The "Freeola Customer Forum" forum, which includes Retro Game Reviews, has been archived and is now read-only. You cannot post here or create a new thread or review on this forum.
By...erm...making it worse than it was under Saddam.
[URL]http://news.independent.co.uk/world/middle_east/story.jsp?story=577151[/URL]
So if Skarra or Bell are still reading, and if they still want to take the approach that this war was good for the people of Iraq, would they like to respond?
[URL]http://news.independent.co.uk/world/middle_east/story.jsp?story=577151[/URL]
So if Skarra or Bell are still reading, and if they still want to take the approach that this war was good for the people of Iraq, would they like to respond?
Page:
kevstar wrote:
> Of course it does, but you can't just send someone down based on
> accounts, you need other proof to back that claim up which has yet to
> be found. That includes the 18 tons of documents left behind by the
> Iraqis.
No, you can't. But you can weigh up all of the available evidence before coming to a conclusion, rather than saying that the only piece of evidence that disagrees with all of the rest is proof that it wos Iran wot did it.
> Hmmm so because you see Chemical Ali walking through the deserted
> streets makes him guilty does it?
Nope. But it goes some way toward establishing guilt. That's what evidence does you see; it builds up. And you look at all the available evidence, look at who has provided it and possible reasons why they have done so, and come to a conclusion. Taking one piece in isolation is a guaranteed way to come to an erroneous conclusion.
> The graves recently been discovered
> are mainly victoms with bullet holes in the back of there head.
Yes, because of course Gas is always 100% fatal and leaves absolutely no-one alive but maimed, doesn't it? Especially when it's a gas that's being tested cos they haven't previously used it.
> I am
> not saying he didn't use Chemical weapons as everyone incuding
> Reagen who sold and advised Iraq how and where to strike knew he was
> using them. I just dont think we should say anyone is guilty until
> proven, and thats exactly what your doing. Somethings don't add up
> e.g Why was cyanide found when it was known it wasn't the Iraqis
> weapon of choice, but we do know Iran was using this type of weapon,
> the Iraqis are not known to have possessed blood agents at the time.
On the other hand, one or two pieces of evidence against Iran do not a case make. You want to pick up on the only evidence that says it might not have been Iraq? Okay, great; it doesn't really counteract the evidence of Kurdish eyewitnesses saying that it was the Iraqi army? Hell, this is before we even get to the point of certain Iraqi's boasting of the achievement. The attack on the Kurdish town is widely regarded to have been a test. Why would one test a gas one already uses? Aren't tests supposed to be about finding out about something new? A gas that they didn't previously use for example?
> I personally blame America, they were helping the Iraqis at the time,
> they had been selling them chemical weapons and didn't want Iran
> winning the war mainly due to oil. It is known the Iraqis were helped
> in intelligence regarding the positioning of the enemy.
True, but lets not forget that;
A - America was also running arms to Iran
B - The former soviet union and most of Europe is just as culpable as America in this; don't make the mistake of demonising one nation just because they're the most obvious target. After all, that's essentially what Dubya did with Iraq.
> Of course it does, but you can't just send someone down based on
> accounts, you need other proof to back that claim up which has yet to
> be found. That includes the 18 tons of documents left behind by the
> Iraqis.
No, you can't. But you can weigh up all of the available evidence before coming to a conclusion, rather than saying that the only piece of evidence that disagrees with all of the rest is proof that it wos Iran wot did it.
> Hmmm so because you see Chemical Ali walking through the deserted
> streets makes him guilty does it?
Nope. But it goes some way toward establishing guilt. That's what evidence does you see; it builds up. And you look at all the available evidence, look at who has provided it and possible reasons why they have done so, and come to a conclusion. Taking one piece in isolation is a guaranteed way to come to an erroneous conclusion.
> The graves recently been discovered
> are mainly victoms with bullet holes in the back of there head.
Yes, because of course Gas is always 100% fatal and leaves absolutely no-one alive but maimed, doesn't it? Especially when it's a gas that's being tested cos they haven't previously used it.
> I am
> not saying he didn't use Chemical weapons as everyone incuding
> Reagen who sold and advised Iraq how and where to strike knew he was
> using them. I just dont think we should say anyone is guilty until
> proven, and thats exactly what your doing. Somethings don't add up
> e.g Why was cyanide found when it was known it wasn't the Iraqis
> weapon of choice, but we do know Iran was using this type of weapon,
> the Iraqis are not known to have possessed blood agents at the time.
On the other hand, one or two pieces of evidence against Iran do not a case make. You want to pick up on the only evidence that says it might not have been Iraq? Okay, great; it doesn't really counteract the evidence of Kurdish eyewitnesses saying that it was the Iraqi army? Hell, this is before we even get to the point of certain Iraqi's boasting of the achievement. The attack on the Kurdish town is widely regarded to have been a test. Why would one test a gas one already uses? Aren't tests supposed to be about finding out about something new? A gas that they didn't previously use for example?
> I personally blame America, they were helping the Iraqis at the time,
> they had been selling them chemical weapons and didn't want Iran
> winning the war mainly due to oil. It is known the Iraqis were helped
> in intelligence regarding the positioning of the enemy.
True, but lets not forget that;
A - America was also running arms to Iran
B - The former soviet union and most of Europe is just as culpable as America in this; don't make the mistake of demonising one nation just because they're the most obvious target. After all, that's essentially what Dubya did with Iraq.
Light wrote:
>
>
> Sorry? Eyewitness evidence isn't evidence? It was the Iranians who
> arrived and found what few survivors there were. Would they leave
> anyone alive to say it was them?
Of course it does, but you can't just send someone down based on accounts, you need other proof to back that claim up which has yet to be found. That includes the 18 tons of documents left behind by the Iraqis.
>
> I'm intrigued; why are we discounting the video's of a grinning
> Chemical Ali walking through the deserted streets? Not to mention the
> many Kurdish testimonies of their persecutions by Saddam? And, of
> course, the final point of the dead Kurds buried in mass graves?
Hmmm so because you see Chemical Ali walking through the deserted streets makes him guilty does it? The graves recently been discovered are mainly victoms with bullet holes in the back of there head. I am not saying he didn't use Chemical weapons as everyone incuding Reagen who sold and advised Iraq how and where to strike knew he was using them. I just dont think we should say anyone is guilty until proven, and thats exactly what your doing. Somethings don't add up e.g Why was cyanide found when it was known it wasn't the Iraqis weapon of choice, but we do know Iran was using this type of weapon, the Iraqis are not known to have possessed blood agents at the time.
I personally blame America, they were helping the Iraqis at the time, they had been selling them chemical weapons and didn't want Iran winning the war mainly due to oil. It is known the Iraqis were helped in intelligence regarding the positioning of the enemy.
>
>
> Sorry? Eyewitness evidence isn't evidence? It was the Iranians who
> arrived and found what few survivors there were. Would they leave
> anyone alive to say it was them?
Of course it does, but you can't just send someone down based on accounts, you need other proof to back that claim up which has yet to be found. That includes the 18 tons of documents left behind by the Iraqis.
>
> I'm intrigued; why are we discounting the video's of a grinning
> Chemical Ali walking through the deserted streets? Not to mention the
> many Kurdish testimonies of their persecutions by Saddam? And, of
> course, the final point of the dead Kurds buried in mass graves?
Hmmm so because you see Chemical Ali walking through the deserted streets makes him guilty does it? The graves recently been discovered are mainly victoms with bullet holes in the back of there head. I am not saying he didn't use Chemical weapons as everyone incuding Reagen who sold and advised Iraq how and where to strike knew he was using them. I just dont think we should say anyone is guilty until proven, and thats exactly what your doing. Somethings don't add up e.g Why was cyanide found when it was known it wasn't the Iraqis weapon of choice, but we do know Iran was using this type of weapon, the Iraqis are not known to have possessed blood agents at the time.
I personally blame America, they were helping the Iraqis at the time, they had been selling them chemical weapons and didn't want Iran winning the war mainly due to oil. It is known the Iraqis were helped in intelligence regarding the positioning of the enemy.
kevstar wrote:
>
> You can't base accounts as actual evidence. it was the Iranians who
> arrived at the scene first, who reported the incident to UN
> observers, and who took pictures of the gassed Kurdish civilians.
> Their review of precisely "18 tons of Iraqi state
> documents," is not proof of genocide.
Sorry? Eyewitness evidence isn't evidence? It was the Iranians who arrived and found what few survivors there were. Would they leave anyone alive to say it was them?
I'm intrigued; why are we discounting the video's of a grinning Chemical Ali walking through the deserted streets? Not to mention the many Kurdish testimonies of their persecutions by Saddam? And, of course, the final point of the dead Kurds buried in mass graves?
>
> You can't base accounts as actual evidence. it was the Iranians who
> arrived at the scene first, who reported the incident to UN
> observers, and who took pictures of the gassed Kurdish civilians.
> Their review of precisely "18 tons of Iraqi state
> documents," is not proof of genocide.
Sorry? Eyewitness evidence isn't evidence? It was the Iranians who arrived and found what few survivors there were. Would they leave anyone alive to say it was them?
I'm intrigued; why are we discounting the video's of a grinning Chemical Ali walking through the deserted streets? Not to mention the many Kurdish testimonies of their persecutions by Saddam? And, of course, the final point of the dead Kurds buried in mass graves?
But wasn't the "fact" that Iraq were gassing people one of the main reasons why they were so evil and had to be evicted in the first place?
So I guess that either he was just evil under our supervision or not evil and just overtaken for other purposes...
So I guess that either he was just evil under our supervision or not evil and just overtaken for other purposes...
light said
How can the evidence of Kurdish survivors be conjecture? They were there. The people claiming it was Iran were not.
You can't base accounts as actual evidence. it was the Iranians who arrived at the scene first, who reported the incident to UN observers, and who took pictures of the gassed Kurdish civilians. Their review of precisely "18 tons of Iraqi state documents," is not proof of genocide.
How can the evidence of Kurdish survivors be conjecture? They were there. The people claiming it was Iran were not.
You can't base accounts as actual evidence. it was the Iranians who arrived at the scene first, who reported the incident to UN observers, and who took pictures of the gassed Kurdish civilians. Their review of precisely "18 tons of Iraqi state documents," is not proof of genocide.
kevstar wrote:
> I think that the kurds were gassed by Saddam no doubt, but I also
> believe that the Kurds were also using chemical weapons as I stated
> with the Kurds using cyanide compared to the use of mustard gas
> which the Iraqi were using. And your right it is conjectural but then
> so is the Kurds accounts. I just dont think everything adds up in the
> Halaji story and that goes for both sides.
How can the evidence of Kurdish survivors be conjecture? They were there. The people claiming it was Iran were not.
>
> Theres a limit on the type of weapons they can produce.
>
> And was this limit in place during the Iran-Iraq war?
>
> I dont know but I take your word for it that there wasn't.
Oh I don't know for certain, but I'm making the assumption that there were no such internationally agreed limits.
>
> True which is why I think he should take up reading a couple of
> chomsky books.
I think he should take up reading first of all...
> I think that the kurds were gassed by Saddam no doubt, but I also
> believe that the Kurds were also using chemical weapons as I stated
> with the Kurds using cyanide compared to the use of mustard gas
> which the Iraqi were using. And your right it is conjectural but then
> so is the Kurds accounts. I just dont think everything adds up in the
> Halaji story and that goes for both sides.
How can the evidence of Kurdish survivors be conjecture? They were there. The people claiming it was Iran were not.
>
> Theres a limit on the type of weapons they can produce.
>
> And was this limit in place during the Iran-Iraq war?
>
> I dont know but I take your word for it that there wasn't.
Oh I don't know for certain, but I'm making the assumption that there were no such internationally agreed limits.
>
> True which is why I think he should take up reading a couple of
> chomsky books.
I think he should take up reading first of all...
Light wrote:
> kevstar wrote:
>
> >[URL] http://britons4peace.org.uk/articles/raju2.html[/URL]
>
> Okay, thanks for that. However, as the conjecture comes from US
> Intelligence which, by it's own admission, got things woefully wrong
> concerning Iraq, why should they have been correct about this? Plus
> it fails to address one simple fact; the Kurds are adament that it
> was the Iraqi army who did the gassing.
>
> I think that the kurds were gassed by Saddam no doubt, but I also believe that the Kurds were also using chemical weapons as I stated with the Kurds using cyanide compared to the use of mustard gas which the Iraqi were using. And your right it is conjectural but then so is the Kurds accounts. I just dont think everything adds up in the Halaji story and that goes for both sides.
> Theres a limit on the type of weapons they can produce.
>
> And was this limit in place during the Iran-Iraq war?
I dont know but I take your word for it that there wasn't.
>
> There is certainly a element of hypocrisy in selling weapons to
> brutal dictatorships which is why i'm against it.
>
> Fair enough.
>
> It's just that you started on this thread saying that everything we
> did was worthwhile because it got rid of Saddam. But Saddam wouldn't
> have committed the atrocities without our help.
>
> I was origonally refering to the fact that Bush should have
> frinished
> the job he started 10 years ago and if he had we wouldn't have this
> hypocrisy going on now.
>
> If Daddy Dubya, Reagan, Chernyenko, Thatcher et al hadn't armed
> Saddam to the teeth to fight the evil Iranians, we wouldn't even have
> had a job to do 10 years ago. The problem with the realpolitik
> practiced by extremists such as Dubya is that it never looks any more
> than about 1 year in advance. If that.
True which is why I think he should take up reading a couple of chomsky books.
> kevstar wrote:
>
> >[URL] http://britons4peace.org.uk/articles/raju2.html[/URL]
>
> Okay, thanks for that. However, as the conjecture comes from US
> Intelligence which, by it's own admission, got things woefully wrong
> concerning Iraq, why should they have been correct about this? Plus
> it fails to address one simple fact; the Kurds are adament that it
> was the Iraqi army who did the gassing.
>
> I think that the kurds were gassed by Saddam no doubt, but I also believe that the Kurds were also using chemical weapons as I stated with the Kurds using cyanide compared to the use of mustard gas which the Iraqi were using. And your right it is conjectural but then so is the Kurds accounts. I just dont think everything adds up in the Halaji story and that goes for both sides.
> Theres a limit on the type of weapons they can produce.
>
> And was this limit in place during the Iran-Iraq war?
I dont know but I take your word for it that there wasn't.
>
> There is certainly a element of hypocrisy in selling weapons to
> brutal dictatorships which is why i'm against it.
>
> Fair enough.
>
> It's just that you started on this thread saying that everything we
> did was worthwhile because it got rid of Saddam. But Saddam wouldn't
> have committed the atrocities without our help.
>
> I was origonally refering to the fact that Bush should have
> frinished
> the job he started 10 years ago and if he had we wouldn't have this
> hypocrisy going on now.
>
> If Daddy Dubya, Reagan, Chernyenko, Thatcher et al hadn't armed
> Saddam to the teeth to fight the evil Iranians, we wouldn't even have
> had a job to do 10 years ago. The problem with the realpolitik
> practiced by extremists such as Dubya is that it never looks any more
> than about 1 year in advance. If that.
True which is why I think he should take up reading a couple of chomsky books.
kevstar wrote:
>[URL] http://britons4peace.org.uk/articles/raju2.html[/URL]
Okay, thanks for that. However, as the conjecture comes from US Intelligence which, by it's own admission, got things woefully wrong concerning Iraq, why should they have been correct about this? Plus it fails to address one simple fact; the Kurds are adament that it was the Iraqi army who did the gassing.
>
> Theres a limit on the type of weapons they can produce.
And was this limit in place during the Iran-Iraq war?
> There is certainly a element of hypocrisy in selling weapons to
> brutal dictatorships which is why i'm against it.
Fair enough.
>
> It's just that you started on this thread saying that everything we
> did was worthwhile because it got rid of Saddam. But Saddam wouldn't
> have committed the atrocities without our help.
>
> I was origonally refering to the fact that Bush should have frinished
> the job he started 10 years ago and if he had we wouldn't have this
> hypocrisy going on now.
If Daddy Dubya, Reagan, Chernyenko, Thatcher et al hadn't armed Saddam to the teeth to fight the evil Iranians, we wouldn't even have had a job to do 10 years ago. The problem with the realpolitik practiced by extremists such as Dubya is that it never looks any more than about 1 year in advance. If that.
>[URL] http://britons4peace.org.uk/articles/raju2.html[/URL]
Okay, thanks for that. However, as the conjecture comes from US Intelligence which, by it's own admission, got things woefully wrong concerning Iraq, why should they have been correct about this? Plus it fails to address one simple fact; the Kurds are adament that it was the Iraqi army who did the gassing.
>
> Theres a limit on the type of weapons they can produce.
And was this limit in place during the Iran-Iraq war?
> There is certainly a element of hypocrisy in selling weapons to
> brutal dictatorships which is why i'm against it.
Fair enough.
>
> It's just that you started on this thread saying that everything we
> did was worthwhile because it got rid of Saddam. But Saddam wouldn't
> have committed the atrocities without our help.
>
> I was origonally refering to the fact that Bush should have frinished
> the job he started 10 years ago and if he had we wouldn't have this
> hypocrisy going on now.
If Daddy Dubya, Reagan, Chernyenko, Thatcher et al hadn't armed Saddam to the teeth to fight the evil Iranians, we wouldn't even have had a job to do 10 years ago. The problem with the realpolitik practiced by extremists such as Dubya is that it never looks any more than about 1 year in advance. If that.
Light wrote:
>
> Really? Any links to this evidence? I find it hard to believe, mainly
> because of the footage of a grinning Chemical Ali sat in the empty
> streets of a Kurdish town.
>
> Plus the fact that Iraqi leaders are being charged with the gassing,
> together with the Kurds themselves saying that it was the Iraqi's who
> did it makes me suspicious of this claim that it was Iran.
>
> [URL]http://www.theage.com.au/articles/2004/07/02/1088488151265.html?from=storylhs&oneclick=true[/URL]
>
> [URL]http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1257304/posts[/URL]
>
> [URL]http://www.csmonitor.com/2002/0513/p08s01-wome.html[/URL]
>
>
> So there's some of the reasons I believe that it was indeed the Iraqi
> army who gassed those Kurds. Could you give me some links to the
> reasons you say it was the Iranians?
>
> http://britons4peace.org.uk/articles/raju2.html[/URL]
>
> I dont know of any evidence that Western governments approved of
> gassing the Kurds, although I do know we turned a blind eye. And
> yeah
> isn't it obvious if most countrys arn't allowed to produce there own
> weapons then there going to buy ours pending our relationship with
> them at the time? When you sell weapons to another Country theres
> always going to be a risk.
>
> So...since when were Iraq "not allowed" to produce their
> own weapons? And don't you think that there is an element of
> hypocrisy in selling weapons to brutal dictatorships when we know
> they use them to kill their own people, then attacking them because
> "they're a brutal dictatorship who kill their own people".
>
Theres a limit on the type of weapons they can produce.
There is certainly a element of hypocrisy in selling weapons to brutal dictatorships which is why i'm against it.
> It's just that you started on this thread saying that everything we
> did was worthwhile because it got rid of Saddam. But Saddam wouldn't
> have committed the atrocities without our help.
>
I was origonally refering to the fact that Bush should have frinished the job he started 10 years ago and if he had we wouldn't have this hypocrisy going on now.
>
> No again I think your right I don't think were really acting on
> moral
> ground but theres always that reason there for back up and that
> exactly what there doing. Many people think America mainly invaded
> Iraq because of oil using Saddam as a back up, true, but water is as
> good as any other reason. They have built an impressive system of
> dams and river control projects, the largest being the Darbandikhan
> dam in the Kurdish area. Once Saddam's Baath Party is driven from
> power, many lucrative opportunities would open up for American
> companies.
>
> American company. Singular. Haliburton are the ones who've done best
> out of this.
> Would I be right in saying that this war was justified because it
> provides a boost to the American economy?
>
> Also, if driving the Ba'athists from power was the aim, why are so
> many former Ba'athists still in positions of power?
Another sign of hypocracy.
>
> Really? Any links to this evidence? I find it hard to believe, mainly
> because of the footage of a grinning Chemical Ali sat in the empty
> streets of a Kurdish town.
>
> Plus the fact that Iraqi leaders are being charged with the gassing,
> together with the Kurds themselves saying that it was the Iraqi's who
> did it makes me suspicious of this claim that it was Iran.
>
> [URL]http://www.theage.com.au/articles/2004/07/02/1088488151265.html?from=storylhs&oneclick=true[/URL]
>
> [URL]http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1257304/posts[/URL]
>
> [URL]http://www.csmonitor.com/2002/0513/p08s01-wome.html[/URL]
>
>
> So there's some of the reasons I believe that it was indeed the Iraqi
> army who gassed those Kurds. Could you give me some links to the
> reasons you say it was the Iranians?
>
> http://britons4peace.org.uk/articles/raju2.html[/URL]
>
> I dont know of any evidence that Western governments approved of
> gassing the Kurds, although I do know we turned a blind eye. And
> yeah
> isn't it obvious if most countrys arn't allowed to produce there own
> weapons then there going to buy ours pending our relationship with
> them at the time? When you sell weapons to another Country theres
> always going to be a risk.
>
> So...since when were Iraq "not allowed" to produce their
> own weapons? And don't you think that there is an element of
> hypocrisy in selling weapons to brutal dictatorships when we know
> they use them to kill their own people, then attacking them because
> "they're a brutal dictatorship who kill their own people".
>
Theres a limit on the type of weapons they can produce.
There is certainly a element of hypocrisy in selling weapons to brutal dictatorships which is why i'm against it.
> It's just that you started on this thread saying that everything we
> did was worthwhile because it got rid of Saddam. But Saddam wouldn't
> have committed the atrocities without our help.
>
I was origonally refering to the fact that Bush should have frinished the job he started 10 years ago and if he had we wouldn't have this hypocrisy going on now.
>
> No again I think your right I don't think were really acting on
> moral
> ground but theres always that reason there for back up and that
> exactly what there doing. Many people think America mainly invaded
> Iraq because of oil using Saddam as a back up, true, but water is as
> good as any other reason. They have built an impressive system of
> dams and river control projects, the largest being the Darbandikhan
> dam in the Kurdish area. Once Saddam's Baath Party is driven from
> power, many lucrative opportunities would open up for American
> companies.
>
> American company. Singular. Haliburton are the ones who've done best
> out of this.
> Would I be right in saying that this war was justified because it
> provides a boost to the American economy?
>
> Also, if driving the Ba'athists from power was the aim, why are so
> many former Ba'athists still in positions of power?
Another sign of hypocracy.
kevstar wrote:
>
> As far as i'm aware theres still a lot of debate regarding the
> gassing on Kurds e.g. some people still think that it was Iranians
> who actually killed there own people. The main reason behind this was
> the type of gas traces found, the gas found in Halabja was Iranians
> first choice of a cyanide type gas, while the Iraqis first choice of
> gas was a mustard type gas. So if Saddam did bomb the Kurds then why
> wasn't there no traces of mustard gas found?
Really? Any links to this evidence? I find it hard to believe, mainly because of the footage of a grinning Chemical Ali sat in the empty streets of a Kurdish town.
Plus the fact that Iraqi leaders are being charged with the gassing, together with the Kurds themselves saying that it was the Iraqi's who did it makes me suspicious of this claim that it was Iran.
[URL]http://www.theage.com.au/articles/2004/07/02/1088488151265.html?from=storylhs&oneclick=true[/URL]
[URL]http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1257304/posts[/URL]
[URL]http://www.csmonitor.com/2002/0513/p08s01-wome.html[/URL]
So there's some of the reasons I believe that it was indeed the Iraqi army who gassed those Kurds. Could you give me some links to the reasons you say it was the Iranians?
> I dont know of any evidence that Western governments approved of
> gassing the Kurds, although I do know we turned a blind eye. And yeah
> isn't it obvious if most countrys arn't allowed to produce there own
> weapons then there going to buy ours pending our relationship with
> them at the time? When you sell weapons to another Country theres
> always going to be a risk.
So...since when were Iraq "not allowed" to produce their own weapons? And don't you think that there is an element of hypocrisy in selling weapons to brutal dictatorships when we know they use them to kill their own people, then attacking them because "they're a brutal dictatorship who kill their own people".
It's just that you started on this thread saying that everything we did was worthwhile because it got rid of Saddam. But Saddam wouldn't have committed the atrocities without our help.
> No again I think your right I don't think were really acting on moral
> ground but theres always that reason there for back up and that
> exactly what there doing. Many people think America mainly invaded
> Iraq because of oil using Saddam as a back up, true, but water is as
> good as any other reason. They have built an impressive system of
> dams and river control projects, the largest being the Darbandikhan
> dam in the Kurdish area. Once Saddam's Baath Party is driven from
> power, many lucrative opportunities would open up for American
> companies.
American company. Singular. Haliburton are the ones who've done best out of this.
Would I be right in saying that this war was justified because it provides a boost to the American economy?
Also, if driving the Ba'athists from power was the aim, why are so many former Ba'athists still in positions of power?
>
> As far as i'm aware theres still a lot of debate regarding the
> gassing on Kurds e.g. some people still think that it was Iranians
> who actually killed there own people. The main reason behind this was
> the type of gas traces found, the gas found in Halabja was Iranians
> first choice of a cyanide type gas, while the Iraqis first choice of
> gas was a mustard type gas. So if Saddam did bomb the Kurds then why
> wasn't there no traces of mustard gas found?
Really? Any links to this evidence? I find it hard to believe, mainly because of the footage of a grinning Chemical Ali sat in the empty streets of a Kurdish town.
Plus the fact that Iraqi leaders are being charged with the gassing, together with the Kurds themselves saying that it was the Iraqi's who did it makes me suspicious of this claim that it was Iran.
[URL]http://www.theage.com.au/articles/2004/07/02/1088488151265.html?from=storylhs&oneclick=true[/URL]
[URL]http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1257304/posts[/URL]
[URL]http://www.csmonitor.com/2002/0513/p08s01-wome.html[/URL]
So there's some of the reasons I believe that it was indeed the Iraqi army who gassed those Kurds. Could you give me some links to the reasons you say it was the Iranians?
> I dont know of any evidence that Western governments approved of
> gassing the Kurds, although I do know we turned a blind eye. And yeah
> isn't it obvious if most countrys arn't allowed to produce there own
> weapons then there going to buy ours pending our relationship with
> them at the time? When you sell weapons to another Country theres
> always going to be a risk.
So...since when were Iraq "not allowed" to produce their own weapons? And don't you think that there is an element of hypocrisy in selling weapons to brutal dictatorships when we know they use them to kill their own people, then attacking them because "they're a brutal dictatorship who kill their own people".
It's just that you started on this thread saying that everything we did was worthwhile because it got rid of Saddam. But Saddam wouldn't have committed the atrocities without our help.
> No again I think your right I don't think were really acting on moral
> ground but theres always that reason there for back up and that
> exactly what there doing. Many people think America mainly invaded
> Iraq because of oil using Saddam as a back up, true, but water is as
> good as any other reason. They have built an impressive system of
> dams and river control projects, the largest being the Darbandikhan
> dam in the Kurdish area. Once Saddam's Baath Party is driven from
> power, many lucrative opportunities would open up for American
> companies.
American company. Singular. Haliburton are the ones who've done best out of this.
Would I be right in saying that this war was justified because it provides a boost to the American economy?
Also, if driving the Ba'athists from power was the aim, why are so many former Ba'athists still in positions of power?
Page: