Jump to content

How Interesting


Recommended Posts

Hey Grizzle! Long time no see! Err, well... I've never actually seen you but... um, you know what I mean.

One of the things Ronald Reagan regretted later in life was when he and Rumsfeld allowed Saddam to acquire chemical weapons, which was done for a number of political reasons that made sense at the time. Notice the key word "allowed". That some of the material for the weapons (a minority, actually) were from PRIVATE Amercian entities is a natural fact., considering the U.S. had a private market for such materials, as did other nations. That Reagan closed a blind eye is clear, but this is a far cry from the ridicluous contention that every chemical weapon found in Iraq were handed to Hussein personally by the US Government. Remo is correct in that the liberal blogs and disinformation machine have done a good job warping the truth in order to support their claims of administration and national hypocricy on the part of the U.S.

I think the article I posted below does a pretty good job in detailing the truth of the situation fairly well. Remember, we were allied with Josef Stalin in 1944. The world changes; necessity changes things. It's a matter of course, even if it sometimes leads to uncomfortable bedfellows. Ultimately, it seems the US stance towards the middle east during the Iran-Iraq war was to ensure both sides wore each other out without any one side gained an advantage and eventually won. Not an ideal foreign policy, true, but there wasn't a much bettere way available to handle the notoriously impenetrable Middle East with regards to our own national interests.

National Security Archive Documents on U.S. Relations with Iraq

Regardless of what Hussein acquired from private U.S. sources, he clearly had aggressive programs of his own that far outstripped anything he might have received from foreign sources. The odds that ANY of the weapons found have any U.S.- made bio or chemo materials are ifinitesimally small.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Hey Prez, right back at ya.

I don't think the idea that we've provided Iraq with chemical weapons in the past is meant to insinuate those exact same weapons have been used against us.

It's merely that we were once complicit with the enemy and as such remain culpable for the deaths due to the use of those weapons (whenever that may have been and to whomever they were used upon.) Sure, if we didn't supply them someone else would have but is that really an excuse? There is no excuse. Conventional arms are one thing, chemical weapons and other WMD's are another.

As far as I'm concerned, whether we "allowed" it to happen or whether Rumsfeld personally delivered them by hand is fairly irrelevent. What is to be said of a government that "allows" private industry to sell such dangerous agents around the world and indeed to those considered a danger to it's own national security anyway?

Despite the official line, I'm inclined to believe all of this was sanctioned by and done with full knowledge of the Government. I no longer have faith that anything the government tells us is the whole truth.

Now we can all argue whether such actions are justified or even actually occur, and that's fine, but to believe that the government is infallible is the first step towards losing control of it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I agree. I personally hate the thought of even the possibility that the materials obtained from the US could have been, and probably were used to kill others. Possibly even civilians. This is one of those things that Reagan, of whom I am a huge fan, deeply regretted having ever allowed to go on. But truthfully, the volatility in the region was so frightening that the Reagan administration publically condemned the use of chem weapons all the while adopting a "don't ask, don't tell" policy. Clearly an imperfect solution to a dangerous and worrisome situation. If Iran was getting clobbered by Iraq, it couldn't make trouble for us. And since Iraq was a MAJOR oil supplier for us, we had a vested interest in ensuring they did not succumb to the Iranians. This proves that the Reagan Administration was not infallible, and they were the best I've seen in my lifetime.

Personally, I've never trusted Rumsfeld no matter whose administration he's been in. The guy just comes across as a 'scheister'. But he's been around, and has TONS of experience. Hell, If I were president, I'd probably want him in MY cabinet too, if for that reason alone.

The way I see it, this country's dependency on oil has yielded nothing but trouble for the last half a century. We need a new fuel source, and we need it now.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

quote:

Originally posted by Prez:

The way I see it, this country's dependency on oil has yielded nothing but trouble for the last half a century. We need a new fuel source, and we need it now.

Agreed, and it looks like we're finally beginning to move in that direction a little. Unfortunately, some big hitters in the oil industry are trying to hamper that... just as they have for the past 30 years.

I hope that this war does pay off in oil some... maybe by taking the gas prices down.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

quote:

Originally posted by Prez:

Keep playing that "THE US GAVE IRAQ WMD" tune. It's and oldie but a goodie! America is evil, blah blah blah. And did we really need to "fabricate" anything to attack Afghanistan? They were only harboring and funding Al Qaeda. Of course that's not enough for you Volio, since they didn't attack you. You wear you "President of the Blame America First Association" hat with pride I see. Good to know you still keep repeating the same garbage over and over Volio. If there's one thing I love about a person, it's predictability.


Ouch, I've been hit

Seriously, you can bash me all you want, but one day you may have to admit that crappy old v01i0 was right after all. Fear is awesome tool for controlling masses. Just take your time and think about these things for a while, and you might find out even Al Qaida might be a fabrication of your government.

For your amazement, I don't think that america is evil. Same things could happen in any country in europe too. I'm only sad to see how things are developing there(here also, only in smaller scale); how easy it is to manipulate people. To be honest, I'm afraid of what some governments are actually capable(in evil sense) of.

-v

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Nice post Prez. Looks like you and I and WeeGee agree.

Though I might add that I believe the duplicity with which this government seems to deal in foreign relations is a big part of the reason why so many nations dislike us.

I've long believed this country should lead by example and some of the examples we set aren't exactly in line with what we preach or the image we wish to (and should) project.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

quote:

Originally posted by Grizzle:

Though I might add that I believe the duplicity with which this government seems to deal in foreign relations is a big part of the reason why so many nations dislike us.

Call me pessimistic if you want, but I strongly believe that some of the third world countries governments, especially the South American countries, which I've done extensive research on, are in some ways jealous of our economy... and angry about the ways we've gotten there.

Both the Middle East and South American countries have, at some time or another, been used and abused by American Corporations. There is a lot of truth in the accusations that our economy is built off of the suffering of others. Do I feel terrible about it, honestly, and maybe I'm just a cold hearted son of a... but no, I really don't feel bad about it.

One thing that American corporations are now finally doing is actually acknowledging the fact that they do represent the American people world wide, and are attempting to better working conditions overseas. This doesn't always happen, especially in South America. Most American corporations and companies have spent the last 130 years forgetting the fact that oh yes, they do represent the U.S. Government in a form, because our economy is based off of them. The United Fruit Company is a good example of a corporation that never took that into mind.

In addition, the American public has this nieve thought that people will love every action we take internationally because of the poor reporting of news that has been happening for the past 30 years. Yes, historically the European countries have appreciated our actions, but historically the third world regions, Southeast Asia, the Middle East, and South America, have absolutely hated our actions.

There are deeper reasons why our foreign relations in the Middle East and South American regions are so terrible. Bush really didn't do much in the way of destroying relations... as they were already pretty poor. He's just an easy target for the media to blame.

Our current administration, while not really doing anything to improve relations, was not the cause of the hatred the Middle Eastern countries have for us. The media would like us to believe otherwise, but friends of mine in the military, mostly Marines, have said that many of the people in Iraq are genuinely nice people who appreciate what America has done (however there are those who will drink beer with the US Marines and then be shooting at them the next day during the call for Jihad).

This hasn't improved relations with Iran or North Korea, and North Korean relations have been failing for years. Bush is just the unlucky guy who had to throw the hammer down. As much as people hate to hear this, in 10-15 years we will be at war with North Korea.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

quote:

Originally posted by Prez:

You know, you and I don't always agree, Weegee, but I have to say, that was a brilliant synopsis. Your facts and observations are spot on, imo. I don't think I can disagree with a single thing you said. Kudos!

Haha, well thank you. And you're right, we don't always agree so its nice to see us agree with something once in a while.

I'm personally just frustrated with how so many people take things at face value these days with politics. I've read some very nasty declassified documents written by some politicians who have been considered gods of foreign policy that have just made me kind of cautious when reading some news, such as this Fox News report. In my studies, I've seen many reports that were "declassfied" at the time, then many years later a real declassfied report came out later saying that the situation was either worse or better than the original "declassified" report said.

Maybe its a bad habit that I've developed, maybe not, but I guess the best thing to do right now is to sit it out and see whats up in a few years.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Please sign in to comment

You will be able to leave a comment after signing in



Sign In Now
 Share

×
×
  • Create New...