'Saddam's Palace May Be New U.S. Embassy'

by sf 90 Replies latest social current

• 

  frenchbabyface

  
  
  Yeru, I know I won't change your mind ... And I guess You know you won't change my mine on this matter (I'm trying to be objective and I see the situation from oustide the USAF) as you know different parts of your gov can acte independantly (which is not normal - without a real check everynow and then) cause what do they do for real ?. and people can do so much for for a salary and not even 1/2 millions dollars ... very easy to put the world on fire !
• 

  Yerusalyim

  Yeah, but you're still cute as the dickens. SMOOCHES!
• 

  frenchbabyface

  LOL ... SMOOCHES too !
• 

  William Penwell

  frenchbabyface ,

  Here some information you may find interesting. Since Bush's case for war on the premise of WoMD to date has not being proven, back in January of last year Bush tried to use the moral issue of Saddam using them on his own people. So building a case for war Bush has to "demonize" his enemy as much as possible. The writter is quoting from the The New York Times, Jan. 31, 2003. The writter goes on to say: "I am not trying to rehabilitate the character of Saddam Hussein. He has much to answer for in the area of human rights abuses. But accusing him of gassing his own people at Halabja as an act of genocide is not correct, because as far as the information we have goes, all of the cases where gas was used involved battles. These were tragedies of war. There may be justifications for invading Iraq, but Halabja is not one of them."

  A War Crime or an Act of War? By Stephen C. Pelletiere The New York Times , Jan. 31, 2003
  MECHANICSBURG, Pa. - It was no surprise that President Bush, lacking smoking-gun evidence of Iraq's weapons programs, used his State of the Union address to re-emphasize the moral case for an invasion: "The dictator who is assembling the world's most dangerous weapons has already used them on whole villages, leaving thousands of his own citizens dead, blind or disfigured."
  
  The accusation that Iraq has used chemical weapons against its citizens is a familiar part of the debate. The piece of hard evidence most frequently brought up concerns the gassing of Iraqi Kurds at the town of Halabja in March 1988, near the end of the eight-year Iran-Iraq war. President Bush himself has cited Iraq's "gassing its own people," specifically at Halabja, as a reason to topple Saddam Hussein.
  
  But the truth is, all we know for certain is that Kurds were bombarded with poison gas that day at Halabja. We cannot say with any certainty that Iraqi chemical weapons killed the Kurds. This is not the only distortion in the Halabja story.
  
  I am in a position to know because, as the Central Intelligence Agency's senior political analyst on Iraq during the Iran-Iraq war, and as a professor at the Army War College from 1988 to 2000, I was privy to much of the classified material that flowed through Washington having to do with the Persian Gulf. In addition, I headed a 1991 Army investigation into how the Iraqis would fight a war against the United States; the classified version of the report went into great detail on the Halabja affair. This much about the gassing at Halabja we undoubtedly know: it came about in the course of a battle between Iraqis and Iranians. Iraq used chemical weapons to try to kill Iranians who had seized the town, which is in northern Iraq not far from the Iranian border. The Kurdish civilians who died had the misfortune to be caught up in that exchange. But they were not Iraq's main target.
  And the story gets murkier: immediately after the battle the United States Defense Intelligence Agency investigated and produced a classified report, which it circulated within the intelligence community on a need-to-know basis. That study asserted that it was Iranian gas that killed the Kurds, not Iraqi gas.
  The agency did find that each side used gas against the other in the battle around Halabja. The condition of the dead Kurds' bodies, however, indicated they had been killed with a blood agent - that is, a cyanide-based gas - which Iran was known to use. The Iraqis, who are thought to have used mustard gas in the battle, are not known to have possessed blood agents at the time.
  These facts have long been in the public domain but, extraordinarily, as often as the Halabja affair is cited, they are rarely mentioned. A much-discussed article in The New Yorker last March did not make reference to the Defense Intelligence Agency report or consider that Iranian gas might have killed the Kurds. On the rare occasions the report is brought up, there is usually speculation, with no proof, that it was skewed out of American political favoritism toward Iraq in its war against Iran.
  
  I am not trying to rehabilitate the character of Saddam Hussein. He has much to answer for in the area of human rights abuses. But accusing him of gassing his own people at Halabja as an act of genocide is not correct, because as far as the information we have goes, all of the cases where gas was used involved battles. These were tragedies of war. There may be justifications for invading Iraq, but Halabja is not one of them.
  
  http://www.wanniski.com/showarticle.asp?articleid=2434

  Will
• 

  Yerusalyim

  Will,

  I have a hard time telling...surely you don't believe this was a battle? There was no need to try to demonize Saddam, a million dead Iraqis have already done that.
• 

  frenchbabyface

  
  Thanks Will ... this kind of report seems more logical to me
  (fortunatly some people are talking)

  Yeru : Demonizing they had to : ... American soldiers would not just go for oil (I mean they made it that way ... you need to feel you are the savior to support and for your soldiers going to fight with their heart)
  
  (good stuff can hide bad stuff - bad stuff can hide good stuff) ... WE ARE TOOLS in their HANDS (if we don't know the truth)
• 

  Yerusalyim

  French Fry

  Yeru : Demonizing they had to : ... American soldiers would not just go for oil (I mean they made it that way ... you need to feel you are the savior to support and for your soldiers going to fight with their heart)

  First darlin..the charge that this war was about US control of oil has to be given legs to walk on...it doesn't. Secondly...no one had to demonize Saddam, he did that himself...or does being responsible for the death of a million or more people not qualify?
• 

  frenchbabyface

  
  
  Oil ... well it is not only about oil ... (A WHOLE COUNTRY just imagine what they can get out of THAT !)

  Yeru, I wonder ... have you ever been against the gov about war ? (since you are in the USAF)
• 

  William Penwell

  Yerusalyim ,

  For one thing this information was for frenchbabyface . If you have a point to make why don't you get your facts first. You said "surely you don't believe this was a battle?" I was quoting the above source and that happened during the war between Iran and Iraq. Can you show proof to the contrary? Can you back up your statement "a million dead Iraqis have already done that"? Where is your figures for the dead millions? I have have done a search and stated what has been a known at the time whether you agree with it or not. I like the writer are not trying to minimize Saddam culpability but lets get the facts straight.

  Will
• 

  William Penwell

  f renchbabyface ,

  Your welcome. I am also a proponent of the truth. So far the only lies and exaggeration are coming from one side. It would be funny if it wasn't so tragic that thousands are dying for that lie.

  Will