause of the world's problems and you are more of a patriot than Pat Tillman. Have fun....

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  

Follow Us