Yes, I know. Sir Derek Plumbly was in charge. The purpose was to sell the war on Iraq. It was decided before 9/11.
Bush's gaffe rings true.
- Thread starter Ray9
- Start date
your "pill" is not only bitter----it is idiotic. At no time did Bush shift the
"blame" for 9/11/01 to Iraq and Saddam Hussein. He CORRECTLY
presented your pal Saddam as an evil player in possession of weapons
designed to effectuate mass murder and seeking more. You did accomplish
one intelligent feat-----you juxtaposed PUTIN AND SADDAM
Last edited:
finally---an almost true statement from Suradie. The very justified war on
Iran did have to be SOLD and it was sold with a barrage of true information
Did you mean IRAQ? Iraq was crippled by two decades of war and sanctions. Toothless and in desperate need of oil services.
Nope. It was all lies.. and the most stupid foreign policy blunder in 50 years, but it followed Clean Break Strategy and the PNAC to the letter.
what was "all lies" ?----tens of thousands of murdered Kurds in the north and
and shiites in the south------ok he knew how to titillate his fellow Sunnis
in Sunni KSA ----AND his fellow islamo-nazi sunnis world-wide. My
preference would have been a surgical strike on Saddam-ass hoping that
such a move would cripple the sunni islamo-nazi grip .... at least to some
extent. Such a move would have been better than the war which actually
strengthened the hands of pro-Iranian shiites in Iraq
Idiots comment about Mustard gas weapons, They have a very short lifetime after being put in casing and what they found were way past their expiration date, There were no WMD, no nuclear program a complete lie got us into that mess, and it was Bush who pushed That lie. The big winners were Halliburton and Carlyle. Who Bush literally was directly aligned with. You want the whole truth, that's simple. Look up code name Curveball Rafid Ahmed Alwan al-Janabi, Curveball. Bush Murdered Millions, including 5000 American Heroes.That is not at all true.
Saddam never had any deadly WMD, and at best he had the irritant, mustard gas.
The civilians gassed in Halabja were killed by cyanide, by Iranians.
Saddam did not even have any ground forces there, and he was allied with the Kurds on the ground.
So there is no way Saddam could have used WMD on Halabja.
Nor was there any need, since the Iranian had already left.
And Saddam was allied with the Kurds at that point, not trying to exterminate them.
{...
‘Most of the casualties in Halabjah were reportedly caused by cyanogen chloride. This agent has never been used by Iraq, but Iran has shown interest in it. Mustard gas casualties in the town were probably caused by Iraqi weapons because Iran has never been noted using that agent.’[9]
...}
Allegations of Iranian Use of Chemical Weapons in the 1980–88 Gulf War – Halabja - The Trench - Jean Pascal Zanders
Click here to read "Allegations of Iranian Use of Chemical Weapons in the 1980–88 Gulf War – Halabja" and other latest updates from Jean Pascal Zanders, author of The Trench.www.the-trench.org
The best the hate party can do is back up their party by saying Democrats voted for war also, Good God even I thought that what Bush said was the truth, I never in a million years thought a president would lie about something like that,
the operative words being "....after being put in casing......" Mustard gas
is made easily-----saddam had the recipe and was making the stuff as
needed based on nitrogen compounds in storage which are useful in the
making of Nitrogen Mustard gas and explosives
Rigby5
Diamond Member
Wrong.
The POINT is the US embassy in Tehran was illegally used to bribe Iranian generals into the brutal takeover of Iran in 1953, destroying the democracy in Iran and murdering thousands of innocent people.
So the anger of the Iranian people at the US embassy was legit.
The US embassy in Iran had been illegally used for criminal purposes, and should have been utterly destroyed and the guilty members prosecuted.
Its takeover by students was totally justified.
If you are referring to president Amadinejad, he took no part in the US embassy takeover.
{...
Many reports say that after Saddam Hussein ordered the invasion of Iran, Ahmadinejad joined the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps[19] and served in their intelligence and security apparatus,[19] but his advisor Mojtaba Samareh Hashemi has said: "He has never been a member or an official member of the Revolutionary Guards", having been a Basiji-like volunteer instead.[48]
Ahmadinejad was accepted to a Master of Science program at his alma mater in 1986. He joined the faculty there as a lecturer in 1989,[14][49] and in 1997 received his doctorate in civil engineering and traffic transportation planning.[14][19]
...
After the Islamic Revolution, Ahmadinejad became a member of the Office for Strengthening Unity,[16] an organization developed to prevent students from sympathizing or allying with the emerging militant Mojahedin-e Khalq organisation.[16]
Ahmadinejad first assumed political office as unelected governor to both Maku and Khoy in West Azarbaijan Province during the 1980s.[19] He eventually became an advisor to the governor general of Kurdistan Province for two years.[14][49] During his doctoral studies at Tehran, he was appointed governor general of newly formed Ardabil Province from 1993 until Mohammad Khatami removed him in 1997,[49] whereupon he returned to teaching.
...
The 2003 mayoral race in Tehran elected conservative candidates from the Alliance of Builders of Islamic Iran to the City Council of Tehran. The Council appointed Ahmadinejad mayor.[19]
...
Ahmadinejad was not particularly well known when he entered the presidential election campaign (2005) as he had never run for office before, (he had been mayor of Tehran for only two years and had been appointed, not elected),[51]: 315 although he had already made his mark in Tehran for rolling back earlier reforms. He was/is a member of the Central Council of the Islamic Society of Engineers, but his key political support is inside the Alliance of Builders of Islamic Iran (Abadgaran or Developers).[52] He was also helped by support from supreme leader Ali Khamenei, of whom some described Ahmadinejad as a protégé.[53]
...}
Mahmoud Ahmadinejad - Wikipedia
en.wikipedia.org
Rigby5
Diamond Member
Those countries were all perfectly legal and all illegally invaded by the US.
Since the US ratified the UN charter into US law in 1945, these invasions were criminal under US law.
Rigby5
Diamond Member
It is well recorded that the Kurds in Halabja in 1988 were killed by Iranians using cyanide, which the Iraqis never had or used.
The US did not care or investigate at the time, and just decided to blame Saddam 3 years later when they needed to lie about him.
The force Saddam lead was entirely made up of Kurds, so could not possibly have been the ones to use poison gas on the Kurds in Halabja.
Do some research for once, instead of just parroting propaganda that has been discredited for decades.
BS ^^^^^
bendog
Diamond Member
And Kuwait really was "cross drilling" into Iraq's oil fields.
Rigby5
Diamond Member
There is no proof of that.
The person who claims to have been ordered by Saddam to assassinate Bush Sr., had no evidence to substantiate anything.
It is generally considered a ridiculous claim.
And you do NOT invade an innocent country, murdering half a million people, in order to avenge a imagined threat to your father.
If Bush thought Saddam was guilty of planning an assassination, then you just simply assassinate Saddam.
You do not murder hundreds of thousands with "Shock and Awe".
Rigby5
Diamond Member
Bush never claimed Saddam was behind 9/11 directly, but his people were the source of that lie.
{...
Much to the dismay of President Bush, Americans can remember all on their own, without any coaching from Democrats, that in the run up to war in Iraq, it was top official from the administration who were making the claim that Saddam was in cahoots with bin Laden and that he was secretly involved to 9/11.
The fact that the administration’s disinformation campaign was entirely successful is evidenced by an October 2004, Harris Poll, taken three weeks before the last presidential election, which reported that 62% of all voters, and 84% of those planning to vote for Bush, still believed that Saddam had ”strong links” to Al Qaeda, and that 41% of all voters, and 52% of Bush backers, believed that Saddam had ”helped plan and support the hijackers” who had attacked the country on 9/11.
As we now know, the basis for these allegations were false but the saddest part of the situation is that many Americans are just now beginning to realize that Bush knew the stories were false for more than a year when he cited them as justification for taking the country to war.
Documents recently declassified and made public show that the administration was warned by the Defense Intelligence Agency in February 2002, that the tale about a trip to Prague by the leader of the 9/11 highjacker, Mohamed Atta, had come from an unreliable drunk, and that the story about Iraq training members of al Qaeda on the use of chemical and biological weapons was deliberately fabricated by an Iraqi defector.
...}
Someone had to have deliberately leaked these implications or else the majority of the US public would not have incorrectly believed that Saddam was the source of the 9/11 attack.
The fact that Chalabi was the main fabricator does not matter, since it was Bush who provided Chalabi with the means of spreading the lies.
Rigby5
Diamond Member
That is the whole point, that the US was already involved in the conspiracy to frame Saddam well before the 9/11 attack.
Why do you think we allowed (encouraged) the 9/11 attack, even though Bush had been warned about the al Qaeda members in the US taking flying lessons?
Clearly the decision to dump Saddam happened even before 1991.
Could have come from the Saudis?
Rigby5
Diamond Member
I knew from the beginning that Bush was lying.
I knew Saddam had always been anti-islamic-fundamentalist and anti-terrorist.
He was about our best Mideast ally.
The fact we lied about Saddam is incomprehensible, and all I can figure is that the Saudis or Israel wanted to get rid of him for some reason?
bendog
Diamond Member
It was pretty well documented that both Cheney and W thought BushI fucked up by not removing Saddam in Gulf WarI. But BushI didn't want the US to occupy Iraq. I'm sorta with Ray on this one. I just didn't see what was so important to Iraq and Kuwait for the principal that you can't change borders with wars. Obviously, you look at Russia today, or even with Georgia and Moldova, and you see the principle and the danger. But Kuwait was sort of a family dispute, and we actually egged Saddam on to attack Iran.
Rigby5
Diamond Member
But mustard gas is not lethal usually, and was not capable of being a threat to the US, by terrorists.
The US gave it to Iraq just so that Iraq could cause panic in Iranian human wave attacks.
It can not be used for mass murder.
where did you learn this BS?
Rigby5
Diamond Member
{...
The best evidence to answer this is a 1990 report by the Strategic Studies Institute of the US Army War College. It concluded that Iran, not Iraq, was the culprit in Halabja. While the War College report acknowledges that Iraq used mustard gas during the Halabja hostilities, it notes that mustard gas is an incapacitating, rather than a killing agent, with a fatality rate of only 2%, so that it could not have killed the hundreds of known dead, much less the thousands of dead claimed by Human Rights Watch.
According to the War College reconstruction of events, Iran struck first taking control of the village. The Iraqis counter-attacked using mustard gas. The Iranians then attacked again, this time using a "blood agent" - cyanogens chloride or hydrogen cyanide - and re-took the town, which Iran then held for several months. Having control of the village and its grisly dead, Iran blamed the gas deaths on the Iraqis, and the allegations of Iraqi genocide took root via a credulous international press and, a little later, cynical promotion of the allegations for political purposes by the US state department and Senate.
Stephen Pelletiere, who was the CIA's senior political analyst on Iraq throughout the Iran-Iraq war, closely studied evidences of "genocide in Halabja" has described his group's findings: "The great majority of the victims seen by reporters and other observers who attended the scene were blue in their extremities. That means that they were killed by a blood agent, probably either cyanogens chloride or hydrogen cyanide. Iraq never used and lacked any capacity to produce these chemicals. But the Iranians did deploy them. Therefore the Iranians killed the Kurds."
Pelletiere's report also said that international relief organisations that examined the Kurdish refugees in Turkey failed to discover any gassing victims. After 15 years of support to the allegations of HRW, the CIA finally admitted in its report published in October 2003 that only mustard gas and a nerve agent was used by Iraq. The CIA now seems to be fully supporting the US Army War College report of April 1990, as a cyanide-based blood agent that Iraq never had, and not mustard gas or a nerve agent, killed the Kurds who died at Halabja and which concludes that the Iranians perpetrated that attack as a media war tactic.
...}
archive.globalpolicy.org
So the US Army War College and the CIA now agree that it was Iran who gassed Halabja with cyanide and killed thousands.
According to the War College reconstruction of events, Iran struck first taking control of the village. The Iraqis counter-attacked using mustard gas. The Iranians then attacked again, this time using a "blood agent" - cyanogens chloride or hydrogen cyanide - and re-took the town, which Iran then held for several months. Having control of the village and its grisly dead, Iran blamed the gas deaths on the Iraqis, and the allegations of Iraqi genocide took root via a credulous international press and, a little later, cynical promotion of the allegations for political purposes by the US state department and Senate.
Stephen Pelletiere, who was the CIA's senior political analyst on Iraq throughout the Iran-Iraq war, closely studied evidences of "genocide in Halabja" has described his group's findings: "The great majority of the victims seen by reporters and other observers who attended the scene were blue in their extremities. That means that they were killed by a blood agent, probably either cyanogens chloride or hydrogen cyanide. Iraq never used and lacked any capacity to produce these chemicals. But the Iranians did deploy them. Therefore the Iranians killed the Kurds."
Pelletiere's report also said that international relief organisations that examined the Kurdish refugees in Turkey failed to discover any gassing victims. After 15 years of support to the allegations of HRW, the CIA finally admitted in its report published in October 2003 that only mustard gas and a nerve agent was used by Iraq. The CIA now seems to be fully supporting the US Army War College report of April 1990, as a cyanide-based blood agent that Iraq never had, and not mustard gas or a nerve agent, killed the Kurds who died at Halabja and which concludes that the Iranians perpetrated that attack as a media war tactic.
...}
What Happened in Kurdish Halabja?
Global Policy Forum is a policy watchdog that follows the work of the United Nations. We promote accountability and citizen participation in decisions on peace and security, social justice and international law.
So the US Army War College and the CIA now agree that it was Iran who gassed Halabja with cyanide and killed thousands.
Similar threads
New Topics
-
New Bodycam Footage Shows Unhinged Democrat Lawmakers Assaulting ICE Agents, Debunking Their Claims- Started by excalibur
- Replies: 3
-
-
Poor Trump and MAGA are victimized by everything and everyone- Started by ElmerMudd
- Replies: 11
-
-
