Remeber this, we gave the chemicals to hussein that he used against the Kurds

[still_one]

we armed BOTH Iran and Iraq during their 10 year war which killed at least a million people

After the first gulf war we promised the Shiites to revolt against saddam, and we would come to their aid. We broke that promise, and thousands of Shia were killed

What do we really stand for?

Iraq is now in a civil war because of us. There are no weapons of mass destruction, saddam is dead, there is NO REASON THAT WE REMAIN THERE

Next year the Democrats take over. For six years the Democrats did the WRONG THING, they better do the right thing this time

[The Straight Story]

1. We gave, but someone else made the choice to use

And that someone paid for that today.

People who use what they have are more responsible than those who gave them the things they have.

[Erika]

3. No, the GOP leadership knew exactly what Saddam had planned

Remember the gold plated pistol Cheney gave to Saddam?

Now that GOP leadership needs to pay.

[sistersofmercy]

7. Whatever

If you don't think our government had a hand it, you're just naive. We supplied chemicals and intel. Plus there are reports the chems were the ones we gave the Iranians. Do you think our government would tell the truth? The Iranians are the ones who held western reporters just across the border until the smoke cleared in order to get the film footage of the village we have all seen ad nauseum. What do you say about that?

[still_one]

9. sorry, but have you ever heard of Iran Contra

the entire intent was to have both parties kill each other. Incidently, when rumsfeld shook saddam's hand, he knew very well that chemicals had been used by hussein against the kurds

saddam is guilty, but so are we, and to deny that is denying reality

[Bluerthanblue]

24. are you sure you really support this position??? its like saying

* only sent our soldiers to Iraq, it was their 'choice' to fire the weapons, drop the bombs, and incarcerate the civillians, and so THEY are more responsible???

Sorry SS- i can hardly agree. When i leave a loaded gun around a group of teenagers, or worse yet, GIVE it to them, i bear a tremendous responsibility for them using it- because if we hadn't equipped Saddam with the gas,- AND helped give precise co-ordinates in the use of this weapon, it is highly unlikely he'd have ever done what he did- (or is said to have done)

What i'd like to know, is why do we use the actions taken by SH some .... 30? years ago- actions that we were completely aware of, and that we never 'sanctioned' him for- or asked for international charges to be brought against him for, as justification NOW for our aiding and abeting his murder?????

Is the 'pusher' not the one that the law seeks to convict, and not the sorry user? You want the pimp or the prostitute?

We are fithly dirty SS- and the shame i feel as an American goes deeper than i have words for.

my relations bled and died for a country that would never excuse this kind of behaviour-

they are rolling in their graves....

[The Straight Story]

30. So are you saying that we 'expect' other, lesser, people to do the wrong thing?

Are they savages? Or are they able to discern right from wrong and do the right thing?

Are you saying that the people in other countries are like teenagers and not as advanced as us (ie savages perchance)? That they do not know right from wrong?

[Bluerthanblue]

36. well, riddle me this:

why do we say we don't want Iran, N.Korea, or any other nation in the world not currently in possession of nuclear weapons to gain possession of them, but we have a shitload of them, as do all our 'friends'- and yet, when people we can 'use' (like Pakistan) gain possession of nuclear weapons, we somehow 'don't mind'?

Yes, i'm saying that if we posses, devise, and produce terrible weapons, and PUT them into the hands of others, with the EXPRESS desire that they use them against people we have come to see as our adversaries- we are the TRUE enemy.

WE are the guilty ones. WE went into Afghanistan and trained, armed, and encouraged them to fight 'the russians'- and when Russia fell, our intrest in Afghanistan was nearly non existant- but they were now left with all sorts of weapons, and people trained by our SOA -- yes, i do think that we have corrupted a good portion of this world, with our weaponry, and our greed-

This land called America has been home to my family since the Mayflower- i don't have the health or the $ to leave, and my children have roots here that arent as weak as mine. But i'm afraid i love the 'faded remenants' of what America ...'was'... or 'was supposed to be'..... and that what 'we' are, is something dark, and diseased.

Savages? no, the people who use our technology aren't savages, they are often innocent- naieve, and trusting. Were the Native Americans 'savages'? or naieve? They took us at our word, and look where that got them.

Your view of 'advanced' and 'savages' seems to be 180 deg. opposite to mine.

[sistersofmercy]

41. Ok

If I give you coke and you die from it, am I negligent?
We supplied chems and intel to both sides. Wake up. Two countries in the mideast had surplusses of cash from oil proceeds and after the war they didn't. Particularly Iraq who supplied our country with oil in defiance of the oil embargo by OPEC during the oil crisis. The main supply of oil at that time. Very simple.

[tavalon]

46. Different kind of culpability

Not better or worse, different. I think you've stepped on shifting sand with this one and you're too smart for that. Just say this is indefensible and move on.

[Codeine]

2. Saddam bought stuff from lots of people.

While I feel selling him weapons was a stupid and immoral decision, ultimately he has to bear the responsibility for what he does with his toys.

[Erika]

4. We sold him the chemicals

Let's demand a little bit of accountability please.

[Codeine]

10. Certainly.

If you want to put international arms dealers on trial we're on the same page. But if I hand you a baseball bat and you use it to beat your little brother to death you're still responsible.

The culpability of the US in supplying the gas doesn't diminish Saddam's culpability for using it.

[Erika]

14. It does if we know he's predispositioned to violence

What do you have against accountability?

[Codeine]

18. Don't presume to speak for me.

Rumsfeld and the nasty little Bush Cabal should be held accountable. Saddam has been held accountable. One does not cancel out or justify the other.

It sounds to me as though YOU are the one who has difficulty dealing with accountability issues.

[Erika]

23. Who are you talking to with your post? n/t

[Codeine]

29. You.

You asked me what I have against accountability. I've nothing against it.

[Erika]

34. Explain to me why I have issues with accountability, please n/t

[still_one]

16. both parties are responsible. This was our foreign policy at the time

You blame it on international arms dealers my friend, the U.S. IS an international arms dealer. We are the biggest supplier of weapons throughout the world

and I never said saddam was not culpable, I just was pointing out that so are WE

[Codeine]

20. Well, then we agree.

What are we arguing about?

[still_one]

26. I don't think we are. I already sensed we were in agreement. Sorry if it came out wrong

[Igel]

19. Wasn't it the Belgians or the Dutch

that provided the lion's share of the precursors for making chemical warfare agents?

We provided some, a fair piece of change, and munitions, but somehow we deserve all the blame for everything. More than a couple countries helped SH, but apparently all but one is to be let off the hook. And especially SH is let off the hook.

American exceptionalism, I guess. Those dumb foreigners just can't be held accountable for their actions. :sarcasm:

[Codeine]

21. LOL! nt

[Igel]

37. I saw a very nice documented list of arms and chemical

shipments to Iraq in the '80s.

It was a long list. With a very interesting set of country names by various things. It wasn't US helicopters, US airplanes, US missiles, US armored personnel carriers, US chemicals, US this and US that.

Must be a shock having the idea of American exceptionalism challenged.

[still_one]

40. So are you saying the US did not participate? /nt

[Codeine]

44. I think he just means

that there is plenty of guilt to go around. It didn't just start and end with us; few things are that simple and easily-compartmentalized.

[still_one]

49. no doubt about it, but that does of course that does not excuse anyone

[Codeine]

43. People do seem to forget

that most of Europe and Asia have thriving armaments industries, don't they? We sell lots of big-ticket items, but the sheer number of weapons and materials being sold by other governments and corporations is astounding.

[rman]

48. In this context "US" is shorthand for "the west"

because even though other wealthy nations do play a role, the US is clearly the front-runner.
Which certainly does not exonerate those other nations. But the fact that they aren't always mentioned does not exonerate the US.

Besides, it was an American who shook Saddam's hand on the deal.

[still_one]

11. We knew what they were being used for, and how do you exonerate the Iran/Iraq war?

we helped the killing on both sides

[Codeine]

15. No doubt.

But I can't understand why you seem to believe that if we were involved that everyone else is excused. I'd love to see Rumsfeld twitching on a rope right next to Saddam.

[still_one]

25. I don't.. saddam is guilty, and so were we, that is all I am saying

What has gotten lost since we invaded Iraq, is the entire history of our involvement there

I doubt the MSM, when talking about the execution of hussein, will mention our involvement in empowering him. Instead they will point only to the atrocities HE committed, but conveniently ignore our involvement

[Bluerthanblue]

5. i don't know what we stand for- i guess i don't

know who 'we' are either-

all i know is that the more i see of this F*%ked up world, the more i think i'd just as soon have traded places with Saddam tonite-

I don't have much optimism for the 'new power shift'-
it's beginin to feel like just a slightly different flavor of the same old slop-

this year can't end soon enough

[still_one]

27. you are right about that. At least there is possible hope with a Democratic Congress

but after six years, I am also pesimistic

[The_Casual_Observer]

6. Poison Gas doesn't kill people, people kill people.

Or something like that.

[still_one]

28. That's good. Can we say that about nukes also?

Nukes don't kill people, people kill people.... LOL

[Imagevision]

8. This is rich -- the US. supplies Saddam with the chemicals, he uses them and he's the culprit

how assinine a logic this is !

[Codeine]

12. So if I give you a gun

and you use it to shoot the pResident you're off the hook? :shrug:

[Erika]

17. No, you're on the hook also n/t

[still_one]

33. Actually, if you give someone a gun, and they do not go through the mandatory waiting period

and licensing requirements, you both are responsible

Try knifes, I don't think they have any restrictions as long as the blade is under four inches

In seriousness though, if you give a weapon to someone knowing that it will be used in a killing you are guilty of a crime

[mogster]

45. Well, the US arms dealers that sold him weapons is off the hook

Is that any different? ;-)

A corpse is dangling from the gallows, the obvious scapegoat. The fat cats are running free, smirking.
You're defending the fat cats.

[mondo joe]

51. If you know the intent of the shooter and give him the gun you're complicit in the crime.

[Cleita]

13. Isn't there a crime of aiding and abetting in there somewhere?

I mean if Tony Soprano gives Christopher a gun to ice an enemy, Tony is as guilty as Christopher.

[Igel]

31. It's exactly the kind of logic my wife uses when I

let our toddler play with something he can't control or use responsibility. She's right, of course.

But the logic only holds if the other person is not really fully responsible or morally accountable for his actions.

It's the kind of logic that used to be applied to adult blacks in less enlightened times, too; the poor souls needed somebody to watch over them, racist cretins used to think, and they denied them full personhood, dignity, and responsibility for their actions (unless some blacks really got out of line, then they'd simply be lynched).

[still_one]

32. We both are. In fact we literally embraced hussein after that

and we were well aware of what he had done, and that he had violated international law

In addition, instead of trying to promote peace between Iran and Iraq, we did just the opposite, and supplied them both with weapons to kill each other. I have a real problem with that

[Catherine Vincent]

22. "We" as in which President?

Reagan or Bush 41?

[still_one]

35. both reagan and both bushs

reagan with the Iran/Contra, etc.

and bush I, through his ambassador to Iraq telling Saddam that the US would not involve themselves if Iraq invaded Kuwait, and thus setting him up for our the first invasion of Iraq, which we then followed by assurring the Shiites that we would provide air support if they would revolt against saddam, but never followed through

[4nic8em]

38. Interesting dialog...

How's this? If this discussion regarding America providing chem weapons to Iraq/Iran were to ever hit MSM, the banner at the bottom of every "news" channel would continuously scroll: During Reagan/Bush administrations, US provided chemical agents to Middle Eastern countries to help eradicate locust infestation during widespread plague.

[still_one]

39. excellent, if you actually wanted you could probably be a journalist in the U.S. today

your not are you?

[4nic8em]

42. of course not..

just familiar with the game they all play...

[rman]

47. which is probably why he was not on trial for that,

and why the West collectively looked the other way when it happened.

[ecstatic]

50. Exactly. The hypocrisy gets me. Plus, are there not mass graves

being used RIGHT NOW to bury the 650K+ Iraqis that have died in this war?