As of now [gulf war II] ...

[Ethereal]

Oh, is that so? So what do you call releasing a chemical weapon on our own troops as well as the enemy? What, do you think they thought our troops would be immune to it? They knew damn well the effects of the weapon. You don't think that’s killing your own people?

WHY DID THEY DO IT LITTLE GUY!! They DID NOT do it to kill Americans, Saddam did it to kill people living in his own country, BIG DIFFERENCE.

Ok, this right here shows you know nothing of the "gas incident" what so ever. Think LOGICALLY for just one minute Nitro. Why would Saddam release gas just "to kill as many of his own people as he possibly could"??? This makes absolutely no sense at all. First off, you need to understand the history with Iraq and the Kurds (in your words "his own people"). A significant number of the Kurds had launched a revolt against Baghdad and in the process teamed up with Tehran (Iran) during the Iranian/Iraq war (The U.S supplied weapons to both countries by the way, including chemical weapons). During this time some Kurds had escaped to Turkey and claimed 1,000 - 4,000 Kurds were killed with a blood agent (like Anthrax) released by the Iraqi army. This is as far as the story goes. To begin with there were never any victims produced. International relief organizations who examined the Kurds in Turkey where they had gone for asylum failed to discover any. Nor were there ever any found inside Iraq. The claim rests solely on testimony of the Kurds who had crossed the border into Turkey. Later, a British laboratory tested soil samples in the Kurdish region and found that it contained small amounts mustard gas (not a blood agent, not anthrax) which was being used by the Iranians at the time. Iraq never even had any blood agents during this period of time.

I know nothing of the gas incident because I don't support your bias little story... hahahahaha. It makes no sense that he would try to kill as many of he people that he could? ARE YOU UNAWARE OF THE THOUSANDS OF CIVILIANS THAT DIED BY HIS OWN HANDS FOR NO REASON. When he tortured sporting teams because they lost, did that make sense? IT ALL MAKES SENSE IF YOU THINK ABOUT IT. Those Kurds didn't just wake up one day and decide they would overthrow Saddam, they were sick and tired of his dictatorship, so they started the resistance.

Hoped and wished, huh? Yeah right. They new EXACTLY what was going to happen and they were willing to pay that price. Now, if you believe the cute little story that Saddam gassed the Kurds during the Iranian/Iraq war, I ask you again, is this not the same thing?

Let me see is there a difference between...

1. American soldiers on the battlefield, killing at will, dieing fighting the enemy by our own chemicals.

2. Thousands of INNOCENT CIVILIAN Kurds dying because they were what, in the wrong place at the wrong time? You think every single Kurd that died was an soldier? Most of them were civilians.

Oh I see. So it’s ok when the U.S did it because “Drastic times call for drastic measures” but when Saddam did it (Iraq had very high casualties in the 8 year+ war with Iran, similar to the Vietnam War) it’s not?!?! Hmm, not quite a Logical thinker, are you Nitro?

Do you have selective reading or do you purposley hand pick half sentences to argue? WHY.... WHY DID THEY RELEASE THEM.

SADDAM did they to kill people in his own country.
The United States never wanted any American to die, SADDAM DID NOT CARE WHO DIED.

Go read up before you speak on this shit, I don't have time to fuck around with juniors all day.

 

[2-0-Sixx]

WHY DID THEY DO IT LITTLE GUY!! They DID NOT do it to kill Americans, Saddam did it to kill people living in his own country, BIG DIFFERENCE.

Who the fuck you calling little?

I know nothing of the gas incident because I don't support your bias little story... hahahahaha.

Well thank you NITRO for admitting the fact that you KNOW NOTHING ABOUT THE GAS INCIDENT. You should admit your ignorance more often; you just might get more respect.

How do you know my story is bias? Have you researched it or is that too difficult for you? Would it be easier if I provided links?
http://www.twf.org/News/Y2003/0201-GasKurds.html
http://www.eroj.org/Bagdad/Wanniski.htm
http://www.unknownnews.net/0301-1.html
http://www.supplysideinvestor.com/showarticle.asp?articleid=1683
http://lists.gp-us.org/pipermail/texgreen/2003-January/001047.html
http://www.jimgilliam.com/2003/03/saddams_gas.php
http://www.polyconomics.com/searchbase/12-14-00.html
http://www.rense.com/general25/sadamsgassing.htm


I do not support Saddam. I never said Saddam was a good guy. You were the one who brought up the point of this incident which you already admitted knowing nothing about. All I am simply doing is showing you that YES, America used weapons on its own people and NO, this incident you speak of is false. It’s as simple as that. So far you have provided NO PROOF what so ever. The only thing you are doing is claiming he did this and he did that with nothing to support yourself with!

1. American soldiers on the battlefield, killing at will, dieing fighting the enemy by our own chemicals.

2. Thousands of INNOCENT CIVILIAN Kurds dying because they were what, in the wrong place at the wrong time? You think every single Kurd that died was an soldier? Most of them were civilians.

Hey dumb ass, I already made it perfectly clear even for a three year old to comprehend that Iraq and Iran were in their own war. Do you think every single Vietnamese that died was a solder? Or what about the hundreds of thousands of civilians that lost their lives in Laos and Cambodia whom had absolutely NOTHING to do with the war? over 600,000 civilians in Cambodia and another 350,000 in Laos to be precise.

Do you have selective reading or do you purposley hand pick half sentences to argue? WHY.... WHY DID THEY RELEASE THEM.

Do you have selective reading? HE NEVER DID!

SADDAM did they to kill people in his own country.

I don’t know what the fuck this is supposed to mean.

The United States never wanted any American to die, SADDAM DID NOT CARE WHO DIED.

The United States knew DAMN well americans were going to die as soon as they joined the war and that was a price they were willing to pay. In order to win a war, lives must be lost. In other words, they wanted to sacrifice american soldiers lives in order to win.

Go read up before you speak on this shit, I don't have time to fuck around with juniors all day.

LMAO@YOU telling me to read up!!! It’s quite obvious that the only history lessons you received were from your television screen.

 

[already dead.]

To begin with there were never any victims produced.

There were victims produced, as well as videos of decimated towns and cities, aired on CNN, the BBC, and other places. But of course, it's all a big setup, right 206?

International relief organizations who examined the Kurds in Turkey where they had gone for asylum failed to discover any. Nor were there ever any found inside Iraq. The claim rests solely on testimony of the Kurds who had crossed the border into Turkey.

If this is true, the bodies were most likely moved, or some such.

Later, a British laboratory tested soil samples in the Kurdish region and found that it contained small amounts mustard gas (not a blood agent, not anthrax) which was being used by the Iranians at the time. Iraq never even had any blood agents during this period of time.

It was admitted even by Iraq that they did.

Hoped and wished, huh? Yeah right. They new EXACTLY what was going to happen and they were willing to pay that price. Now, if you believe the cute little story that Saddam gassed the Kurds during the Iranian/Iraq war, I ask you again, is this not the same thing?

The US Military was often ignorant as to the effects of weapons they used before and during usage. Most of the troops affected by Agent Orange were the ones spraying it, and it was nowhere near a fatality rate of troops on the frontline.

Oh I see. So it’s ok when the U.S did it because “Drastic times call for drastic measures” but when Saddam did it (Iraq had very high casualties in the 8 year+ war with Iran, similar to the Vietnam War) it’s not?!?! Hmm, not quite a Logical thinker, are you Nitro?

I'll break down your logic 206.
Enemy of my enemy is my friend.
Anyone the US Government dislikes, you automatically stick up for, or dig up some 2bit conspiracy theory about. Saddam wasn't all that bad, Castro is great, the USSR did not kil millions, etc.

All you need to know is that someone is in diametric opposition to the US, and all of a sudden they're your friend. I am in no way the opposite but you could pull a conspiracy theory out of your ass at the drop of a hat. You don't seek the truth, you seek anti-US proof, and that's the full scope of your political awareness.

Many of the other posts/threads you make on this board are decent, but as soon as US allies or enemies are declared, there your allegiances lie. I can't think of one time where you:
1. Found anything positive about the US
2. Agreed with any action/war/idea of the US Government.

I'm not saying become a sheep and do what Uncle Sam says, but it's basically a constant which side you will take, to the point of being entirely predictable.

 

[2-0-Sixx]

There were victims produced, as well as videos of decimated towns and cities, aired on CNN, the BBC, and other places. But of course, it's all a big setup, right 206?

I haven’t seen them. Can you please provide me with some links/evidence to support this claim?

[It was admitted even by Iraq that they did.

I’m sorry comrade but this statement is incorrect. If you would just look in those links I provided or do a google search, you will clearly find time and time again, the Iraqi government denying this ever happened. I never wanted to bring this point up because we all know that just because someone denies something, doesn’t mean it didn’t happen.

The US Military was often ignorant as to the effects of weapons they used before and during usage.

Yes, this statement is true but I will not except this as an excuse for Agent Orange for I have conducted large amounts of research on this weapon and learned that it was used all the way back in WWII. Scientists had 30+ years of research and data that scientifically demonstrated the full effects of how destructive this weapon is.

Enemy of my enemy is my friend.

No, this is not my logic. This is America’s logic. Let’s not forget who America’s allies are/were and who they are/were supporting. If this were my logic then I would support Saddam, Osama and others. But I don’t. I clearly stated “I do not support Saddam. I never said Saddam was a good guy.” I am against this war but I do NOT support Iraq. I’m not sure if you read the beginning of this conversation but the only reason I joined is because Nitro said Saddam gassed his own people (clearly speaking about the misconception that most Americans believe) and that America has never used chemical weapons (gassed) their own people. Those were the only two topics I was debating.

Anyone the US Government dislikes, you automatically stick up for, or dig up some 2bit conspiracy theory about. Saddam wasn't all that bad, Castro is great, the USSR did not kil millions, etc.

This is also false, well most of it. I do like Castro (although I disagree with a lot of his politics) but I do not believe “Saddam wasn’t all that bad”. I thought I made it clear that I believed in Lenin and Trotsky and NOT Stalin and everyone else that proceeded him. Any deaths after Lenin were not under the name of a true communist society.

Many of the other posts/threads you make on this board are decent, but as soon as US allies or enemies are declared, there your allegiances lie. I can't think of one time where you:
1. Found anything positive about the US
2. Agreed with any action/war/idea of the US Government.

Well, I’m sure I lack positive posts on the U.S but so do 99.99% of the other GOM’ers. To be honest, I really haven’t seen anything positive lately from our government that I consider positive. Shit, if the economy starts booming, the environmental laws are restored, health care and education become free, trust me you will see some happy ass posts from yours truly.
Listen, I am into mainly three things; Politics, Philosophy and Technology. I am against the Bush administration so naturally I am going to point out injustices when I see them. I am constantly engaged in some kind of religious debate and when I find something interesting about Technology, I post it. I can argue that when I post about technology or an idea from an American philosopher that is something positive about the US. I don’t know, that’s how I see it.

 

[already dead.]

I see your points...but alot of times it seems you are contrary simply to be contrary.

Oh and you havent seen the videos of the gassed towns?

Ill try and find that shit.

 

[already dead.]

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_east/1813203.stm
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_east/2854019.stm

Interesting in the second link...the Kurds are saying Washington tried to blame Iran while supporting Saddam...

http://www.michaeltotten.com/archives/000092.html

damn cant find the video...gotta go right now ill be back on this in a minute

 

[Ethereal]

Well thank you NITRO for admitting the fact that you KNOW NOTHING ABOUT THE GAS INCIDENT. You should admit your ignorance more often; you just might get more respect.

Uhhmm, that wasn't me telling you I'm wrong, it was me laughing at you for thinking I am wrong simply because I don't agree with you.

How do you know my story is bias? Have you researched it or is that too difficult for you? Would it be easier if I provided links?

What are those links supposed to prove? By the way you have presented your arguement, I know (not think) that you are not well researched on this incident. How is it that you have provided 10 links but have yet to say anything yourself. Of course, links can be very useful to back up your story, but one can't help but notice that you did a search on google for articles arguing whether the incidents ever happened. I can show you 10 links where people argue that the holocaust never happened, but what is that going to prove?

It is a fact that the dead bodies found in Halabja contained deadly chemicals, proving that there were chemical and gaseous weapons used in this city.

It is a fact that the majority of the Kurds that died in Halabja were mostly civilians.

It is a fact that Saddam has killed and tortured Kurds for years (for that he is facing war crimes and genocide).

In Halabja there are massive grave sites and museums that show proof of chemical weapons used against them.

The question is whether Iran or Iraq used them. In my opinion, I would say at one point or another, both of them diployed these deadly weapons. So for the sake of arguement, can we agree that BOTH Iran and Iraq used these weapons..

Now your asking me if I have evidence that it was Iraq who started it. Of course I do not have video footage of it, or a Kurd sitting right next to me telling me stories, so one would have to ask themself, was there motive? Iran would have no reason to kill any Kurd, they were on the same side fighting against Iraqi. Saddam on the other hand is notorious for mistreating Kurds in the past, and there is compelling evidence that he continued to kill them by large numbers after the war ended. While your links don't mean any more than mine, at least I have some reasonable basis for my opinions.

I do not support Saddam. I never said Saddam was a good guy. You were the one who brought up the point of this incident which you already admitted knowing nothing about. All I am simply doing is showing you that YES, America used weapons on its own people and NO, this incident you speak of is false.

First of all the incident I speak of is NOT false, 5,000 Kurds died in 1988 by way of chemical warfare. The bodies have been tested and they found deadly substances showing that chemical weapons were used.

As far as America using weapons on it's own people. First of all can you explain to me how and why agent orange was released. Then can you compare it to the chemical weapons used in Halabja. Here let me do it for you.

The United States dropped a substantial amount of agent orange in vietnam. The purpose of diploying this chemical was to kill all the wildlife that the enemy was hiding in and using for protection, many Americans have subsequently died because of their exposure. Now the purpose of this was not to kill anyone. You say there is evidence that they knew it would harm people once it was dropped, I understand that, but you have to realize that Americans were getting their asses kicked in that jungle because the enemy was so well hidden. So what is the alternative? This was aimed at helping our troops better spot the enemy, tearing down their fort and revealing them.

Saddam Hussein dropped chemical weapons in Halabja with the sole purpose ok KILLING everyone who was living in the villages.

Can you see the difference?

If your only objective is to say, hey NITRO, the United States used chemicals in Viet Nam, and because of that Americans died, then I will not argue you. Just as long as you understand the difference between what happened in Viet Nam and what happened in Halabja.

The United States knew DAMN well americans were going to die as soon as they joined the war and that was a price they were willing to pay. In order to win a war, lives must be lost. In other words, they wanted to sacrifice american soldiers lives in order to win.

Your exactly right, but most of those Kurds did not join the military. Saddam wanted them dead anyway.

 

[2-0-Sixx]

It's real cute how you avoid responding to certain parts of my post.

Your exactly right, but most of those Kurds did not join the military.

And neither did the 950,000+ Cambodian and Loas Civilians that had absolutely nothing to do with the war

I'm at work. I will respond to the rest of your bullshit later.

 

[Ethereal]

It's real cute how you avoid responding to certain parts of my post.

Your right I didn't respond. After I decided not to, I thought you might say something, I just didn't want to waiste my time with it.

What you are talking about now has nothing to do with what we're discussing. We're talking about 2 things.

1. Whether or not you support the war, and why.

2. Whether or not the Unites States use of chemicals in VietNam was comparable to how Saddam gassed 5,000 Kurds in 1988.

The VietNam war is a completely different topic. I argued you that what happened to our troops in Viet Nam because of the agent orange we dropped, did not measure up to the way Saddam conducted his actions in cold blood against the Kurds.

Your talking about a war the United States had with another country over 30 years ago. Then you tried to squeeze in the death total for that war with the discussion of chemical weapon usage. Those numbers your presenting came by way of arial bombings and combat outside the jungle. They had missle launchers and high-powered machine guns all over the civilian villages, destroying helicopters and killing troops.

If Henry Kissinger ordered the bombings of civilian villages who posed no threat to American troops whatsoever, then he should be punished for war crimes along with Saddam Hussein.

That's all I'm going to say about that right now because this does not pertain to the topic.

 

[2-0-Sixx]

Your right I didn't respond. After I decided not to, I thought you might say something, I just didn't want to waiste my time with it.

What you are talking about now has nothing to do with what we're discussing. We're talking about 2 things.

1. Whether or not you support the war, and why.

2. Whether or not the Unites States use of chemicals in VietNam was comparable to how Saddam gassed 5,000 Kurds in 1988.

ROFL!!!!!!! That's not what we were discussing you fucking retard. Damn, we were discussing if the united states had ever gassed (used chemical weapons) on it's own people and if Saddam gassed his own people (the Kurds). YOU were the one that made excuses about Vietnam and now are back pedaling saying shit like "if its comparable" Fuck man, it's clear as day. Go back and read the posts.

 

[Ethereal]

That's not what we were discussing you fucking retard.

I said: "1. Whether or not you support the war, and why."
This topic says: "As of now, how many of you support the invasion of IRaq?"

I said: "2. Whether or not the Unites States use of chemicals in VietNam was comparable to how Saddam gassed 5,000 Kurds in 1988."

The question I asked everyone that, in return got all of these responses was: "Show me something the U.S. has done in recent history that measures up to when Saddam gassed 5,000 Kurds in cold blood."

Save your insults for the playground, not needed here. This part of the topic is finished.

YOU were the one that made excuses about Vietnam and now are back pedaling saying shit like "if its comparable" Fuck man, it's clear as day. Go back and read the posts.

I'm not back pedaling anywhere, your just having a hard time keeping up. Yes I was commenting on the use of chemical weapons in VietNam, because you tried to answer my question with it, and I was telling you how your horrible wrong, because the incident didn't "compare" to what Saddam did.

 

[2-0-Sixx]

NITRO, IF YOU LOOK BACK YOU WILL CLEARLY SEE WHERE YOU ASKED SOMEONE TO PROVIDE IN RECENT HISTORY WHEN THE US GASSED THERE OWN PEOPLE.

THIS IS WHERE I JOINED THE DEBATE. I CLEARLY MADE MY POINTS ON WHEN/WHERE AMERICA HAS USED CHEMICAL WEAPONS ON IT'S OWN TROOPS.

IF YOU WANT TO TALK ABOUT IF IT'S "COMPARABLE" TO THE KURDISH SITUATION, WELL, WHAT IS "COMPARABLE"? DO YOU SOMEHOW MEAN "MORALLY"?

 

[Ethereal]

We did'nt use them on our troops, we used them on the plantlife that the enemy was hiding in. Our troops--subsequentally--were exposed to it, which resulted in casulties. We never wanted to harm our own troops. There is a difference, yes morally and literally.

 

[2-0-Sixx]

We did'nt use them on our troops, we used them on the plantlife that the enemy was hiding in. Our troops--subsequentally--were exposed to it, which resulted in casulties. We never wanted to harm our own troops. There is a difference, yes morally and literally.

But I disagree. We did KNOW exactly what was going to happen by using this weapon. Like I said, 30+ years of scientific data.

You shouldnt talk about morally either. If you really wan't to get on the subject of morals, is an american life greater then a non-american life?

Is over 4,000,000 vietnamese plus another 1,000,000 cambodian and loas lives comparable to the 58, 000 american lives?

 

[Jim_beam]

some site i found
http://costofwar.com

 

[Ethereal]

But I disagree. We did KNOW exactly what was going to happen by using this weapon. Like I said, 30+ years of scientific data.

What was the alternative? War is ugly and soldiers were going to die regardless, the least we could do is give them a fighting chance. Regardless the affects of dropping agent orange, we didn't want to kill anyone.

You shouldnt talk about morally either. If you really wan't to get on the subject of morals, is an american life greater then a non-american life?

No.

Is over 4,000,000 vietnamese plus another 1,000,000 cambodian and loas lives comparable to the 58, 000 american lives?

That was a time of war [are you sure your numbers are accurate]. All they would have needed to do is NOT invade and take over their own country and assassinate the president as a means to spread communism. Is that so much to ask? All those lives would have been spared. It's almost the same with the Kurd's. Is it so much to ask that they all stop breathing? There might have never been crimes against humanity.

 

[2-0-Sixx]

That was a time of war [are you sure your numbers are accurate]. All they would have needed to do is NOT invade and take over their own country and assassinate the president as a means to spread communism. Is that so much to ask? All those lives would have been spared. It's almost the same with the Kurd's. Is it so much to ask that they all stop breathing? There might have never been crimes against humanity.

Yes, those numbers are accurate.

OMG, I cannot believe your going to try and blame this on the Vietnamese people! The Vietnamese people were already engaged in a very bloody war with France [america's ally] when america stepped in. The ONLY reason america stepped in was because of the fact that we spent BILLIONS of dollars supporting our ally who was supposed to crush the opposition, which obviously didn't happen. The Vietnamese people WANTED a communist country. This war was NEVER about stopping communism, that was used as an excuse and all of this is a FACT. Please do not test me on the Vietnam War, I am well informed on this subject and I even studied it for a semester in college. Do not make me brake out my old school books. Why are you defending America’s actions? It is clear as day to almost every American that the Vietnam War was a huge disaster and was something we should have NEVER stuck our noises in, why is it so hard for you to comprehend this? All of the lives taken during this war lie solely on the hands of America. This is the truth.

 

[nefar559]

This war was NEVER about stopping communism, that was used as an excuse and all of this is a FACT.

just like the present, we have the war on terror

 

[Mcleanhatch]

This war was NEVER about stopping communism, that was used as an excuse and all of this is a FACT.

yes it was, but please enlighten us as to what your opinion of what it was about is.

Please do not test me on the Vietnam War, I am well informed on this subject and I even studied it for a semester in college.

oh my, you spent a whole semester on this subject, you are an expert!

It is clear as day to almost every American that the Vietnam War was a huge disaster

yes it was, you are right.

and was something we should have NEVER stuck our noises in

but here you are wrong.

All of the lives taken during this war lie solely on the hands of America. This is the truth.

of course this isnt the truth, it is your opinion!

 

[nefar559]

but here you are wrong.

why?