Thread: Military intervention in Syria

We still liked Saddam when he gassed his own people.

Originally Posted by hazz

^not really. all you need to make large quantities of nerve gas is a modified pesticide plant. quite a few of which were supplied to middle east countries, where one would wonder about the economics of local pesticide production. I doubt if the suppliers of the equipment and feed chemicals were in much doubt about what it was going to be used for.... they just didn't care beyond getting paid... same same for the governments.

I don't know about other countries but in the 80's british universities had large numbers of Iranian, Iraqi, Libyan and Syrian students studying degrees and doctorates in biology, biochemistry and industrial chemistry.... all of whom would be very useful for chemical/biological weapon development and production.... some of them were quite open about their eventual employment in defence.

So yes the west has a lot of responsibility for this..... but not in the way you are suggesting.

The United States exported support for Iraq during the Iran–Iraq war over $500 million worth of dual use exports to Iraq that were approved by the Commerce department. Among them were advanced computers, some of which were used in Iraq's nuclear program.[32] The non-profit American Type Culture Collection and the Centers for Disease Control sold or sent biological samples of anthrax, West Nile virus and botulism to Iraq up until 1989, which Iraq claimed it needed for medical research. A number of these materials were used for Iraq's biological weapons research program, while others were used for vaccine development.[33] For example, the Iraqi military settled on the American Type Culture Collection strain 14578 as the exclusive anthrax strain for use as a biological weapon, according to Charles Duelfer.

In the late 1980s, the British government secretly gave the arms company Matrix Churchill permission to supply parts for Saddam Hussein's weapons program, while British Industry supplied Gerald Bull as he developed the Iraqi supergun. In March 1990, a case of nuclear triggers bound for Iraq, were seized at Heathrow Airport. The Scott Report uncovered much of the secrecy that had surrounded the Arms-to-Iraq affair when it became known.[35] The British government also financed a chlorine factory that was intended to be used for manufacturing mustard gas.

The British government has voted AGAINST military intervention in Syria ... Guess we can all relax now.

Originally Posted by Storekeeper

The British government has voted AGAINST military intervention in Syria ... Guess we can all relax now.

Why?

Originally Posted by sabang

We still liked Saddam when he gassed his own people.

Who's 'we' kemo sabe?....

Originally Posted by sabang

We still liked Saddam when he gassed his own people.

he was honored with the key to Detroit!

he may be a dictator but he was our dictator!

Originally Posted by Boon Mee

Originally Posted by Storekeeper

The British government has voted AGAINST military intervention in Syria ... Guess we can all relax now.

Why?

The right decision and rather than go into detail about the yanks and the brits playing the Global Chess board, lets put it this way...i never fly with a British or American Airline, the stress and fear alone might kill me.

^^^^^

Originally Posted by Boon Mee

Originally Posted by sabang

We still liked Saddam when he gassed his own people.

Who's 'we' kemo sabe?....

You. Anyway, Western governments and media at the time blamed it on Iran, we didn't know for years that Saddam ordered it.

Obama Set for Limited Strike on Syria as British Vote No.

Good thing we got rid of that dumb cowboy Bush, who unilaterally invaded Iraq with like 40 other countries.

Originally Posted by Rainfall

Originally Posted by Boon Mee

Originally Posted by sabang

We still liked Saddam when he gassed his own people.

Who's 'we' kemo sabe?....

You. Anyway, Western governments and media at the time blamed it on Iran, we didn't know for years that Saddam ordered it.

Would this be Halabja where yes the american intelligence and the iraqi government suggested that it was iran who carried out the attack.... essentially a chemical attack on their allies in a war with iraq. I rember it at the time.... thinking bullshit. But then has there been a single case where a claim that a beligerant has deliberately gassed their own side in order to accuse their opponent of using chemical weapons has stud up to the test of time.... as sadams and the US intelligence claims about halabja did not.

Originally Posted by Boon Mee

Obama Set for Limited Strike on Syria as British Vote No.

Good thing we got rid of that dumb cowboy Bush, who unilaterally invaded Iraq with like 40 other countries.

Americans wanted change and it seems they got it.

No coalition this time, just go it alone.

Originally Posted by barbaro

Did anyone care about the Tsutsi and the (forgot the other African name). Darfur?

Hutoo or some such spelling. Clinton and Company stayed well clear of that mess. Evidently in spite of Bill being called the "first black president," he left little doubt that the killing, (genocide) that occurred was simply a local problem.

The UN General resigned after a short period of being told "stand down," let them sort it out! At least a couple hundred thousand died during that escapade.

Gas attacks are something remembered from WW I, for most history buffs. The war to end all wars so they said. I can't imagine a world where people being gassed with chemical weapons is an acceptable option no matter who's doing the gassing for what reason whatsoever.

Advice to those who are in Syria: Always check the wind direction and stay "upwind." If I were a citizen of Syria I would have packed my ditty bag long ago and headed for the planes of Kurdistan.

Originally Posted by barbaro

I know you're joking.

You wish I was, perhaps-

Exclusive: CIA Files Prove America Helped Saddam as He Gassed Iran

The U.S. knew Hussein was launching some of the worst chemical attacks in history -- and still gave him a hand.

According to recently declassified CIA documents and interviews with former intelligence officials like Francona, the U.S. had firm evidence of Iraqi chemical attacks beginning in 1983. At the time, Iran was publicly alleging that illegal chemical attacks were carried out on its forces, and was building a case to present to the United Nations. But it lacked the evidence implicating Iraq, much of which was contained in top secret reports and memoranda sent to the most senior intelligence officials in the U.S. government. The CIA declined to comment for this story.

In contrast to today's wrenching debate over whether the United States should intervene to stop alleged chemical weapons attacks by the Syrian government, the United States applied a cold calculus three decades ago to Hussein's widespread use of chemical weapons against his enemies and his own people. The Reagan administration decided that it was better to let the attacks continue if they might turn the tide of the war. And even if they were discovered, the CIA wagered that international outrage and condemnation would be muted.
Exclusive: CIA Files Prove America Helped Saddam as He Gassed Iran - By Shane Harris and Matthew M. Aid | Foreign Policy


I've not really bothered pursuing this topic- there is much else to bother about. But, to be quite honest, this 'concerned hand wringing' emanating from the West does seem more than a little contrived, and all too convenient. We don't seem too concerned that our mates in Al Qaeda have already used the stuff, and we collaborated with Iraq in an attempt to keep their far more serious gas attacks away from public eyes.

Originally Posted by sabang

I've not really bothered pursuing this topic- there is much else to bother about.

Like what? The smells emanating from your toilet? Surely you're just kidding about having more serious issues to to bother about...?

Originally Posted by sabang

Today, I am far more concerned about the potential for unilateral actions that may bring a good deal of the world to the brink of war

Well, your a good man Charlie Brown. So much concern for a humanity hell bent on destruction.

All I'm concerned with is the next five seconds before I post my next shit comment...can't figure out why you or any normal person would give two shits for a world bent backwards to satisfy the morality police and pressitudnoids.

Lap dancing my way through life is a far better vocation....sabai sabai sabang.

from what i've read and heard, the president hasn't made any decisions yet.

IMHO, the best course of action would be the following:

1. wait for the UN report...if it indicates the syrian govt used chemical weapons
2. go to congress for a vote to use force as part of a UN coalition.....if it passes
3. go to the UN security council for a vote....if it passes, limited strikes with no ground troops. if it fails, publicly admonish those who voted against it.

Originally Posted by raycarey

if it fails, publicly admonish those who voted against it.

Let me be the first...

^ care to expand?

Originally Posted by raycarey

from what i've read and heard, the president hasn't made any decisions yet.

IMHO, the best course of action would be the following:

1. wait for the UN report...if it indicates the syrian govt used chemical weapons
2. go to congress for a vote to use force as part of a UN coalition.....if it passes
3. go to the UN security council for a vote....if it passes, limited strikes with no ground troops. if it fails, publicly admonish those who voted against it.

you sound like Cameron