Originally posted by Ausgedient the Ninja:
Originally posted by JaTo:
...and your point is?


We played an IMPORTANT, VITAL, and NECESSARY part in the development of their programs, yet a paper addressing their programs has no mention of us? Sigh.



Nor did it mention any of the dozen other countries that have supplied as much if nor more supplies and weaponized chemical/biological material. I never felt this paper's purpose was one of pointing fingers and laying blame; I was simply being sarcastic and biting in bringing this source to light, as it seems many quickly forget the resume of the regime that just who we've recently removed from power...

Originally posted by JaTo:
Should I refer to countless other mentionings of mine on US shipments of chemical and biological weapons/supplies in the '80s under the Regan administration? It's shameful, it was a HUGE mistake and it's disgusting. Times, alliances, politics and THREATS have changed since then. Those that don't understand this and adjust to this fact will be left exposed to ALL sorts of grief.


Originally posted by Ausgedient the Ninja:
Iraq was not a threat then, and they were not a threat now. Hindsight may be 20/20, but I was saying this before we too easily took their country, and before they did not use WMD, not even to defend their very own lives. The war shows how large a threat Iraq truly poised.



A bunch a radical kooks in Afghanistan and 19 certain Arab individuals weren't considered much of a threat to the US or it's interests on September 10th, 2001, either. Sorry, but I fully consider those that claim to HATE America and plot against her THREATS, whether of our own making or not. If anything, September 11th proved one doesn't have to have a division of tanks and scores of infantry to be able to cause harm to the US...

Originally posted by JaTo:
Would you also care to include France, Spain, China, England, Germany, Russia and others on your hit list, or since this is "bash the US" day, are we going to convienently leave them out of this mix?


Originally posted by Ausgedient the Ninja:
If you will take time to reread my statement, nowhere will you see any sole mention of the US. Not only was I referring to the US, but also to countries like Germany who also supplied Iraq (only because we allowed them to of course). You assumed what you wanted to.



Fair enough, though the profound lack of stated political entities and the tone of the overall post tends to put the spotlight on the Stars and Stripes, no?

Originally posted by JaTo:
At least we are taking some measure of RESPONSIBILITY for our past actions. One of the main goals of ours is chemical/biological disarmament or Iraq. The US and England have stepped up to the plate to do this, and I think it's only appropritate that the countries that ARMED the regime with this stuff be the one's to pay the price to take it back and ensure that as little as possible is left over there. If anyone should go under the sword, it's the countries that have sat this one out that supplied Hussein...


And one of my main points is why is this one of our goals all of a sudden? They have had no significant development in any of their programs, in fact they were weaker than when it was not one of our main goals.

Originally posted by JaTo:
For the nth time, we've got blood on our hands. Need I use bold to get this point across? I've never said our Middle-Eastern meddling has been a rousing success (compared to Russia, yes, but that's another topic). Are you suggesting that we never try to wipe the blood off; simply keep things at the status-quo to justify a self-centered notion that we screwed up and we have to live with it regardless of the potential future consequences?


Originally posted by Ausgedient the Ninja:
It is difficult to wipe blood off with blood. It is amazing to me how you can tell me how poor our "Middle-Eastern meddling" has been and then suggest we meddle even more. I simply believe the long term consequences of this action will cause more negative effects than if the war had never happened. I suppose we will see, and discover how it will "pan out, one way or the other."



I never said it was poor; I said it couldn't be considered a rousing success. At least we don't have the USSR's track record in this regard. If there ever was a time and place that needed meddling, it was the Iraq of now. Actually, I've always thought this should have come MUCH sooner, as in 1991. It seems that the times have changed and the aims of future US administrations have fundamentally changed in terms of international diplomacy. Much of the civilized world's patience for the type of BS that Hussein was pulling is quickly melting away, except in so-called "intellectual circles" where talk and idle chatter is apparently valued much more than measured and carefully considered action.

When it's the blood of Hussein's lackies that is serving as the cleaning fluid, then I would take objection with your inital statement...

Originally posted by JaTo:
Need I remind you 20 years ago our concerns were VERY different than they are today? Care to pick up a newspaper and check out who was running things in the Kremlin during that time and that our MAIN concern was the USSR and how it was trying to gain toeholds in the Middle-East, something that we didn't want to happen at any cost?


Originally posted by Ausgedient the Ninja:
Again you assume I am attacking our decisions in the 1980s, when in fact I have offered no opinion on them. Reread. The only decision I am attacking is that of this current administration. Whether or not it is worth argueing about when the mistake, I mean war, has already been made is another matter.



Then please state where exactly this current administration has failed in it's stated aims and goals so far. Hussein would have NEVER capitulated, hence the main threat would have never been removed without US infantry boots pounding the pavement in Baghdad. Are you suggesting we should have kept Hussein in power, and if so, why?

Originally posted by JaTo:
In short, don't push your ignorance or blindness of history at me and hide it under a blanket-statement of hypocracy. We have used a number of countries as a means to an end and it HAS given us black-eyes at times. Some of what we have done has been rather distateful; some has been downright disgusting. Most all of it at the time was considered very necessary. I'm not going to argue about the validity of our actions in arming Iraq with what we did in the '80s as there's no excuse for what we did.


Originally posted by Ausgedient the Ninja:
Again, reread.



I did. I have a question, then. What IS your opinion of the Regan administration's moves towards Iraq? A lack of an opinion can state an awful lot in itself, though this may be yet another situation to where I read too much into things...

Originally posted by JaTo:
If we don't care, why in the hell are we over there? Why are we handing out food to the civilian population? Why are we going to help rebuild their infrastructure? Why have we been feeding Iraqi prisioners? Why have we been operating on wounded Republican Guard troops? Why are 4 million Iraqi exiles ecstatic that Hussein and his regime have been toppled? If you DARE try and say oil, why didn't we waltz in 12 years ago when we had close to a half-million military personel in the area, which is more than what we started with this time around?


Originally posted by Ausgedient the Ninja:
We are handing out food to the civilian population and feeding Iraqi prisoners because food keeps hungry people in line. Serious question, but I am wondering where this food comes from? We are going to help rebuild their infrastructure because WE are rebuilding their infrastructure. We are doing all of this because of there geographical location and certain resources that location may bring. Am I saying there is anything wrong with that? No, but that is why we are doing it. 4 million Iraqi exiles are ecstatic that the regime has been toppled because they are exiles. We did not waltz in 12 years ago because there did not exist an American backlash that would support such an action.



I would say that is a rather simplistic way of looking at it, as a Democratic Iraq can offer the US and it's allies FAR more than just oil. It would remove yet another regional threat against Saudi Arabia, Turkey and Israel, as well as a long-term threat against us. In time, it can only bring about far less human rights violations against it's own population. It will hopefully give the Kurds a voice in the way that they will be governed. It will hopefully show other Arab nations that we have no interest in becoming a "colonial empire", especially when we get up and get the hell out of there, though given the current state of affairs, this will take some time (maybe a year or two).

If anything, Saddam increased the amount of control over the population after the Gulf War. The Shiites and Kurds were just as oppressed back then as they were 1 month ago and had every reason to revolt, just not the support nor the means to. Saddam had to exert more control than ever on the majority populations after the profound a$$-whooping we handed him in '91.

Originally posted by JaTo:
We aren't saints in this, but this administration and the military under it's control is FAR away from being the careless, heartless pricks that you are so eager to paint them out to be...


I do not doubt the sincerenity of our soldiers.



...nor do I doubt the overall aims of our current leaders regardless of their oil ties. I would have respected Bush, Sr. a great deal more if he had followed through with his promises to the Kurds back in Desert Storm. Guess what, he has the same oil ties as his son does, for the most part and he didn't push into Baghdad...

Ponder this:

If we waltzed into Baghdad in '91, removed Hussein and started to establish a Democratic government then, we wouldn't have had a need to place troops in Saudi Arabia in the fashion we did during Desert Storm (to protect Saudi from a potential Iraqi invasion). Bin Laden has ALWAYS stated that the placement of foreign troops in the most holiest of lands, Saudi Arabia, was a crime beyond reproach and repair, and it was this that finally pushed him to dedicate his time and efforts to waylaying America in any way that he could...

...you can guess probably where the rest of this is heading. I know it's rather reckless fantasy on my part, as no one could see all ends to what going into Iraq in '91 in that fashion would have brought the world, but an interesting notion to say the least.

"Throughout history, it has been the inaction of those who could have acted; the indifference of those who should have known better; the silence of the voice of justice when it mattered most; that has made it possible for evil to triumph."
-Haile Selassie


JaTo e-Tough Guy Missouri City, TX 99 Contour SVT #143/2760 00 Corvette Coupe