It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Thank you.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
Originally posted by dreamwalker74
reply to post by oozyism
No telling what Saddam would have done, or not done. Though if you ask the thousands of Iraqi families, who had family members tortured, raped, and killed under his regime, or if you ask the thousands of Kurds who are left after multiple gas, and biological attacks, whether he should still be there, they would just laugh, while praising the U.S. Whether we went there under false pretenses or not, there are many who are not only gratefull, but alive, for us doing so.
Originally posted by dreamwalker74
reply to post by oozyism
I could argue this all night. Thank you for trying to take me off topic. Was the government involved in 9/11? Or wa it a small band of Extremists?
Start your own post on Iraq, and I promise I will reply.
Most crucially, the US blocked condemnation of Iraq's chemical attacks in the UN Security
Saddam Hussein committed most of his crimes as an ally of the U.S. government. He only became the "new Hitler" when he stepped out of line--threatening Washington's control over the flow of Middle East oil.
But whenever Iran began to gain the upper hand, the U.S. shifted behind Iraq. "While we want no victor, we can't stand to see Iraq defeated," said Richard Armitage--then an assistant defense secretary in the Reagan administration, now a top deputy to Secretary of State Colin Powell--in testimony to Congress.
The U.S. intervention "had little to do with defending 'freedom of the seas' or neutrality," former Regan National Security Adviser Robert McFarlane admitted. "When, in early 1987, Iran made a strategic gain on the Faw Peninsula, we tilted blatantly in favor of Iraq, as we had at similar moments before...[O]ur naval presence...would ensure that Iraq received the supplies it needed to dominate the war."
NONE OF the current Bush administration's justifications for its invasion of Iraq would be complete without referring to how Saddam "gassed his own people." But Saddam's use of chemical weapons took place during the 1980s, when he was a U.S. ally. In fact, Iraq was already using chemical weapons--on an "almost daily basis," according to the Washington Post--when the Reagan administration sent a special envoy to Baghdad in 1983 to show its support.
According to the Associated Press, Saddam used chemical weapons to kill an estimated 190,000 Kurds between 1983 and 1988--along with 50,000 Iranian soldiers, about one in 10 casualties on the Iranian side during the war. All the while, the Reagan administration downplayed Saddam's poison gas massacres--even claiming at one point that its preferred enemy, Iran, was responsible.
In 1988, when a Senate Foreign Relations committee staff report exposed the killings of Kurds in northern Iraq, Sen. Claiborne Pell (D-R.I.) proposed the Prevention of Genocide Act to put pressure on the Iraqi government. But the Reagan administration orchestrated the measure's defeat in Congress.
In an echo of Winston Churchill's comment a half century before, one defense official told the New York Times, "The use of gas on the battlefield by the Iraqis was not a matter of deep strategic concern."
Part of the reason for Washington's silence about Saddam's use of weapons of mass destruction was that U.S. corporations helped to supply them. Throughout the 1980s, the Iraqi government bought the ingredients for its biological weapons program legally--from suppliers in the U.S. and Europe.
Strains of anthrax, botulinum and other toxins came from a company in Rockville, Md.--or from the U.S. government's Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. When Iraq provided a report on its chemical, biological and nuclear weapons programs to United Nations inspectors at the end of 2002, the U.S. tried to censor information about American corporate suppliers.
The five stages
Denial
Anger
Bargaining
Depression
Acceptance