Exclusive: CIA Files Prove America Helped Saddam as He Gassed Iran

[Kondor3]

"...Well, you've cherry-picked one link, and tried to use one report to discredit all the links..."

Incorrect.

You claimed that NONE of the three (3) links in question referenced the Riegel Report.

I demonstrated that the very first of those articles contained references to the Riegel Report.

I did not use the first article to discredit any of the other links.

As a matter of fact, I did not even MENTION the other links, in the narrow context of demonstrating that the first link did, indeed, reference Riegel and his Report.

"...It's a massive FAIL on your part..."

Only in your own mind, I fear.

Most of the rest of the (sane) world would call that a successful refutation of your claim that none of the three links referenced Riegel and his Report.

"...Plus, you've lied in this thread, so any credibility you had has vanished..."

You declaring thus does not render thus.

I have no idea what you are talking about, when you talk about lying; however, I am comforted by the idea that YOU have no idea what you are talking about in this context, either, so, it's all good. You appear to be hallucinating, brought on by desperation.

"...Plus, you refuse to address the OP."

It was not my intention to address the OP.

It was my intention to address your claims that Reagan provided Saddam with chemical weapons, and to address your claim (implicit, 'Rread the OP, retard', in response to such a question) that the OP contained explicit references to such allegations.

I was successful in my intended counterpointing to claims that YOU raised mid-stream during the course of our interactions on this thread; an entirely permissible gambit.

It is not incumbent upon me to address the veracity (or lack thereof) of the OP in the context of addressing your mid-stream claims.

Next slide, please.

 

[mike55]

This attack killed between 20-50,000 Iranians.

Double standards yet again from the USA.

[youtube]CBlPabH1STw[/youtube]

 

[Synthaholic]

"...Well, you've cherry-picked one link, and tried to use one report to discredit all the links..."

Incorrect.

You claimed that NONE of the three (3) links in question referenced the Riegel Report.

I demonstrated that the very first of those articles contained references to the Riegel Report.

I did not use the first article to discredit any of the other links.

As a matter of fact, I did not even MENTION the other links, in the narrow context of demonstrating that the first link did, indeed, reference Riegel and his Report.

You cannot refute the links that were posted. That's a FAIL.

You think you have refuted one of them with a report no one takes seriously except you.

But the other two go uncontested, which means you concede that Reagan supplied the chemical weapons.

 

[Synthaholic]

Plus, you've lied in this thread, so any credibility you had has vanished"

You declaring thus does not render thus.

I have no idea what you are talking about, when you talk about lying

Another lie.

You said:

Ahhhhhh...

So now we've changed our tune, from Reagan COMMITTING War Crimes to Reagan AIDING AND ABETTING War Crimes?

Show where I accused Reagan of COMMITTING war crimes.


You can't. You're a liar.

 

[Kondor3]

Plus, you've lied in this thread, so any credibility you had has vanished"

You declaring thus does not render thus.

I have no idea what you are talking about, when you talk about lying

Another lie.

How can you possibly accuse me of 'lying' about 'lying' until I have received clarification of just what it is that you think that I am lying about?

Putting the cart before the horse again, are we?

"...You said:

Ahhhhhh...

So now we've changed our tune, from Reagan COMMITTING War Crimes to Reagan AIDING AND ABETTING War Crimes?

Show where I accused Reagan of COMMITTING war crimes.

You can't. You're a liar.

Yes, you are correct in that I cannot show (within this thread, anyway) where you specifically accused Reagan of committing War Crimes...

However, you served-up the following...

And the wingnuts go silent in the face of Reagan atrocities.

In this context...

Atrocities...

War Crimes...

As pretty a synonymous word-versus-phrase as one could ask for, in a war-making context...

And, the beauty of this is, it was YOU who threw-out the 'Atrocity' allegation during the early-going in this thread, conveying images of War-Crimes (Atrocities) committed by Reagan, in a war-making context...

I merely construed and equated 'Reagan committing Atricoties' with 'Reagan committing War-Crimes', as would most folks, in a conversational exchange, who aren't into nit-picking as a hobby.

So sue me.

It means the same thing, in the vast majority of cases, where a War Atrocity would be examined to determine whether a War Crime had been committed.

That's the problem with you uber-Literalist types... you rummage back looking for exact verbiage... when a more flexible and realistic mind sees synonyms and uses them interchangeably for purposes of general conversation...

Can an Atrocity NOT be a War-Crime?

Certainly... there are some really nasty things which people might label an Atrocity in War-Time which are not, in truth, charge-able under Law...

Can a War-Crime NOT be an Atrocity?

Certainly... there are some crimes more 'administrative' in nature than 'physical' which would constitute a violation of Law but which most folks would not label an Atrocity.

But the overlap between the two - where an Atrocity is a War-Crime and vice-versa - the overlap between the two is huge and overwhelming - sufficient so that most reasonable folks equate one with the other, in a war-making context, in general conversation...

I have not poured over each of your posts in this thread to confirm, but I am happy to concede, here and now, and quite publicly, you did not specifically say that Reagan had committed War Crimes.

Rather, you said that Reagan had committed Atrocities, in a war-making context.

Same thing, for all intents and purposes.

But I happily concede the error (that I should have utilized absolutely precise and original verbiage directed towards a Literalist) and hereby revise my verbiage to read...

"So now we've changed our tune, from Reagan COMMITTING Atrocities (War-Crimes) to Reagan AIDING AND ABETTING War Crimes?"

All fixed.

Consider this an exercise in clarifying "Substitute Verbiage" based upon reasonable synonyms and analogies rather than a Lie, which is another kind of animal.

My apologies for any confusion, though, and my lack of absolutely precise language.

==============================

That's how it's done, mine good colleague, when somebody trips you up - even on a pissant technicality...

You Man-Up to the deficiency, serve-up a brief and reasonable explanation of how that surfaced and whether you were in-the-wrong or had concluded-wrongly or simply substituted one word or phrase for another of similar meaning...

And you apologize, or otherwise acknowledge the error or difference or point or confusion, or otherwise simply take responsibility for it.

Like a Man.

Considering that this is the only one of several salient points in our exchange in which you even came remotely close to landing a blow - and your 'lying' point, above, was merely a whisker closer to landing on-target than all the rest, but still missing the mark by a wide margin...

You have had copious and ample opportunity to demonstrate your own abilities along those lines, to concede a point scored by a colleague, and to move on with more serious dialogue, but you managed to let those opportunities slip past you, and it's too late now; egos get in the way of courteous behavior, sometimes.

Pity.

Looks like I'll have to settle for being - according to you - Kondor the Retard - but, at least, I am comforted by the idea that a Retard can understand how to act like a Man, while some others have yet to master such a basic lesson.

Not to mention you desperately grabbing at straws looking for any way to pull the situation out of the fire after losing several salient points...

And scrambling to save face through the old, familiar tactic of dissembling about a colleague's honesty and attempting to damage his overall credibility through word games...

And hoping against hope that folks would see minor word-variance as negating everything else that had transpired beforehand, with respect to points argued and won or lost.

And even THAT attempt failed, in the final analysis.

Time to stick a fork in you in this matter, mine good colleague... you're done to a crisp.

Not bad for a 'Retard', eh?

And, of course, if one is trounced by a 'Retard' then, I'm not sure what that says about the Opponent...

Better luck next time, though, and, of course... thank you for playing.

"Thus endeth the lesson" - Sean Connery, The Untouchables

 

[PrometheusBound]

So, now we can get back to you defending Reagan's war crimes.

1. I have not defended Reagan.

2. Reagan committed no War Crimes in this context, insofar as I am aware.

The only war crime is losing.

 

[PrometheusBound]

This attack killed between 20-50,000 Iranians.

Double standards yet again from the USA.

[youtube]CBlPabH1STw[/youtube]

Taking embassy hostages is an act of war. If the Marines hadn't chickened out and surrendered to a teenage mob, the war would have started as soon as their air support arrived. As it is, anyone with common sense could figure out that the ayatollahs were told that Reagan would blow the place sky high if he got elected, which he did and the hostages were released the next day.

 

[Synthaholic]

*snip*


The ensuing poor relations with Washington were not repaired until 1983. Persistent allegations are made by some observers, including journalist Christopher Hitchens, that then-President Jimmy Carter put Hussein up to invading Iran in September of 1980. These allegations seem implausible on their face, and there is no documentary proof for them. A former National Security Council staffer for Gulf affairs, Gary Sick, has told this author that Hussein’s invasion of Iran came as a shock to the NSC in 1980. Sick’s impression of continued frost between Washington and Baghdad is borne out by documents published by the National Security Archive, housed at George Washington University.

The turning point came in 1983, as the Reagan administration reevaluated its policy toward the Middle East. Note that it does not appear to have been deterred by a small matter such as Hussein’s propensity to massacre townspeople like those at Dujail. The threat that Khomeinism posed to U.S. interests in the region had been underlined by the rise of Shiite radicalism in Lebanon. The U.S. suspected extremist Shiites of blowing up the U.S. embassy and killing 63 persons in Beirut on April 18, 1983. Hussein’s invasion of Iran had been stopped dead in its tracks by Iranian military and irregular forces, and by 1982 Iran was beginning an effective counterattack. Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini desperately wanted Baghdad. Ronald Reagan’s special envoy to the Middle East, Donald Rumsfeld (then also CEO of G.D. Searle & Co.), began worrying about the implications if the Iranians succeeded in taking it, as did the director of the Central Intelligence Agency, William Casey.


One possible impediment to better relations between the U.S. and Iraq was the latter’s use of chemical weapons. The 1925 Geneva Protocol, which forbade the use of chemical weapons, specified that it “shall be universally accepted as a part of International Law, binding alike the conscience and the practice of nations.” The Reagan State Department was well aware that Hussein had begun using chemicals against Iranian troops at the front, and by Nov. 1 was actively considering [PDF] what punitive measures might be taken against Iraq.

Nevertheless, Reagan sent Rumsfeld to Baghdad in December 1983. The National Security Archive has posted a brief video of his meeting with Hussein and the latter’s vice president and foreign minister, Tariq Aziz. Rumsfeld was to stress his close relationship with the U.S. president. The State Department summary [PDF] of Rumsfeld’s meeting with Tariq Aziz stated that “the two agreed the U.S. and Iraq shared many common interests: peace in the Gulf, keeping Syria and Iran off balance and less influential, and promoting Egypt’s reintegration into the Arab world.” Aziz asked Rumsfeld to intervene with Washington’s friends to get them to stop selling arms to Iran. Increasing Iraq’s oil exports and a possible pipeline through Saudi Arabia occupied a portion of their conversation.

The U.S. and Iraq were well on the way toward a restoration of diplomatic relations (broken off in 1967 by the colonels’ regime that preceded the Baath) and a military alliance against Iran. The State Department, however, issued a press statement on March 5, 1984, condemning Iraqi use of chemical weapons. This statement appears to have been Washington’s way of doing penance for its new alliance.



Unaware of the depths of Reagan administration hypocrisy on the issue, Hussein took the March 5 State Department condemnation extremely seriously, and appears to have suspected that the United States was planning to stab him in the back. Secretary of State George Shultz notes in a briefing for Rumsfeld in spring of 1984 [PDF] that the Iraqis were extremely confused by concrete U.S. policies toward Lebanon, Syria, Egypt, Jordan, Israel and combating Khomeini. “In each case,” Shultz observes, “Iraqi officials have professed to be at a loss to explain our actions as measured against our stated objectives. As with our CW statement, their temptation is to give up rational analysis and retreat to the line that US policies are basically anti-Arab and hostage to the desires of Israel.”


Rumsfeld had to be sent back to Baghdad for a second meeting, to smooth ruffled Baath feathers. The above-mentioned State Department briefing notes for this discussion remarked that the atmosphere in Baghdad (for Rumsfeld) had worsened for two reasons. First, Iraq had failed to completely repulse a major Iranian offensive and had lost the “strategically significant Majnun Island oil fields and accepting heavy casualties.” Second, the March 5 scolding of Iraq for its use of poison gas had “sharply set back” relations between the two countries.


The relationship was repaired, but on Hussein’s terms. He continued to use chemical weapons and, indeed, vastly expanded their use as Washington winked at Western pharmaceutical firms providing him materiel. The only conclusion one can draw from available evidence is that Rumsfeld was more or less dispatched to mollify Hussein and assure him that his use of chemical weapons was no bar to developing the relationship with the U.S., whatever the State Department spokesman was sent out to say. As former National Security Council staffer Howard Teicher affirmed, “Pursuant to the secret NSDD [National Security Directive], the United States actively supported the Iraqi war effort by supplying the Iraqis with billions of dollars of credits, by providing US military intelligence and advice to the Iraqis, and by closely monitoring third country arms sales to Iraq to make sure that Iraq had the military weaponry required.” The requisite weaponry included cluster bombs. Whether it also included, from Washington’s point of view, chemical weapons and biological precursors for anthrax, Teicher does not say.


http://www.truthdig.com/report/item/Hussein_trial/