...a disinformation newsletter or something???
First you said:
"We must look at the facts. Did or did not Saddam Hussien use weapons banned by the UN? The answer is yes. He used them against the Kurds as a vindictive measure when we pulled out after the first gulf war. Was he planning further attacks? Most likely... On our soil, probably not- but Saddam did initiate attacks against our interests overseas."
A War Crime or an Act of War?
<http://forums.transnationale.org/viewtopic.php?t=1458>
(This article discusses a gas event during the Iran-Iraq War)
"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."
As far as the use of gas against the Kurds following the end of Desert Storm in 1991, I have found nothing credible to support that claim. Then you stated the following:
"It has been proven, for example that Saddam paid money to the suicide bombers in Israel."
A better way to phrase that, and much closer to the truth, is that Iraq had been paying $25,000 to each of the FAMILIES of any Palestinian killed for any reason in the conflict with Israel. Iraq has also offered to relocate the families whose homes have been destroyed by the Israelis. Think of these payments as insurance policies. You went on to say:
"Clinton DID attack Iraq, although most of it was just a simple punch in the arm that was used to try to cow Hussien into revealing a little bit more information. Clinton wanted to invade Iraq much the same way as Bush- however the UN gave him a runaround. Coffe Anan (probably spelled wrong) was one of many on the UN who was profiting from Iraq's illegal oil exportation. If Clinton had gotten his way, we wouldn't be pondering Bush's moves right now. 9-11 would probably not have occured either, because the socialogical temperments generally will respect a show of force. This was part of the reasoning behind Clinton's missile strikes."
Clinton - Strike sends message to Saddam
<http://www.cnn.com/WORLD/9609/03/iraq.clinton/>
Your first paragraph above was terribly confused on a number of levels. First, Clinton did launch missile strikes in 1993 at the Iraqi intelligence infrastructure under Clinton's orders, but it was in retaliation for the Iraqi attack on the Kurdish city of Irbil. There was no information being sought by Clinton at that point in time. One of your sentences in your paragraph above also caught my eye:
"Clinton wanted to invade Iraq much the same way as Bush- however the UN gave him a runaround."
Invading Iraq not a new idea for Bush clique
<http://www.philly.com/mld/dailynews/2003/01/27/news/local/5025024.htm>
"An obscure, ominous-sounding right-wing policy group called Project for the New American Century, or PNAC - affiliated with Cheney, Rumsfeld, Rumsfeld's top deputy Paul Wolfowitz and Bush's brother Jeb - even urged then-President Clinton to invade Iraq back in January 1998.
'We urge you to... enunciate a new strategy that would secure the interests of the U.S. and our friends and allies around the world,' stated the letter to Clinton, signed by Rumsfeld, Wolfowitz, and others. 'That strategy should aim, above all, at the removal of Saddam Hussein's regime from power.' (For full text of the letter, see <http://www.newamericancentury.org/iraqclintonletter.htm> )
Obviously, Clinton told them "No", and there was no runaround at the UN.You also included he following in your post:
"*** Assume this as heresy, but sources have indicate that Saddam may have moved his WMD into Syria, much the way he first moved his airforce to Iran (A rival, and a deadly one at that...) However my friends have told me that we didn't go into Syria because it would have triggered a whole storm of bad stuff our way.***
And finally, do you not believe that we have terrorists heading into Iraq to fight our troops? That's their home ground (IE Middle East) and easier to plan and plot against. It makes clear and logical sense. Would you rather have them choose civilians, or troops who have been trained (and volunteered) for the task? Remember, we only see one side of the casualty list."
The NeoCons are the only "sources" claiming that Iraq has WMDs. Despite being TOTALLY discredited time after time, they continue to come back with ever more bizarre stories as to where those weapons could be hiding.
The story about Iraq moving their Air Force to Iran is totally ridiculous. Iran would have either shot those planes down at the border or captured them once they landed. These two countries fought a terrible war not too long ago, and to expect them to suddenly become allies is not even remotely possible. If Iraqi planes were moved to Iran, where are the satellite shots proving such a bold assertion?
Why do you call the opposing forces in Iraq "terrorists"? If another country invaded and occupied the U.S., what would you call Americans fighting to repel the invaders? 
Printer-friendly format
Email this thread to a friend
Bookmark this thread
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
