Would The Bush Haters Please Interpret This Statement By The Pope

[FightingFat]

gilliam:

He wasn’t there to kow tow to him. The Kurds were gassed with gas sold to Iraq by a company in Belgium. The man responsible was tried this year for it. We posted the story in this group.

I thought it was Holland?

 

[SaintlySinner]

Richardols:

Is this any more than a diplomatic and cordial ending to a letter to the leader of a great nation?

I can see him say the same to any Western leader of good will.

I

Exactly.

I can almost guarantee that former President Clinton has a similar letter. As does former President Jimmy Carter. One can ask, “What do all the Clinton and Carter haters have to say now”?

 

[SaintlySinner]

gnjsdad:

Do you think he was there to lecture Saddam about democracy?

I know the history. Rumsfeld was there to offer Saddam the weapons he needed to deal with the Iranians. You know, those WMDs he used on the Iranians and later, the Kurds?

A critical thinker. I like you!

 

[gilliam]

FightingFat:

I thought it was Holland?

Sorry, your correct, it was Holland.

 

[gilliam]

gnjsdad:

Do you think he was there to lecture Saddam about democracy?

I know the history. Rumsfeld was there to offer Saddam the weapons he needed to deal with the Iranians. You know, those WMDs he used on the Iranians and later, the Kurds?

Gnjsdad,
OK, as a reminder, here is the history. There are detailed notes of the meeting and Rumsfeld made no reference to chemical weapons. Read it for yourself here. The political retoric last year was so intense that everyone assumed he did, because the Democrats and Michael Moore seemed to endorse that idea, even though Rumsfeld denied it. Well now we know Rumsfeld was right. Let’s try to stick to history in this forum, and not propaganda.

The following is from: gwu.edu/~nsarchiv/NSAEBB/NSAEBB82/

It documents a lot of what happened around that period of time and actually has a copy of your picture

Rumsfeld also met with Iraqi Foreign Minister Tariq Aziz, and the two agreed, “the U.S. and Iraq shared many common interests.” Rumsfeld affirmed the Reagan administration’s “willingness to do more” regarding the Iran-Iraq war, but “made clear that our efforts to assist were inhibited by certain things that made it difficult for us, citing the use of chemical weapons, possible escalation in the Gulf, and human rights.” He then moved on to other U.S. concerns.

Rumsfeld returned to Baghdad in late March 1984. By this time, the U.S. had publicly condemned Iraq’s chemical weapons use, stating, "The United States has concluded that the available evidence substantiates Iran’s charges that Iraq used chemical weapons". Briefings for Rumsfeld’s meetings noted that atmospherics in Iraq had deteriorated since his December visit because of Iraqi military reverses and because “bilateral relations were sharply set back by our March 5 condemnation of Iraq for CW use, despite our repeated warnings that this issue would emerge sooner or later”. Rumsfeld was to discuss with Iraqi officials the Reagan administration’s hope that it could obtain Export-Import Bank credits for Iraq, the Aqaba pipeline, and its vigorous efforts to cut off arms exports to Iran. According to an affidavit prepared by one of Rumsfeld’s companions during his Mideast travels, former NSC staff member Howard Teicher, Rumsfeld also conveyed to Iraq an offer from Israel to provide assistance, which was rejected.

In February 1984, Iraq’s military, expecting a major Iranian attack, issued a warning that “the invaders should know that for every harmful insect there is an insecticide capable of annihilating it whatever the number and Iraq possesses this annihilation insecticide”. On March 3, the State Department intervened to prevent a U.S. company from shipping 22,000 pounds of phosphorous fluoride, a chemical weapons precursor, to Iraq. Washington instructed the U.S. interests section to protest to the Iraqi government, and to inform the Ministry of Foreign Affairs that “we anticipate making a public condemnation of Iraqi use of chemical weapons in the near future,” and that "we are adamantly opposed to Iraq’s attempting to acquire the raw materials, equipment, or expertise to manufacture chemical weapons from the United States. When we become aware of attempts to do so, we will act to prevent their export to Iraq".

Also note, there is no reference to kow towing

 

[Richardols]

gilliam:

Funny, the Left kept yelling at the US to do something about the middle east, well we are, and the Left is not happy. Go figure!

It might have to do with what “we” do when “we” do something about the Middle East. It may not be acceptable.

 

[Matt25]

Della:

We were talking about corruption not profits. It is widely known that Germany and France did under the table deals with Saddam in the “Food for Oil” program. You do your own research.

No one has been convicted of anything. In this context ‘widely known’ means that if you repeat a slander often enough people will begin to believe that its true. Innocent until proven guilty is a principle that operates in civillised countries. But then the rule of law doesnt apply to the USA does it?

 

[Matt25]

condan:

So long as England occupies the six counties of Ulster and prevents a United Ireland, I would think that good taste and decorum would dictate refraining from discussing anything imposed at the end of a bayonet.

I am not English, I am Scottish. What is your point exactly?

 

[Richardols]

Matt25:

I am not English, I am Scottish.

Och! To be confused with some Sassenach!

But, yere no tae be treating folk unkindly just for an accident o birth that they’re nae Scots - pity them, aye, but dinnae mock them.

 

[gnjsdad]

gilliam:

Gnjsdad,
OK, as a reminder, here is the history. There are detailed notes of the meeting and Rumsfeld made no reference to chemical weapons. Read it for yourself here. The political retoric last year was so intense that everyone assumed he did, because the Democrats and Michael Moore seemed to endorse that idea, even though Rumsfeld denied it. Well now we know Rumsfeld was right. Let’s try to stick to history in this forum, and not propaganda.

The following is from: gwu.edu/~nsarchiv/NSAEBB/NSAEBB82/

Thanks for the interesting link

However, I must ask: did you thoroughly read the article you linked to? Judging from your post, it’s hard not to conclude that either you didn’t read it very thoroughly, or you cherry-picked the segments to support your own position.

Let me quote from the article’s conclusion:

The current Bush administration discusses Iraq in starkly moralistic terms to further its goal of persuading a skeptical world that a preemptive and premeditated attack on Iraq could and should be supported as a “just war”. The documents included in this briefing book reflect the realpolitik that determined this country’s policies during the years when Iraq was actually employing chemical weapons. Actual rather than rhetorical opposition to such use was evidently not perceived to serve U.S. interests…

Chemical warfare was viewed as a potentially embarrassing public relations problem that complicated efforts to provide assistance. The Iraqi government’s repressive internal policies, though well known to the U.S. government at the time, do not figure at all in the presidential directives that established U.S. policy toward the Iran-Iraq War. The U.S. was concerned with its ability to project military force in the Middle East, and to keep the oil flowing. (emphasis mine)

Just what was Rumsfeld doing in Baghdad at the time, if not acting to solidify the U.S. relationship with Saddam (kowtowing, if you will)? Chemical weapons and the tyranny of Saddam’s regime toward its own people clearly were not a casus belli then. What changed from then to now?

 

[gnjsdad]

gnjsdad:

Thanks for the interesting link

However, I must ask: did you thoroughly read the article you linked to? Judging from your post, it’s hard not to conclude that either you didn’t read it very thoroughly, or you cherry-picked the segments to support your own position.

Let me quote from the article’s conclusion:

The current Bush administration discusses Iraq in starkly moralistic terms to further its goal of persuading a skeptical world that a preemptive and premeditated attack on Iraq could and should be supported as a “just war”. The documents included in this briefing book reflect the realpolitik that determined this country’s policies during the years when Iraq was actually employing chemical weapons. Actual rather than rhetorical opposition to such use was evidently not perceived to serve U.S. interests…

Chemical warfare was viewed as a potentially embarrassing public relations problem that complicated efforts to provide assistance. The Iraqi government’s repressive internal policies, though well known to the U.S. government at the time, do not figure at all in the presidential directives that established U.S. policy toward the Iran-Iraq War. The U.S. was concerned with its ability to project military force in the Middle East, and to keep the oil flowing. (emphasis mine)

Just what was Rumsfeld doing in Baghdad at the time, if not acting to solidify the U.S. relationship with Saddam (kowtowing, if you will)? Chemical weapons and the tyranny of Saddam’s regime toward its own people clearly were not a casus belli then. What changed from then to now?

In addition, Document 24 in the above link alludes to the fact that, at the time of Rumsfeld’s visit to Baghdad, the U.S. was certainly at least aware that Saddam was using chemical weapons and that

they note that Iraq has acquired a CW (chemical weapons) production capability, presumably from Western firms, including possibly a U.S. foreign subsidiary (emphasis mine)

 

[condan]

Matt25:

I am not English, I am Scottish. What is your point exactly?

Scotland, last time I looked, had been incorporated into the “United Kingdom”. My point is that the British have a long and illustrious history of imperialism, subjugation and tyranny which continues to this day. I find it quite hypocritical that HRH’s subjects condemn the actions of the American President while England’s actions are simply no better. England was destroying indigenous peoples and invading foreign lands for monetary gain long before America even existed. Example: Scotland. To this day, England’s presence in Ulster is purely economic.

Certainly no one’s government is perfect but I’ll certainly take democracy over a monarchy supported by the taxpayers that continues to supress a group of people after 900 years.

So as far as Bush-bashing, it should be limited to those people who live in a utopian government that has never gone to war, never dominated a native people and who is able to fight for their own freedom.

**
Whoever tortures a human being,
whoever abuses a human being,
whoever outrages a human being
abuses God’s image,
and the church takes as its own
that cross, that martyrdom.

How many Irish have been tortured at the hands of HRH in this century alone?**

 

[FightingFat]

Plastic paddy- you haven’t got a clue!

 

[gilliam]

gnjsdad:

In addition, Document 24 in the above link alludes to the fact that, at the time of Rumsfeld’s visit to Baghdad, the U.S. was certainly at least aware that Saddam was using chemical weapons and that

they note that Iraq has acquired a CW (chemical weapons) production capability, presumably from Western firms, including possibly a U.S. foreign subsidiary (emphasis mine)

Yes, there is speculation at the site, and yes, it is no pro-Bush. I thought you would read it if I linked to a non-Republican site.

However, ignoring the speculation, the history from all signs seems sound.

In other words, it disputes your original point that Rumsfeld was kow towing to Saddam. In fact, the US eventually condemed Iraq’s use of chemical weapons and shows the WMD did not come from the US. Although some may have come, possibly, maybe, the author speculates from a “foreign subsidiary”. We now know that the chemical weapons that were used on the Kurds came instead from a firm in Holland.

Again, pls stop the political hyperbole.

 

[gnjsdad]

gilliam:

Yes, there is speculation at the site, and yes, it is no pro-Bush. I thought you would read it if I linked to a non-Republican site.

However, ignoring the speculation, the history from all signs seems sound.

In other words, it disputes your original point that Rumsfeld was kow towing to Saddam.

Perhaps “kowtow” is too perjorative a term for Rumsfeld’s mission, but the facts show that at the time, the US was desperate that Iran not prevail against Iraq, and that the US offered Saddam substantial economic and military assistance, including heavy trucks, helicopters, and, it turns out, dual-use components which could be used to manufacture chemical and biological weapons. This is an incontestable fact, as shown here, and here .

gilliam:

Again, pls stop the political hyperbole.

Political hyperbole? I don’t know what you mean by that. Is it my use of emphases in quotes? It’s just my opinion (surprise, surprise ) that the reasons given for the invasion of Iraq were not what we were told, and that they have more to do with realpolitik than altruism.

 

[gilliam]

gnjsdad:

Perhaps “kowtow” is too perjorative .

It’s just not accurate. To kowtow is to show homage to a superior. That was not what he was doing. Maybe I’m too sensitive, but I know that our “wrestler” was not kowtowing to anyone outside the US at that time or since.

 

[condan]

Plastic paddy- you haven’t got a clue!

Easy now. Ethnic slurs? Puhlease. By the way, I’m not Irish but husband and kids are. Direct your “paddy” remarks to them. Me, I’m Spanish-Scot so that would make me what… a frugal sp*c, eh?

In the same vein, what do you call Black people? Jewish people? Pakistanis? Do you use similar pejoratives when you refer to them? If so, is that considered a hate crime in England?

 

[FightingFat]

condan:

Easy now. Ethnic slurs? Puhlease. By the way, I’m not Irish but husband and kids are. Direct your “paddy” remarks to them. Me, I’m Spanish-Scot so that would make me what… a frugal sp*c, eh?

In the same vein, what do you call Black people? Jewish people? Pakistanis? Do you use similar pejoratives when you refer to them? If so, is that considered a hate crime in England?

LOL! I’m Irish! :yup:

You can’t win this argument by mis-direction- your remarks demonstrated that you are ignorant of the real situation. I’m from Mayo- IRA heartland. I have a home there and spend a lot of time with my family. I live and work in England. The is a lot of historical bad feeling, but we’ve all moved on. Ireland is looking forward, not back. England doesn’t want anything from Ireland except peace.

 

[condan]

FightingFat:

LOL! I’m Irish! :yup:

You can’t win this argument by mis-direction- your remarks demonstrated that you are ignorant of the real situation. I’m from Mayo- IRA heartland. I have a home there and spend a lot of time with my family. I live and work in England. The is a lot of historical bad feeling, but we’ve all moved on. Ireland is looking forward, not back. England doesn’t want anything from Ireland except peace.

That’s the Republic which has done quite well. My pastor is from Mayo, name of Kelly. What about Ulster because that’s nae what my friends living there or forced to emigrate have to say.

It still doesn’t excuse the use of the term paddy, Irish or not. I know its “hip” to use those terms on ones own kind these days, but I’m not that with it. Respect for all, including one’s own, rules my home.

 

[Matt25]

condan:

Scotland, last time I looked, had been incorporated into the “United Kingdom”. My point is that the British have a long and illustrious history of imperialism, subjugation and tyranny which continues to this day.

So it does. it has an equally long history of anti-imperialist activism. As does the USA. I don’t blame all Americans for Vietnam why blame all the British, which I guess is what you mean when using the word English, for the history of repression in Ireland?

I find it quite hypocritical that HRH’s subjects condemn the actions of the American President while England’s actions are simply no better. England was destroying indigenous peoples and invading foreign lands for monetary gain long before America even existed. Example: Scotland. To this day, England’s presence in Ulster is purely economic.

The UK used to be the worlds number one superpower. Now the USA is. One day it will be another country. Does that mean that US citizens are forever precluded from criticizing the next superpower because they used to be one?

BTW British occupation of the North of Ireland costs money it does not generate any. It is maintained for geo-political reasons not financial ones.

BTW2 Only the Unionists refer to it as Ulster. British occupied Ireland has six of Ulsters nine counties. Unionists call it Ulster to legitimise its historical continuity. Actually it was the largest area the British could get away with occupying after the war.

Certainly no one’s government is perfect but I’ll certainly take democracy over a monarchy supported by the taxpayers that continues to supress a group of people after 900 years.

Have you any idea of what a constitutional Monarchy actually is? Incidentally we have changed Dynasty several times over the past 900 years. And of course Scotland and England have only shared Monarchs since 1603 so I’m only personally guilty of 400 years of repression.

**
How many Irish have been tortured at the hands of HRH in this century alone?**

None whatsoever because
a) There has been a ceasefire for all of the 21st Century so far.

b) HRH stands for His/Her Royal Highness and the IRA has never accused Elizabeth Windsor of torturing anyone. Perhaps you mean HMG (Her Majestys Government)