Topics Topics Help/Instructions Help Edit Profile Profile Member List Register  
Search Last 1 | 3 | 7 Days Search Search Tree View Tree View  

Visit The Brewery's sponsor!
Brews & Views Bulletin Board Service * World Expressions * How can Saddam take responsibility < Previous Next >

  Thread Last Poster Posts Pages Last Post
  Start New Thread        

Author Message
 

Ron Siddall
Member
Username: El_cid

Post Number: 213
Registered: 12-2005
Posted on Monday, December 18, 2006 - 04:22 pm:   Edit Post Delete Post View Post/Check IP    Ban Poster IP (Moderator/Admin only)

for the gas attacks when there were never any WMD's? The logic was that WMD's were not found because he did not have any. If he did not have any WMD's, how can he take responsibility for using them?
This space open to interpretation
 

Patrick C.
Advanced Member
Username: Patrickc

Post Number: 639
Registered: 01-2001
Posted on Monday, December 18, 2006 - 05:25 pm:   Edit Post Delete Post View Post/Check IP    Ban Poster IP (Moderator/Admin only)

Huh? Regardless of whether Saddam had WMDs in 2003 or not, he definitely used them in the past.
 

Bill Pierce
Moderator
Username: Billpierce

Post Number: 6079
Registered: 01-2002
Posted on Monday, December 18, 2006 - 05:35 pm:   Edit Post Delete Post View Post/Check IP    Ban Poster IP (Moderator/Admin only)

Correct me if I'm wrong, but isn't Saddam accused of using poison gas during the Iran-Iraq war of the 1980s and again during the Kurdish uprising in 1992? The UN weapons inspectors found no evidence of gas in the late 1990s, nor were any significant quantities found by US troops after the 2003 invasion. The suggestion is that stockpiles were destroyed in accordance with UN orders.
 

Doug Pescatore
Senior Member
Username: Doug_p

Post Number: 2042
Registered: 10-2002
Posted on Monday, December 18, 2006 - 06:07 pm:   Edit Post Delete Post View Post/Check IP    Ban Poster IP (Moderator/Admin only)

You are correct Bill. It is also believed that a majority of the gas (sarin and VX) that the US and Russia sold Saddam in the 1980s was used during those early gas attacks. The kill zones were huge and the amount of gas needed to be deadly over those large areas would have been a large percentage of their stock.

-Doug
 

Ron Siddall
Member
Username: El_cid

Post Number: 214
Registered: 12-2005
Posted on Monday, December 18, 2006 - 06:43 pm:   Edit Post Delete Post View Post/Check IP    Ban Poster IP (Moderator/Admin only)

Of course he used them.

Follow up question then since we can all now agree that at one time he did in fact possess WMD....If he did indeed destroy them in accordance with UN orders, why did he not provide proof of this in order to stem an invasion?
This space open to interpretation
 

Doug Pescatore
Senior Member
Username: Doug_p

Post Number: 2043
Registered: 10-2002
Posted on Monday, December 18, 2006 - 06:54 pm:   Edit Post Delete Post View Post/Check IP    Ban Poster IP (Moderator/Admin only)

Take away the threat of WMD and he looses his powerful position in the region. Iran with its larger army would not have any reason to fear or leave him alone.

-Doug
 

Fredrik
Senior Member
Username: Fredrik

Post Number: 3517
Registered: 03-2003
Posted on Monday, December 18, 2006 - 07:50 pm:   Edit Post Delete Post View Post/Check IP    Ban Poster IP (Moderator/Admin only)

> Of course he used them.

Sorry if this is off topic, but I find it severly disturbing that we manufacture and make big money on weapons that are scientifically designed to kill in an efficient way. Ontop of that we get upset when somewhere in the world someone actually does make use of these weapons.

Is that the best our science can do?

I have to say that If find it that someone can manufacture and profit on supplying tools of death and still think they have no moral responsibility in the event that someone, somewhere actually uses the weapons as intended, is to me slightly twisted.

Sweden is included in this crap too because swedish weapons are also used around the world.

It's just a matter of time before someone comes to Sweden for revenge because their family were killed by a missile "made in Sweden"... not only did we supply the instrument of death - we even made profit on it, it all stinks. So I really don't know... where to start cleaning.

/Fredrik
 

Doug Pescatore
Senior Member
Username: Doug_p

Post Number: 2044
Registered: 10-2002
Posted on Monday, December 18, 2006 - 08:00 pm:   Edit Post Delete Post View Post/Check IP    Ban Poster IP (Moderator/Admin only)

Chemical weapons are not very efficient in creating mass casualties (requires large amounts), but are very effective at creating battle field confusion, fear, and loss of military tactics. Just the thread requires troops to carry more equipment.

(Message edited by doug_p on December 18, 2006)
 

Bill Pierce
Moderator
Username: Billpierce

Post Number: 6081
Registered: 01-2002
Posted on Monday, December 18, 2006 - 08:33 pm:   Edit Post Delete Post View Post/Check IP    Ban Poster IP (Moderator/Admin only)

Ron, what's your logical point in this argument? There has been very little question that Saddam used poison gas in the past. The debate has been over how the threat of WMDs was used as a pretext for the US invasion in 2003. The evidence from UN weapons inspectors was that he did not have significant quantities, which was confirmed after the invasion. The Bush administration cited intelligence sources that claimed otherwise. Some people feel that Bush merely chose to believe the wrong information, while others charge that it was intentionally manipulated. More important today is that the US is embroiled in a situation for which there is seemingly no positive outcome.

(Message edited by BillPierce on December 18, 2006)
 

Ron Siddall
Member
Username: El_cid

Post Number: 215
Registered: 12-2005
Posted on Monday, December 18, 2006 - 09:00 pm:   Edit Post Delete Post View Post/Check IP    Ban Poster IP (Moderator/Admin only)

Bill, my logical point is that I find it ironic that the world body brought charges up against Saddam but never did anything to "bring him in" and in fact, actively worked not only to keep him in power but prosper as well.

BTW Bill, what is the logic of bringing Bush into this thread? He has nothing to do with the trial.

Doug, the threat of having WMD's certainly pales against the threat from the world's only superpower. Against Iran, he had a good chance of surviving whereas against America, the chances are zero. Sorry, I do not follow your logic on this one.
This space open to interpretation
 

Doug Pescatore
Senior Member
Username: Doug_p

Post Number: 2045
Registered: 10-2002
Posted on Monday, December 18, 2006 - 09:24 pm:   Edit Post Delete Post View Post/Check IP    Ban Poster IP (Moderator/Admin only)

He had no chance against Iran after the 1991 gulf war (where something like 70% of his heavy armor was destroyed) without the threat of WMD. He also had other bordering countries that would have not taken him seriously without the threat of chemical weapons. Up to the day we invaded he never thought that the US would take on a war without the support of the UN. He knew the damage it would cause the US in the region and thought that we would be smart enough to see what long term harm it would do to us. He allowed weapons inspectors back in his country prior to the war and thought that is all we wanted.

Saddam's power was a house of cards and it finally fell.

BTW, this is not my logic. You can get the same conclusions from the US weapons inspectors who went in after the war. There have been reports written on this subject by former international weapons inspectors. Some of the intelligence that was ignored stated that he was bluffing. So please don't take it from me, there are far greater minds that have stated what I have simply restated.

The UN condemned his Saddam's actions and demaned he disarm or face sanctions. He complied for a while until he figured out ways to bribe his way around the proposed sanctions and then he threw the inspectors out leaving the spector of possible chemical weapons. There were no provisions to "bring him in" in any UN resolution.

-Doug

(Message edited by doug_p on December 18, 2006)
 

Ron Siddall
Member
Username: El_cid

Post Number: 216
Registered: 12-2005
Posted on Monday, December 18, 2006 - 10:33 pm:   Edit Post Delete Post View Post/Check IP    Ban Poster IP (Moderator/Admin only)

Doug, this portion of the thread is beyond me. I responded to you because you posed a reasonably stated opinion. War strategy is not something that I can discuss intelligently.

My first post was about irony and more than a slight amount of hypocrisy on the part of the world body. They would accuse him, charge him but do nothing to get him.
This space open to interpretation
 

Bill Pierce
Moderator
Username: Billpierce

Post Number: 6083
Registered: 01-2002
Posted on Tuesday, December 19, 2006 - 02:55 am:   Edit Post Delete Post View Post/Check IP    Ban Poster IP (Moderator/Admin only)

Ron, I didn't mean to pour gas on the fire, so to speak. I thought you were suggesting that Saddam's use of poison gas in the 1980s and 1990s was reason to suspect he still had it stockpiled prior to the US invasion. That was one of the issues addressed by the UN weapons inspectors.

Of the three reasons cited as justification for the US invasion (the third was the claim Iraq had provided material support for al Qaeda and Osama bin Laden) the need for regime change in Iraq had perhaps the most resonance. Saddam's actions, including his use of poison gas both in the Iran war and domestically, clearly placed him among the ranks of the world's more brutal despots. Unfortunately, however, there was a major miscalculation of the ability of the Iraqi people to unify and govern themselves after he was deposed.

As for why some of the same nations who once kept Saddam in power, at least tacitly, now support his trial as a criminal, such are the fortunes of war. No doubt many Iraqis ask the same question as their country is torn by what almost everyone now admits is a civil war.
 

Ron Siddall
Member
Username: El_cid

Post Number: 217
Registered: 12-2005
Posted on Tuesday, December 19, 2006 - 04:20 pm:   Edit Post Delete Post View Post/Check IP    Ban Poster IP (Moderator/Admin only)

Bill, no gas on the fire. I stopped getting upset when I finally realized that my opinions about anything mean nothing to nobody.

However, I still like to throw them out once in a while.

Thank you for the conversation, I appreciate it.
This space open to interpretation

Add Your Message Here
Post:
Bold text Italics Underline Create a hyperlink Insert a clipart image

Username: Posting Information:
This is a private posting area. Only registered users and moderators may post messages here.
Password:
Options: Enable HTML code in message
Automatically activate URLs in message
Action: