Rumsfeld's message for Saddam

[svero]

I wonder if this will give any pause at all to the right wing clique of idiots trolling this board? Nah.... Anyway... here's what the current US administration *really* thinks about the use of chemical weapons... Incovenient, and not to be lauded publicly, but on the sly they're a-ok if it's of some benefit to ignore them.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A13558-2003Dec18.html

"Donald H. Rumsfeld went to Baghdad in March 1984 with instructions to deliver a private message about weapons of mass destruction: that the United States' public criticism of Iraq for using chemical weapons would not derail Washington's attempts to forge a better relationship, according to newly declassified documents.

Rumsfeld, then President Ronald Reagan's special Middle East envoy, was urged to tell Iraqi Foreign Minister Tariq Aziz that the U.S. statement on chemical weapons, or CW, "was made strictly out of our strong opposition to the use of lethal and incapacitating CW, wherever it occurs," according to a cable to Rumsfeld from then-Secretary of State George P. Shultz.

The statement, the cable said, was not intended to imply a shift in policy, and the U.S. desire "to improve bilateral relations, at a pace of Iraq's choosing," remained "undiminished." "This message bears reinforcing during your discussions." "

[corplinx]

Yes, and as we all know the geopolitic of that area has stayed static since 1984 so its an apples to apples comparison.

[crackmonkey]

... and I believe that Rumsfeld's message was in reference to the mutual use of CW by Iraq and Iran. It's no wonder that he didn't make an example of Saddam for using gas when Iran was doing the same. Nice try, though...

[Chaos]

Originally posted by crackmonkey
... and I believe that Rumsfeld's message was in reference to the mutual use of CW by Iraq and Iran. It's no wonder that he didn't make an example of Saddam for using gas when Iran was doing the same. Nice try, though...

This is the first thing I hear about Iran using gas, too. Evidence, please...

[Segnosaur]

Originally posted by Chaos


This is the first thing I hear about Iran using gas, too. Evidence, please...

There's not many references to it, and they're not necessarily 'top' web sites. (And ironically, some of the few references to Iran's use of gas are in anti-war articles which try to suggest that Saddam didn't gas as many people as we had thought, but it was the Iranians who were responsible.)

From: http://www.the7thfire.com/Politics%20and%20History/GaseousLies.htm


This claim of Iraq gassing its own citizens at Halabjah is suspect. First, both Iran and Iraq used chemical weapons against each other during their war.


From: http://i-p-o.org/ipo-nr-iraq-oct2002.htm


Iraq was blamed for the Halabjah attack even though it was subsequently brought out that Iran too had used chemical weapons in this operation, and it seemed likely that it was the Iranian bombardment that had actually killed the Kurds


From: http://www.washington-report.org/backissues/1088/8810051.htm


During their eight year-long war Iraq, outnumbered three-to-one, introduced poison gas and Iran retaliated in kind.


Now, the fact that the US once 'supported' Iraq even after it had used chem weapons in the past isn't a major concern of mine, for several reasons:

- As someone pointed out, the situation in the world continually changes. Yes, its bad for the US to support a country that's doing 'bad' stuff; however, sometimes you have to pick the lesser of two evils, and at the time, Iraq was seen as a way to keep Iran in check (and Iran was seen as a bigger problem)
- A mistake at one point should not prevent a country from action in the future, either to fix the mistake, or take positive actions in similar areas.

[Samus]

And, of course, we all realize that Rumsfeld was acting independently, and not simply carrying out the orders he was given. So, it's quite easy to blame the Bush administration for everything under the sun because of a relationship the Reagan administration wanted to build. Clearly, Rumsfeld loves Heussein.

The article you posted boasts a good argument for how the U.S. tends to change friends every couple decades, but is irrelevant when discussing how the current players feel about CW/WMD/Heussein.

So, it is not how what administration *really* thinks, as you put it. You're just trying to spin it that way to make the administration look bad and make yourself feel better. The administration does enough things to make themselves look bad without you inventing more things.

[KelvinG]

Originally posted by Commander Cool

The article you posted boasts a good argument for how the U.S. tends to change friends every couple decades, but is irrelevant when discussing how the current players feel about CW/WMD/Heussein.


Which also shows why there is never any accountability in politics. The current administration can simply shrug their shoulders and say "That had nothing to do with us."
I expect if things go bad in Iraq in the next few years and ends up being a political embarassment, a future administration will be doing everything they can to seperate themselves from Bush and Co.

[originalgagster]

Originally posted by Segnosaur

As someone pointed out, the situation in the world continually changes. Yes, its bad for the US to support a country that's doing 'bad' stuff; however, sometimes you have to pick the lesser of two evils, and at the time, Iraq was seen as a way to keep Iran in check (and Iran was seen as a bigger problem)


Would you care to enumerate in full all the particular threats Iran was posing to US national security which necessitated supporting a regime which was gassing its own civilians.

[American]

Originally posted by svero
I wonder if this will give any pause at all to the right wing clique of idiots trolling this board? Nah.... Anyway... here's what the current US administration *really* thinks about the use of chemical weapons... Incovenient, and not to be lauded publicly, but on the sly they're a-ok if it's of some benefit to ignore them.


As long as you focus on "Bush is dumb and look what happened back in 1984.....", NOBODY but you losers will ever care.

Reassess your core principles, and you may regain some political ground. The left is being rejected based on its bad philosophy and demonstrated failures. If all the bad things you say about Bush were true, this country would still reject your policies and values. The new wave of conservatism is not about Bush, it's about YOU and how much we dislike everything about you.

You guys are flailing blindly... a whole school of fish out of water. Get some new ideas and sell them. Something that has nothing to do with Bush or his friends. The angry, bitter, pouty-child strategy is not working for you. You gave it 3 years, and it's time you tried something else that might work. (Giving up may be a good idea.)

[Zero]

Funny comments, considering that the majority of Americans are moderate-to-left.

[Monketey Ghost]

They're also hilarious, given the behavior of the right during the previous administration.

"The angry, bitter, pouty-child strategy is not working for you. You gave it 8 years and counting, and it's time you tried something else that might work. (Giving up may be a good idea.)

[Zero]

Originally posted by No Answers
They're also hilarious, given the behavior of the right during the previous administration.

"The angry, bitter, pouty-child strategy is not working for you. You gave it 8 years and counting, and it's time you tried something else that might work. (Giving up may be a good idea.) Oh absolutely! The right-wing lie brigade helped wast tems of millions to catch Clinton in a lie about his sex life, and then scream bloody murder when we point out that Bush Inc. is wrecking the country, let alone the fact that the 'Saddam used WMD against his own people' happened back in the 80s, when their boys were in charge. What was the Republican response? Write a memo, and ship Saddam more WMD.

[TillEulenspiegel]

You know I had a problem with the people and content of the various " why Isreali's are saints interested in security only " and " the poor Arabs are misunderstood and can only express thier outrage by suicide bombers" tracts that I do not ( and will not in the future) engage in the pointless river of mind crap and invective that flows from both sides..

Cut-
You guys are flailing blindly... a whole school of fish out of water. Get some new ideas and sell them. Something that has nothing to do with Bush or his friends. The angry, bitter, pouty-child strategy is not working for you. You gave it 3 years, and it's time you tried something else that might work. (Giving up may be a good idea.)

This prose from a person who is evidently a bush supporter , but read it neutrally and as a chastisement towards either Duhbua or in rebuttal to him and his failed policies.....
Ironic , no?

My estimation was in error, It seems that this whole forum on a board supposedly composed of " skeptics " is basically an accusatory festival by people of all sides with minimal understanding of the forces that drives thier espoused camps core philosophies. I would find it amusing like a parent who see's his child fooled by a magicians trick while his offspring gapes in acceptance, but we are speaking of adults who make critical political decisions like electing representatives. This is not a game, I am disheartened if this population represents the " educated, critical thinkers" in our society , surely if these people represent our grasp of democracy we are doomed.

[Zero]

TillEulenspiegel,

Some of us are stuck in the pragmatic position of "both sides are wrong, but one side is more actively harmful". In a perfect world, we could choose a better side, but at present we are stuck with choosing the lesser of two evils.

[svero]

First let me re-iterate what I said. I said that the article was evidence that pointed to the fact that someone like Rumsfeld (ie someone in the current administration) was ok with chemical weapons if it served his political purposes.

Then to rebut me we have corplinx crackmonkey and segnosaur all agreeing that given the right geopolitical context it was ok to support a county that had used CWs while towing a completely different line to the public. Why these 3 would so warmly SUPPORT my argument I don't know. I suspect they thought they weren't. But thanks guys. You're all right. Rumsfeld *is* the kind of guy that would lie his ass off in the right political climate even about something terrible like CWs! So again. Thanks.

Commander cool then goes on to say that rumsfeld lying about CWs in 84' is not evidence that the current administration is ok when it comes to lying about CWs today. I guess technically that's true. But the leaps one has to take to make that fit are pretty big. You'd have to either assume that Rumsfeld's proven lack of integrity represents a rogue element in the current cabinet, or that he's completely changed his character since 84'. Both are possible I suppose, but in my view unlikely. That's especially true when you look at the mountain of evidence that they lied about WMDs before the war.

As for American. I'd like to think there was a chance to convince you of anything at all, but your "faith" based approach to politics only ever leads to one thing. When presented with evidence that doesn't fit your world view you either A) Dismiss it as a lie or B) rationalize it in such a way as it fits your world view. (even if you have to slam that triangle peg into the round hole with a sledgehammer) It's unfortunate but this tunnel vision of yours represents a real threat to things like democracy and freedom. I hope that you are not representative of the lower working class and uneducated (from who bush's core support comes - sorry no link but there were polls) but rather just some complete wacko who happens to hang on this board because I'd like to think that Bush's support could be eroded and that it comes more from ignorance than blind zealous unquestioning belief.

[svero]

Originally posted by TillEulenspiegel
You know I had a problem with the people and content of the various " why Isreali's are saints interested in security only " and " the poor Arabs are misunderstood and can only express thier outrage by suicide bombers" tracts that I do not ( and will not in the future) engage in the pointless river of mind crap and invective that flows from both sides..

Donno if you think I fall into this rut, but this is completely correct. It's a little like Bertrand Russell said in his essay on skepticism when discussing nationalism.

"Opposing systems of violent belief are built up, the falsehood of which is evident from the fact that they are believed only by those who share the same national bias."

There are few skeptics on this board.

[BTox]

Originally posted by Zero
Funny comments, considering that the majority of Americans are moderate-to-left.

Really? Based on what evidence? More likely the majority is moderate to right.

[TillEulenspiegel]

Zero,
I am not God , I am not perfect, nor is any other human. I rather decry the ...not just acceptance that you discribe as the "lesser Evil" but the fact that we observe ( with critical minds - those of us who can ) and make that a de facto choice while we should all fight against the things we see as fundementally wrong. To borrow a phrase from a cartoon , " we have met the enemy and it is us. I personally resent that this socioty of free peoples who developed a continent ( without arguments about displacement and other questionable tactics) are becomming an anal group of exclusionaries just like the protestant groups that drove us from the continent.

[American]

Originally posted by Zero
Oh absolutely! The right-wing lie brigade helped wast tems of millions to catch Clinton in a lie about his sex life, and then scream bloody murder when we point out that Bush Inc. is wrecking the country, let alone the fact that the 'Saddam used WMD against his own people' happened back in the 80s, when their boys were in charge. What was the Republican response? Write a memo, and ship Saddam more WMD.


I just told you the exact strategy to counter the right. In return, you provide yet more material for us to talk about 3 hours a day. I don't know what else I can do to help except start writing checks to you, or even give you my sympathy vote.

All of your arguments have already been heard; you're not telling us anything new. They are rejected. Maybe you're shocked, or in denial, or you think you still have more to tell us. We're listening, but we only hear the same old crap from you time and again.

Tell us something new and interesting. Something non-Bush related. Are you really that bankrupt for ideas? Well... Plan B is to give up. It's not a bad option at this point.

[Zero]

Originally posted by American



I just told you the exact strategy to counter the right. In return, you provide yet more material for us to talk about 3 hours a day. I don't know what else I can do to help except start writing checks to you, or even give you my sympathy vote.

All of your arguments have already been heard; you're not telling us anything new. They are rejected. Maybe you're shocked, or in denial, or you think you still have more to tell us. We're listening, but we only hear the same old crap from you time and again.

Tell us something new and interesting. Something non-Bush related. Are you really that bankrupt for ideas? Well... Plan B is to give up. It's not a bad option at this point. We don't have anything new, because the TRUTH never goes out of style. Constant lies from your end are always new, always changing, always false.

[Zero]

Originally posted by BTox


Really? Based on what evidence? More likely the majority is moderate to right. Try again, and this time look at the facts. Bush wouldn't have to lie constantly if Americans actually agreed with him.

[a_unique_person]

Originally posted by corplinx
Yes, and as we all know the geopolitic of that area has stayed static since 1984 so its an apples to apples comparison.

That's right, what was right then is wrong now.

[Nasarius]

Originally posted by Zero
Try again, and this time look at the facts. Bush wouldn't have to lie constantly if Americans actually agreed with him.

A large majority of registered voters are registered Democrat. Sorry, don't have a link, this is from a poli sci textbook I had last year. Google for it; it's fact.

[Samus]

KelvinG: Which also shows why there is never any accountability in politics. The current administration can simply shrug their shoulders and say "That had nothing to do with us." As an aside, you bring up an interesting issue in the American political system. Although I think "accountability" might be the wrong label for it...

Our executive branch of government is headed by someone who has a relatively short term (four years, believe it or not, isn't a long time when you're at the top). We also have a term limit for that position. As such, you end up with a severe lack of continuity from one administration to the next. We have a lot of civil servants to help with bureaucratic continuity, but all the key players come and go as presidents do. The constitution has set things up this way.

A side effect of this is often a lack of foresight. Presidents don't need to have foresight, because long-term effects won't come to fruition until the administration is gone. Supporting someone you might later depose (like Heussein, or bin Laden) is short-term thinking, a hallmark of our foreign policy decisions.

On the other hand, sometimes the U.S. isn't supporting someone they like, but rather, the lesser of two evils. Usama bin Laden more appropriately fits into this category. The U.S. provided him training to fulfill a goal they had at the time because he and his merry men were the most feasible "allies" at the time. Of course, as we have come to learn, this was a bad decision. Had the administration at the time considered long-term consequences, they may have reached a different course of action. Then again, presidents are on the spot to "make things happen", not to plan for the next couple decades.

Interesting situation, indeed. Thoughts?

[Samus]

Nasarius: A large majority of registered voters are registered Democrat. Sorry, don't have a link, this is from a poli sci textbook I had last year. Google for it; it's fact. There are more registered Democrats than there are Republicans, that's a fact. To my knowledge, it is not a large majority. Rather, it's more like 5-7 percentage points. I don't have any numbers handy.

Edited to correct bbCode incompetency.

[BTox]

Originally posted by Commander Cool
There are more registered Democrats than there are Republicans, that's a fact. To my knowledge, it is not a large majority. Rather, it's more like 5-7 percentage points. I don't have any numbers handy.

Edited to correct bbCode incompetency.

If that is a fact, that does not answer the question as to which is the majority - moderate-to-right or moderate-to-left.

[BTox]

Originally posted by Zero
Try again, and this time look at the facts. Bush wouldn't have to lie constantly if Americans actually agreed with him.

Care to supply any "facts"? All I see from you are ill-informed opinions.

[Samus]

svero: Commander cool then goes on to say that rumsfeld lying about CWs in 84' is not evidence that the current administration is ok when it comes to lying about CWs today. Rumsfeld didn't "lie" about CWs in '84. He was sent over as a special envoy. At the time, the administration decided that the forgive & forget approach was the correct one; that we shouldn't hold Iraq accountable for its use of CWs because the potential political gain with befriending them. In hindsight, that was a pretty bad decision, because the U.S. rather quickly learned that Heussein played the game better than we did.

[Samus]

BTox: If that is a fact, that does not answer the question as to which is the majority - moderate-to-right or moderate-to-left. Or, if neither of those groups have a true majority, and those we call moderates are able to lean left or right as they see fit.

[svero]

Originally posted by Commander Cool
Rumsfeld didn't "lie" about CWs in '84. He was sent over as a special envoy. At the time, the administration decided that the forgive & forget approach was the correct one; that we shouldn't hold Iraq accountable for its use of CWs because the potential political gain with befriending them. In hindsight, that was a pretty bad decision, because the U.S. rather quickly learned that Heussein played the game better than we did.

Your honor I didn't lie about the murder! I just helped him bury the body and didn't mention it to the police.

[Samus]

svero: Your honor I didn't lie about the murder! I just helped him bury the body and didn't mention it to the police. I still don't see where Rumsfeld actually lied. His purpose as a special envoy, as with all special envoys, was to build relations. To my knowledge, he has never denied that.

The U.S. condemning CWs, but still wanting Iraq as an ally, is the equivalent of us condemning Israel/Palestine violence, but still wanting to keep Israel as an ally. Neither are "lies".

[TillEulenspiegel]

I forgot who but just recently somewas quoted as saying " The dictator who's hand we shake today will be our enemy tommorrow". This seems to be a fact that America's leaders never seem to learn, from Castro ( who we supported) through Pinochet,Samosa...and tens more. Saddam was a creature WE made from an sadistic, meglomanic into a danger that shook world politics. We gave him money, weapons and chemical weapons technology, machine tools used to manafacture same...all courtesy of St. Ronald.Hindsight is foresight...bla bla bla

[crackmonkey]

We didn't MAKE Saddam, for God's sake. You make it sound as if every dictator the US has had any contact with is a creature of our making. We didn't have much of a selection of Iraqi leaders to deal with - there was only one, and he was psychotic. The French and Russians took quite a liking to him, though... I suppose you could say Saddam was their creation if you really wanted to foist him on a nation.
The point is, we have to deal with the leaders of nations whether we approve of them or not. Would you prefer that the US merely ignores any nation whose government doesn't measure up to our lofty standards?

[Troll]

Originally posted by TillEulenspiegel
I forgot who but just recently somewas quoted as saying " The dictator who's hand we shake today will be our enemy tommorrow". This seems to be a fact that America's leaders never seem to learn, from Castro ( who we supported) through Pinochet,Samosa...and tens more. Saddam was a creature WE made from an sadistic, meglomanic into a danger that shook world politics. We gave him money, weapons and chemical weapons technology, machine tools used to manafacture same...all courtesy of St. Ronald.Hindsight is foresight...bla bla bla

Read crackmonkey's last reply to you. And then think hard about what you said about weapons as well. I mean we don't make SCUDs, ak-47s, T-70 series tanks, so you have to wonder who really armed the guy as well.

[shuize]

Originally posted by Troll


Read crackmonkey's last reply to you. And then think hard about what you said about weapons as well. I mean we don't make SCUDs, ak-47s, T-70 series tanks, so you have to wonder who really armed the guy as well.

Not to mention Migs or Mirage jets ....

Did old Iraq have any weapon systems that didn't come from Europe or the old Soviet Union? Just curious.

[Jon_in_london]

Originally posted by Segnosaur


There's not many references to it, and they're not necessarily 'top' web sites. (And ironically, some of the few references to Iran's use of gas. blah blah blah

This is interesting....

So if Iran DID use gas on the Iraqi village then the US is justified for supporting Iraq's capability to retaliate in kind but then I guess he never used WMD against his own people after all?

Well, they do say chemical warfare is ceratinly a double-edged sword!

[Jon_in_london]

Originally posted by shuize

Did old Iraq have any weapon systems that didn't come from Europe or the old Soviet Union? Just curious.

I certainly havent seen anything suggesting that significant converntional arms were sent to Iraq by the US. I have seen rumblings about trucks as well as communications and tech equipment as well as more nefarious NBC stuff.

17 British companies sold stuff to Iraq though. And we are still selling sophisticated stuff like night vision kit to Syria. Its the arms trade grand! :p

[Segnosaur]

Originally posted by originalgagster


Would you care to enumerate in full all the particular threats Iran was posing to US national security which necessitated supporting a regime which was gassing its own civilians.

Iran was (and still is) an Islamic fundamentalist state, and would be quite eager to see their brand of fundamentalism spread to other countries. In the past they have been quite willing to support terrorism, plus remember that they were involved in the hostage taking at the US embassy.

I believe that there are certain dangers involved with fundamentalist states that don't apply to other dictatorships:
- Willing to go to extreme measures, even if it runs against self-preservation
- Less ability to negotiate with them (since they don't care what the 'rest of the world' thinks)
- Control does not rest with 'one man'. As such, power can pass from one person to another seemlessly (unlike other dictatorships, like Lybia, where the top person can be 'taken out')

[TillEulenspiegel]

To the folks who object to my analysis that we made Saddam....reread the quote. The raw material was already there we in fact DID transform him from a minor regional irritant to a Very dangerous quantity that could upset the "Dynamic " ( faulty as it is ) in the middle East. If we had refrained from propping up the madman (or at least applied judiciously the weapons that he needed to neutralize Iran..) both subsequent wars would have not come to pass. Use your brain for criisakes. We did the same to many fiends....feed me Semore

[rikzilla]

Originally posted by Commander Cool
And, of course, we all realize that Rumsfeld was acting independently, and not simply carrying out the orders he was given. So, it's quite easy to blame the Bush administration for everything under the sun because of a relationship the Reagan administration wanted to build. Clearly, Rumsfeld loves Heussein.

The article you posted boasts a good argument for how the U.S. tends to change friends every couple decades, but is irrelevant when discussing how the current players feel about CW/WMD/Heussein.

So, it is not how what administration *really* thinks, as you put it. You're just trying to spin it that way to make the administration look bad and make yourself feel better. The administration does enough things to make themselves look bad without you inventing more things.

Yes CC!

Using the logic of this argument we must remain opposed to Col Qaddafi, no matter what concessions he makes. Nevermind that he has disavowed his WMD's and has decided (after watching Saddam's example) that Libya's interests are better served by rejoining the world community. No. Revenge for the Lockerbie Pan Am bombing of 1988 is far more important than the elimination of WMD's in Libya??? While I would agree that "in a perfect world" Qaddafi should stand trial for his part in the Pan Am 103 bombing... justice/revenge against this person is simply and realistically not worth the cost.

Governments are always doing the old "cost/benefit" analysis when dealing with other nations in the constantly changing geo-political situation. Pointing to 20 year old pictures of Rummy and Saddam shaking hands is less than meaningless. Usually skeptics look for context....true-believers rarely do though.

-z

[svero]

Originally posted by rikzilla

Governments are always doing the old "cost/benefit" analysis when dealing with other nations in the constantly changing geo-political situation. Pointing to 20 year old pictures of Rummy and Saddam shaking hands is less than meaningless. Usually skeptics look for context....true-believers rarely do though.

-z

So what your saying is... given the right context... Rumsfeld would gladly support a position completely different than the position put forward by the US administration. Wow! Yet another agreement with my initial post. You do realize you're agreeing wholeheartedly with me right? Boy this political debate is EASY!

[rikzilla]

Originally posted by svero


So what your saying is... given the right context... Rumsfeld would gladly support a position completely different than the position put forward by the US administration. Wow! Yet another agreement with my initial post. You do realize you're agreeing wholeheartedly with me right? Boy this political debate is EASY!

For the simple-minded, everything is simple!