Rummy Reassured Iraq: "We're Still Friends"

[Mr Manifesto]

This (http://news.independent.co.uk/world/americas/story.jsp?story=475931) is a darn interesting article on how Rumsfeld assured Iraq in 1984, after the gassing attacks that made the war on Iraq so absolutely neccessary in 2003 (and not the WMD's which were just a side-line), that 'bilateral relations wtih Iraq, at a pace of Iraq's choosing, remains undiminished'.

See also National Security Archive (http://www.gwu.edu/~nsarchiv/special/iraq/) (not an NSA site, but a web page about NS issues).

Declassified documents here (http://www.gwu.edu/~nsarchiv/NSAEBB/NSAEBB107/iraq07.pdf).

What's interesting is that Rummy told Iraq that the Americans' condemnation of Iraq's use of chemical weapons was 'made strictly out of our strong opposition to the use of lethal and incapacitating (chemical weapons), wherever it occurs.' Obviously, the US did not give a damn about Iraq using chemical weapons in '84, as long as Iraq was still their puppet.

Saddam's big mistake seems not to be his meglomania, his ill-treatment of his people, or any of his other excesses, but the simple fact that he was no longer a reliable lap dog.

[BTox]

Gee, this is almost as relevant as FDR's meetings with Stalin. Was the above something you learned in high schol history class this week?

[Mr Manifesto]

What makes it irrelevant? Besides the fact that you say so?

[Troll]

Originally posted by Mr Manifesto
What makes it irrelevant? Besides the fact that you say so?

He didn't say it was irrelevant. He said it was as relevant as Stalin and FDR's meeting. So if you gathered he meant it was irrelevant by that, then please explain why you think Stalin and FDR's meeting was, as you said, irrelevant. Then we can compare the two meetings.;)

[BTox]

Originally posted by Mr Manifesto
What makes it irrelevant? Besides the fact that you say so?

See troll's answer below. But the second part of your question is sufficient.

[KelvinG]

Originally posted by Mr Manifesto
What makes it irrelevant? Besides the fact that you say so?

I think the fact that it makes US policy look bad means it's irrelevant to the "rah, rah" pro-Bush side. Y'know the old saying "emphasize the positive."

It does show a real hypocricy on the part of the US, whether it happened years ago or not.

But remember, this war was about liberating the Iraqi people, right? It's not about weapons of mass destruction.

Funny how they weren't worthy to be liberated back in the 80's when the US and Iraq were bedfellows, but I guess that's politics.:rolleyes:

[Mr Manifesto]

Stalin's Soviet Union was not attacked, unilaterally, without provocation by the US on the grounds that Stalin was murdering his own people.

I also haven't been able to find anything that says FDR told Stalin, "We always say that mass-murderers are bad, don't worry about that, it's lip-service, we want to make sure that our relations with the USSR go forward so that Hitler is defeated". Maybe something like that is out there, who knows. Provide a link if you can find it.

[Troll]

Originally posted by KelvinG


I think the fact that it makes US policy look bad means it's irrelevant to the "rah, rah" pro-Bush side. Y'know the old saying "emphasize the positive."

It does show a real hypocricy on the part of the US, whether it happened years ago or not.

But remember, this war was about liberating the Iraqi people, right? It's not about weapons of mass destruction.

Funny how they weren't worthy to be liberated back in the 80's when the US and Iraq were bedfellows, but I guess that's politics.:rolleyes:

Yes it is politics. We sided with some pretty nasty people when they were fighting on our side or for our cause. Most countries have at one time or another. The meeting that has everyone in a hoopla took place during one of those times.

Iraq used chemical weapons against Iran. We condemned it and still tried to maintain ties with them while they were still fighting the Iranians. The killing of the Kurds that everyone is in an uproar about, came four years later in 1988. And again there was condemnation and we imposed economic sanctions. Still nothing really severe, I'll admit, but some administrations like to try things differently than others, just as some countries do. Well 2 years later he played the invasion game again and this time a bunch of countries decided enough was enough. The problem was a lack of support in removing him from power altogether. Once again the US listening to and following world-wide opinion as well as the administration at the time, following advice from people within it.

New administration, new view of things and new policies and here we are.

Now I know playing the "what if" game is pretty weak for arguing points, but I'm not going to use your responses against you, I'm merely curious. Would you be happier about the war if another 15 countries were involved? Or do you think it had to have UN approval even if fewer countries were involved? I keep seeing some comments about how some will continue to try to justify the war, but I'm asking those that make those comments to tell me what, in their opinion, would have made the war justifiable from their viewpoint. Maybe previous administrations didn't give a damn about the Kurds at all and just imposed sanctions because the rest of the world was watching, but they didn't rush into anything either. So you'd have to give the previous adminstrations, the ones you're currently condemning for not doing what the current administration is doing, some credit for not doing something more severe instead of trying to use them as a preliminary to your complaints now. Did you want us to go to war then?

[Mr Manifesto]

I don't know about going to war, but it would have been nice if the US meant what it said about condemning the use of CW's, and it would be even nicer if the US didn't sell such weapons to whichever state happens to be 'fighting... for our cause'. Whoever 'our' is, or what the 'cause' is.

[Troll]

Originally posted by Mr Manifesto
I don't know about going to war, but it would have been nice if the US meant what it said about condemning the use of CW's, and it would be even nicer if the US didn't sell such weapons to whichever state happens to be 'fighting... for our cause'. Whoever 'our' is, or what the 'cause' is.

Again that goes back to that was then and this is now. We don't sell chemical weapons anymore. We learned our lesson. Gotta worry about those that are still selling and those that want them.

[Otther]

it would have been nice if the US meant what it said about condemning the use of CW's, and it would be even nicer if the US didn't sell such weapons to whichever state happens to be 'fighting... for our cause'. Whoever 'our' is, or what the 'cause' is. You post bleeds bias... you didn't mention that france, germany, and russia all were selling saddam weapons as well.

Funny how they weren't worthy to be liberated back in the 80's when the US and Iraq were bedfellows, but I guess that's politics This is an absurd point... YES! It is bad that we didn't do anything in the 80's, but other presidents made that call... our current one is making a different call. What do you expect us to do? Whenever someone makes a decision, that everyone else obey it for all time, nomatter how amoral it is? How about you emphasize the relevant.

[Mr Manifesto]

Again that goes back to that was then and this is now. I hear a lot of that from the "America can do no wrong" camp.

You post bleeds bias... you didn't mention that france, germany, and russia all were selling saddam weapons as well.

It would be nice if these countries didn't sell CW's to Iraq as well. However, the issue of this thread is that the US went to war with Iraq ostensibly because of the evil things the country did with CW's. The links in the OP demonstrate that the US government couldn't give a toss what other countries do with the weapons they sell to those countries. This war had nothing to do with 'justice' or 'disarmament' or any of the crap that Bush's crew sold the American public. That is 'the relevant' that I am emphasising.

[Tmy]

Originally posted by Troll


Now I know playing the "what if" game is pretty weak for arguing points, but I'm not going to use your responses against you, I'm merely curious. Would you be happier about the war if another 15 countries were involved? Or do you think it had to have UN approval even if fewer countries were involved?

Id be happier if we had more countries involved. Like in 91. Potentially we could have. More countries means better PR, and less cost (money and lives) to the US.

GW really wanted to go in and didnt want to wait forthe rest of the world. I didnt think it was urgent that we invade. As for what prior admins did, your right GW can do different. But I dont remember GW running on an invade Iraq platform. Its not like Saddams missdeeds occured after he was elected.

[Troll]

Originally posted by Mr Manifesto
I hear a lot of that from the "America can do no wrong" camp.



It would be nice if these countries didn't sell CW's to Iraq as well. However, the issue of this thread is that the US went to war with Iraq ostensibly because of the evil things the country did with CW's. The links in the OP demonstrate that the US government couldn't give a toss what other countries do with the weapons they sell to those countries. This war had nothing to do with 'justice' or 'disarmament' or any of the crap that Bush's crew sold the American public. That is 'the relevant' that I am emphasising.

Well I'm pretty sure you don't mean to lump me into that crowd.

We've done some pretty messed up stuff abroad and to our own in our little history. Slavery, treatment of and broken treaties with the indians, women's rights, civil rights, hooking up with some quetionable characters, etc.

I just don't see the need to sit and cry about someone that kicked me in the nads 20 years ago. He did it, we dealt with it and moved on. Eveyone keeps saying that those that don't remember history are bound to repeat it. That's true. But those that keep reminding you of it after you've learned the lesson and have moved beyond it are doing little more than nagging and still living in the past so much so that they can't see the present.


The links in the op and other sites show that there were actions of some sort taken and as time marched on and incidents grew so did the actions taken against them. Condemnation, sanctions, war. Would you rather we skip the first two in the future? What lesson would be learned from that? That talk is cheap and you should just attack? Is that the lesson you want to be taught? Even before the war there was more talk. Maybe not enough to suit some, but it wasn't the first talk and sanctions had been ongoing.

[Jocko]

Originally posted by Mr Manifesto
I hear a lot of that from the "America can do no wrong" camp.



It would be nice if these countries didn't sell CW's to Iraq as well. However, the issue of this thread is that the US went to war with Iraq ostensibly because of the evil things the country did with CW's. The links in the OP demonstrate that the US government couldn't give a toss what other countries do with the weapons they sell to those countries. This war had nothing to do with 'justice' or 'disarmament' or any of the crap that Bush's crew sold the American public. That is 'the relevant' that I am emphasising.

If it makes you feel any better, I would welcome full disclosure from Iraq about US support and that of other nations. Hopefully this will come out at Saddam's trial.

I know we backed the tyrant. I also know there were good reasons at the time. Only full disclosure will prove whether or not the reasons were good enough. I actually agree with you, Mr. M. I sincerely hope the book is opened, because I know there will be enough black eyes to go around.

[WildCat]

Originally posted by Tmy
Id be happier if we had more countries involved. Like in 91. Potentially we could have. More countries means better PR, and less cost (money and lives) to the US.
And because we left him in power in order to involve more countries in '91, we were left w/ the problem until this year.

But I dont remember GW running on an invade Iraq platform. Its not like Saddams missdeeds occured after he was elected.
But there was an event that happened after the election that made Bush more proactive. It no longer seemed prudent to wait until our enemies obtained WMD's to act on the threat. In the last State of the Union address he said he would not wait until the threat was imminent.

[Mr Manifesto]

Let's say I grab a female colleague on the butt. She complains to my boss that I'm sexually harassing her. When my boss calls me into his office, he says, "We have to do this every time someone makes one of these complaints, so I'm going to say you're a naughty boy, but don't worry about it. You're still going to get your payrise, and I need you to write this report for me."

Am I going to take my boss's condemnation seriously?

If my boss sacks me later on for sexual harassment, are his actions not somewhat hypocritical given what he told me earlier on?

edit: That's a reply to Troll's post, btw.

[Jocko]

Originally posted by Mr Manifesto
Let's say I grab a female colleague on the butt. She complains to my boss that I'm sexually harassing her. When my boss calls me into his office, he says, "We have to do this every time someone makes one of these complaints, so I'm going to say you're a naughty boy, but don't worry about it. You're still going to get your payrise, and I need you to write this report for me."

Am I going to take my boss's condemnation seriously?

If my boss sacks me later on for sexual harassment, are his actions not somewhat hypocritical given what he told me earlier on?

edit: That's a reply to Troll's post, btw.

Sounds like an apt description of how the UN functions.

[Troll]

Originally posted by Tmy


Id be happier if we had more countries involved. Like in 91. Potentially we could have. More countries means better PR, and less cost (money and lives) to the US.

GW really wanted to go in and didnt want to wait forthe rest of the world. I didnt think it was urgent that we invade. As for what prior admins did, your right GW can do different. But I dont remember GW running on an invade Iraq platform. Its not like Saddams missdeeds occured after he was elected.

Better PR is about all that would have come from having more countries with troops in country. Money is an ongoing deal making thing. And less lives lost to one country doesn't mean a change in the number of lives, just that others would have had them as well. I'm not generally one of those that feel death is something that should be equally shared in, so if one of mine dies, I won't condemn someone because one of theirs didn't or wait around and be satisfied when one of theirs does.

Well he didn't run on an anti-terror platform either, that was just something that popped up while he was in. And that comment has nothing to do with linking or disproving a link to Iraq and terror, it merely stands alone as evidence as to how things can change.

[WildCat]

Originally posted by Mr Manifesto
I hear a lot of that from the "America can do no wrong" camp.



It would be nice if these countries didn't sell CW's to Iraq as well. However, the issue of this thread is that the US went to war with Iraq ostensibly because of the evil things the country did with CW's. The links in the OP demonstrate that the US government couldn't give a toss what other countries do with the weapons they sell to those countries. This war had nothing to do with 'justice' or 'disarmament' or any of the crap that Bush's crew sold the American public. That is 'the relevant' that I am emphasising.
Wherever he got the CW's he used in 1984, it wasn't from the US. In fact, the support he had from the US in ther war w/ Iran was mostly the US saying "atta boy" from the sidelines. Almost all of his weapons came from the Soviet Union and France. The US doesn't make Kalashnikovs, SAM missiles, MiGs or Mirage fighters.

Nobody has shown evidence on other threads about the whole "the USA sold Saddam CW's in the past" charge. If you have evidence that it did, please show it. Otherwise stop claiming it!

Manifesto, you were what, 5 years old when the cold war ended? You really have no idea what it was like at the time. The US had it's hands full w/ the USSR, it was somewhat relieving to see the new enemy Iran stuck in a quagmire w/ Iraq.

[Troll]

Originally posted by Mr Manifesto
Let's say I grab a female colleague on the butt. She complains to my boss that I'm sexually harassing her. When my boss calls me into his office, he says, "We have to do this every time someone makes one of these complaints, so I'm going to say you're a naughty boy, but don't worry about it. You're still going to get your payrise, and I need you to write this report for me."

Am I going to take my boss's condemnation seriously?

If my boss sacks me later on for sexual harassment, are his actions not somewhat hypocritical given what he told me earlier on?

edit: That's a reply to Troll's post, btw.

It depends on the company's policy at the time. You didn't mention the policy. Is there a verbal warning, written warning, suspension, then firing policy like some companies have? And what are the conditions surrounding the next instance of sexual harassment? Did you go further? Was it more agressive? Have you also been late for work or slacking off? You leave too many things open. Maybe that's what you've been doing with the comparisons between the present and 1984? Not seeing the little differences that occurred over the time period.

[Mr Manifesto]

Originally posted by WildCat
[B]
Wherever he got the CW's he used in 1984, it wasn't from the US. In fact, the support he had from the US in ther war w/ Iran was mostly the US saying "atta boy" from the sidelines. Almost all of his weapons came from the Soviet Union and France. The US doesn't make Kalashnikovs, SAM missiles, MiGs or Mirage fighters.

Nobody has shown evidence on other threads about the whole "the USA sold Saddam CW's in the past" charge. If you have evidence that it did, please show it. Otherwise stop claiming it!


Okay (http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2002/12/31/world/main534798.shtml)

The newspaper says a review of a large tranche of government documents reveals that the administrations of President Reagan and the first President Bush both authorized providing Iraq with intelligence and logistical support, and okayed the sale of dual use items — those with military and civilian applications — that included chemicals and germs, even anthrax and bubonic plague.

[WildCat]

Originally posted by Mr Manifesto



Okay (http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2002/12/31/world/main534798.shtml)


Nowhere does that article state that the US sold chemical weapons to Iraq. The anthrax and bubonic plaque was discussed here in other threads, it was not the weaponized strains, but the common strains needed in order to make vaccines and such. It was medical in nature and purpose, not military! If the US sold no "dual use" chemical technology there would be none sold at all. Virtually anything can be "dual use", even fertilizer. Just ask Timothy McVeigh, if he hadn't been executed that is!

Interesting how you get upset if diplomacy isn't used in Iraq, and also get upset when diplomacy is used, as was the policy in the 1980's that resulted in all the things you are bringing up now.

[Jocko]

Originally posted by WildCat

Nowhere does that article state that the US sold chemical weapons to Iraq. The anthrax and bubonic plaque was discussed here in other threads, it was not the weaponized strains, but the common strains needed in order to make vaccines and such. It was medical in nature and purpose, not military! If the US sold no "dual use" chemical technology there would be none sold at all. Virtually anything can be "dual use", even fertilizer. Just ask Timothy McVeigh, if he hadn't been executed that is!



Which is a perfect example of why I would fully support open disclosure of who sold what to whom. There's too much unknown to fully dismiss these charges against the US, and I think full, public disclosure will disprove rather than prove them.

I mean, it's already perfectly clear that some people will never believe it coming from an American; let them hear it from the horse's mouth.

[demon]

"Gee, this is almost as relevant as FDR's meetings with Stalin. Was the above something you learned in high schol history class this week?"

Fvcking unbelievable.
You guys are wouldn`t see a TRex if it was slobbering down your neck.

[Jocko]

Originally posted by demon


Fvcking unbelievable.
You guys are wouldn`t see a TRex if it was slobbering down your neck.

Of course not. They've been extinct for 65 million years. That's the difference between worrying about a threat and just being paranoid.

[Tmy]

Oh no the secrets out, Iraq really wasnt about freedom and democracy, its about ousting an annoying jerk.

Could you imagine GW being brutally honest on why we took out Saddam? Hed have to say that it was to prove a point to the other arab countries as well as to secure/create a US friendly oil bank of a country. If he said that the euros would flip their UN translation headphones.

[BTox]

Originally posted by KelvinG


I think the fact that it makes US policy look bad means it's irrelevant to the "rah, rah" pro-Bush side. Y'know the old saying "emphasize the positive."



I agree that it makes Reagan policy 20 years ago look bad. How does it make current Bush policy look either bad or good?

[corplinx]

Originally posted by KelvinG

Funny how they weren't worthy to be liberated back in the 80's when the US and Iraq were bedfellows, but I guess that's politics.:rolleyes:

Politics sorta. Iraq's time had come. They were a state sponsor of terror. Their human rights abuses were hideous. And they had tons of unaccounted for WMD. The real politics to me is the fact that they had to "sell" the war to people outside from just saying "this is part of the war on terror".

Its a dirty game but its the only game in town.

[Mr Manifesto]

Originally posted by WildCat

Nowhere does that article state that the US sold chemical weapons to Iraq. The anthrax and bubonic plaque was discussed here in other threads, it was not the weaponized strains, but the common strains needed in order to make vaccines and such. It was medical in nature and purpose, not military! If the US sold no "dual use" chemical technology there would be none sold at all. Virtually anything can be "dual use", even fertilizer. Just ask Timothy McVeigh, if he hadn't been executed that is!

Interesting how you get upset if diplomacy isn't used in Iraq, and also get upset when diplomacy is used, as was the policy in the 1980's that resulted in all the things you are bringing up now.

edit That's my underline, btw.

The US doesn't do weapons business with other countries in a front-up, honest manner. If she did, the public would freak, plain and simple. For example, the US sold cluster bombs to Iraq via a Chilean front company. If there was nothing wrong with this transaction, why use the front company?

Similarly, the US sold weapons to South Africa via Israel during sanctions against SA (see Undercutting Sanctions: Israel, the U.S. and South Africa by Jane Hunter).

The point is, you can't expect the US to have sent Iraq material for CW and BW in containers marked, "for use against Iranians, insurgents, and hopefully Communists". It doesn't work like that. No, you give 'em 'dual-use' items that just happen to be able to be easily converted to weapons and shrug your shoulders later on when they are converted to weapons. "Gee... Who knew?"


U.S. Had Key Role in Iraq Buildup
Trade in Chemical Arms Allowed Despite Their Use on Iranians, Kurds (http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn/A52241-2002Dec29?language=printer)

[Ed]

Originally posted by Mr Manifesto
This (http://news.independent.co.uk/world/americas/story.jsp?story=475931) is a darn interesting article on how Rumsfeld assured Iraq in 1984, after the gassing attacks that made the war on Iraq so absolutely neccessary in 2003 (and not the WMD's which were just a side-line), that 'bilateral relations wtih Iraq, at a pace of Iraq's choosing, remains undiminished'.

Snip

Saddam's big mistake seems not to be his meglomania, his ill-treatment of his people, or any of his other excesses, but the simple fact that he was no longer a reliable lap dog.

So what? Are you suggesting that the foreign policy of any other country is consistant? Are you suggesting that this is somehow unique and shows the perfidy of the US? And your foreign policy would be what? Are you suggesting that regardless of circumstances there should be absolute consistancy? What are you posting aside from a reflection of how nations interact? If that is it, thanks for the history lesson. If not, explain the particular significance.

Incidentially, nice misdirection. Whether it was Rumsfeld or Al Sharpton the policy is the responsibility of the President and Rummy or whoeverwill do what they are told.

[Troll]

Originally posted by Ed


So what? Are you suggesting that the foreign policy of any other country is consistant? Are you suggesting that this is somehow unique and shows the perfidy of the US? And your foreign policy would be what? Are you suggesting that regardless of circumstances there should be absolute consistancy? What are you posting aside from a reflection of how nations interact? If that is it, thanks for the history lesson. If not, explain the particular significance.

Incidentially, nice misdirection. Whether it was Rumsfeld or Al Sharpton the policy is the responsibility of the President and Rummy or whoeverwill do what they are told.

You mean things can change if you have a democracy of sorts that elects different people with different views? Interesting concept:D

[Mr Manifesto]

Originally posted by Ed


So what? Are you suggesting that the foreign policy of any other country is consistant? Are you suggesting that this is somehow unique and shows the perfidy of the US? And your foreign policy would be what? Are you suggesting that regardless of circumstances there should be absolute consistancy? What are you posting aside from a reflection of how nations interact? If that is it, thanks for the history lesson. If not, explain the particular significance.

Incidentially, nice misdirection. Whether it was Rumsfeld or Al Sharpton the policy is the responsibility of the President and Rummy or whoeverwill do what they are told.

My post is a condemnation of US hypocrisy. It's that simple. The Bush government duped the people of America into thinking she was undertaking a noble, just cause. Nothing of the sort. And now, thousands have died to line a few pockets.

Incidentally, maybe on Planet Ed people like Rummy unquestioningly obey the President, giving us scenes like this:

"Mr Rumsfeld, you are to go to Iraq and assure the government that we are still very much in support of their war with Iran."
"But Mr President! They used chemical weapons! That's bad- we should be condemning them!"
"No backchat, Donald, I'm President and you'll do as I say. Perhaps, one day, when I'm no longer in office, a more moral President will condemn Iraq for what she has done, but until that day comes we are behind Iraq 100%!"
"Aw, Mr President..."

In real life, though, a President is only as good as his advisors. This is especially true of one George Dubya Shrub, who seems to take pride in how sequestered he is from reality. Rumsfeld has been in the politics game for decades, and he has always felt that the US knows what's best for everyone (see the PNAC page if you don't believe me). What he wants, the President wants, not the other way around.

You'll have to go back to poking fun at foreigners you know little about. It's what you do best.

[Samus]

Didn't we already have a thread on this topic about a week ago? How many times do you insist on bringing this up, and what makes anyone think Rumsfeld's 1984 visit to Iraq is relevant now?

First of all, in 1984, the U.S. was indeed courting Iraq to be an ally in the middle east. That geo area, as we all know, is one where the U.S. has few friends. We were even willing to overlook Iraq's use of chemical weapons to keep the friendship, for all the same reasons we sometimes overlook the Israel/Palestine violence to keep Israel as an ally. We publicly condemn the actual violence, while keeping friendly relations. Just as we publicly condemned Iraq's chem weapon use, but tried to keep relations.

Since 1984, Iraq has invaded Kuwait, scoffed at 12 years worth of U.N. resolutions, and had been generally non-compliant towards weapons inspectors almost until the end of the regime (although, I think Heussein genuinely wanted to cooperate once he understood he was about to be deposed.) It's pretty easy to see why we didn't need/want them as an ally anymore.

So what did we learn here kids? What makes good foreign policy in 1984 doesn't necessarily make sense now. Big f'in deal. I've said it before, there are plenty of valid criticisms of the Bush administration, and Rumsfeld's actions specifically, without trying to make stuff up.

[Ed]

Originally posted by Mr Manifesto


My post is a condemnation of US hypocrisy. It's that simple. The Bush government duped the people of America into thinking she was undertaking a noble, just cause. Nothing of the sort. And now, thousands have died to line a few pockets.

Incidentally, maybe on Planet Ed people like Rummy unquestioningly obey the President, giving us scenes like this:

"Mr Rumsfeld, you are to go to Iraq and assure the government that we are still very much in support of their war with Iran."
"But Mr President! They used chemical weapons! That's bad- we should be condemning them!"
"No backchat, Donald, I'm President and you'll do as I say. Perhaps, one day, when I'm no longer in office, a more moral President will condemn Iraq for what she has done, but until that day comes we are behind Iraq 100%!"
"Aw, Mr President..."

In real life, though, a President is only as good as his advisors. This is especially true of one George Dubya Shrub, who seems to take pride in how sequestered he is from reality. Rumsfeld has been in the politics game for decades, and he has always felt that the US knows what's best for everyone (see the PNAC page if you don't believe me). What he wants, the President wants, not the other way around.

You'll have to go back to poking fun at foreigners you know little about. It's what you do best.


Stuff and nonsense.

For the record, let me state (as I have many times before) that I really believe that GWB lied to me. I would not have gone into Iraq under any circumstances other than that they represented a clear and present danger to the US. We may quibble about the words that he used but at that time he convinced me. That said, I watch in horror as the Dems proceed to commit ritual suicide.

First off, let me address this

You'll have to go back to poking fun at foreigners you know little about. It's what you do best.

I see the beginnings of a typical JREF personal attack tailspin. Sorry, I won't bite. Let me just say that I find foreigners pretty darn funny. Sorry you don't share my amusement.

My post is a condemnation of US hypocrisy. It's that simple. The Bush government duped the people of America into thinking she was undertaking a noble, just cause. Nothing of the sort. And now, thousands have died to line a few pockets.

You have conflated three big ideas, one of which has merit, into one terse package.

First:

My post is a condemnation of US hypocrisy. It's that simple.

I take issue with the putative exclusive nature of this statement. My contention is that what you see with the US is no different than the actions of any other government, or group of people for that matter, now or over history. Selfish self interest defines foreign policy, always had and always will. To single out the US is disingenous. This behavior is human. What you are really saying is that you don't like the fact that humans are hypocritical. Fair point.

The Bush government duped the people of America into thinking she was undertaking a noble, just cause. Nothing of the sort.

I agree completely. Bush is a liar. Then again (and this does not exonorate Bush) what person in power is not? Know why we are low on flu vaccine? Well, Hillary championed legislation that put the feds in the vaccine business. Some tripe about no child let behind or some such. Sooooo the feds became a behemoth buyer, in effect setting low prices. This killed competition and now there are only three companies producing vaccine. Will she admit it? Nahhh. I hate to pick on Hil (:D ) but the lieing is endemic. We as voters let it happen. Sad but true. And Bush will get away with it.

And now, thousands have died to line a few pockets.

Some pockets will be lined, as with any major undertaking. To suggest that we went to war for that exclusive reason is somewhat irreponsible, unless proof is forthcoming.

Incidentally, maybe on Planet Ed people like Rummy unquestioningly obey the President, giving us scenes like this:

"Mr Rumsfeld, you are to go to Iraq and assure the government that we are still very much in support of their war with Iran."
"But Mr President! They used chemical weapons! That's bad- we should be condemning them!"
"No backchat, Donald, I'm President and you'll do as I say. Perhaps, one day, when I'm no longer in office, a more moral President will condemn Iraq for what she has done, but until that day comes we are behind Iraq 100%!"
"Aw, Mr President..."

Precisely. The only thing that you left out was the cynical discussion of the potential political reprecussions. You are suggesting nobility in government? No, not at all. Do you doubt Powell when he said that he was assured by the French Ambassador that the US would have French support in the UN and the, unbeknownst to him, they reneged? The Ambassador did what he was told, honor be damned.

In real life, though, a President is only as good as his advisors.

This and following orders are not mutually exclusive.

This is especially true of one George Dubya Shrub,

I understand that you loathe the man but repetitive name calling does come accross as a bit childish. It just betrays your lack of any objectivity and sullies any other arguments that you make. This is not a critisism, simply an observation.

who seems to take pride in how sequestered he is from reality. Rumsfeld has been in the politics game for decades, and he has always felt that the US knows what's best for everyone (see the PNAC page if you don't believe me).

I suspect that that is true for lots of folks in Washington, and Paris, and Rome, for that matter.

What he wants, the President wants, not the other way around.

Maybe, maybe not. I don't sit in very frequently on Oval Office meetings, do you?

[Mike B.]

Originally posted by demon
"Gee, this is almost as relevant as FDR's meetings with Stalin. Was the above something you learned in high schol history class this week?"

Fvcking unbelievable.
You guys are wouldn`t see a TRex if it was slobbering down your neck.

I think the point holds well actually.

Using the logic of many of the "progressives" on this board, the US or UK or any Allied nation was supporting a blood-thirsty dictator in Stalin when it suited them because the "enemy of my enemy is a friend."

I mean I can't believe how "inconsistent" the Allies were...:p

[Mr Manifesto]

Originally posted by Commander Cool
Didn't we already have a thread on this topic about a week ago? How many times do you insist on bringing this up, and what makes anyone think Rumsfeld's 1984 visit to Iraq is relevant now?

I've gone back 10 pages and can't find a thread on the topic. Zakur started one with a link to one of the pages I've linked to, but he doesn't bring up any of the issues I did. I haven't looked at any of Hunzington's threads, and don't consider him as able to add anything to this debate (or any debate for that matter). You might say he's on 'unofficial ignore'.


First of all, in 1984, the U.S. was indeed courting Iraq to be an ally in the middle east. That geo area, as we all know, is one where the U.S. has few friends. We were even willing to overlook Iraq's use of chemical weapons to keep the friendship, for all the same reasons we sometimes overlook the Israel/Palestine violence to keep Israel as an ally. We publicly condemn the actual violence, while keeping friendly relations. Just as we publicly condemned Iraq's chem weapon use, but tried to keep relations.

Since 1984, Iraq has invaded Kuwait, scoffed at 12 years worth of U.N. resolutions, and had been generally non-compliant towards weapons inspectors almost until the end of the regime (although, I think Heussein genuinely wanted to cooperate once he understood he was about to be deposed.) It's pretty easy to see why we didn't need/want them as an ally anymore.

So what did we learn here kids? What makes good foreign policy in 1984 doesn't necessarily make sense now. Big f'in deal. I've said it before, there are plenty of valid criticisms of the Bush administration, and Rumsfeld's actions specifically, without trying to make stuff up.

I've actually quoted primary sources in this thread. What have I made up, exactly?

[BTox]

Originally posted by Mr Manifesto


My post is a condemnation of US hypocrisy. It's that simple. The Bush government duped the people of America into thinking she was undertaking a noble, just cause. Nothing of the sort. And now, thousands have died to line a few pockets.


Oh brother. More fantasy from "Mr." Manifesto. Do you just read comic books or do you also dabble in writing them?

[Mr Manifesto]

Originally posted by BTox


Oh brother. More fantasy from "Mr." Manifesto. Do you just read comic books or do you also dabble in writing them?

Oh, brother. Another post from "B" Tox devoid of content. Do you realise there aren't any prizes for reaching 2000 posts just for the sake of it?

[BTox]

Originally posted by Mr Manifesto


Oh, brother. Another post from "B" Tox devoid of content. Do you realise there aren't any prizes for reaching 2000 posts just for the sake of it?

I added the only relevant content post necessary previously. Perhaps you missed it? And I do not believe there is a prize for initiating the most moronic anti-American threads on this forum - though you are clearly in the lead.

[Mr Manifesto]

Originally posted by BTox


I added the only relevant content post necessary previously. Perhaps you missed it? And I do not believe there is a prize for initiating the most moronic anti-American threads on this forum - though you are clearly in the lead.

Gosh, now I'm anti-American. Bandying accusations about the 'net is such fun.

You criticising me for criticising the US? Well, you're anti-Australian!

[c0rbin]

I hear a lot of that from the "America can do no wrong" camp.

I think you assume that Americans all think alike.

Fvcking unbelievable.
You guys are wouldn`t see a TRex if it was slobbering down your neck.

:rr:

Show me a T-Rex and let's test your hypothesis.

The point is, you can't expect the US to have sent Iraq material for CW and BW in containers marked, "for use against Iranians, insurgents, and hopefully Communists". It doesn't work like that. No, you give 'em 'dual-use' items that just happen to be able to be easily converted to weapons and shrug your shoulders later on when they are converted to weapons. "Gee... Who knew?"


I have worked for a large unmentionable Oil Field Services/Construction company and have developed training for their export compliance policies. You statement about "dual-use" technology is incorrect.

If you have a legal case against a US company bring it. You might do the world a favor.

If you have some moral case against the US, please hoist yourself upon the nearest cross and maybe someone will take notice.

My post is a condemnation of US hypocrisy.

May the nation without sin cast the first stone...

[BTox]

Originally posted by Mr Manifesto


Gosh, now I'm anti-American. Bandying accusations about the 'net is such fun.


Your comprehension skills are lacking as well? Back to school, son!

[Samus]

Mr Manifesto: Zakur started one with a link to one of the pages I've linked to, but he doesn't bring up any of the issues I did. I haven't looked at any of Hunzington's threads, and don't consider him as able to add anything to this debate (or any debate for that matter). This (http://www.randi.org/vbulletin/showthread.php?s=&threadid=32597) is the thread I was thinking of. They're actually very similar, and I made similar comments in that thread. I haven't read anything Hunzington has written. I agree with you, he's not here to debate.

Mr Manifesto: My post is a condemnation of US hypocrisy. It's that simple. The Bush government duped the people of America into thinking she was undertaking a noble, just cause. Nothing of the sort. And now, thousands have died to line a few pockets. I do not think hypocrisy is the right word for the phenomenon you describe. Check out my post here (http://www.randi.org/vbulletin/showthread.php?s=&postid=1870240756#post1870240756). This graf is especially relevant in this thread:

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.

Based on my post in that other thread, and the large section of my previous post you haven't replied to, I reach the conclusion that you have made something out of nothing (that nothing being Rumsfeld's visit to Iraq in 1984, which is the original topic of the thread).

[Mr Manifesto]

"Supporting the lesser of two evils" is another argument usually used by those excusing US intervention policies that have gone awry. Lesser of two evils of what, though?

Wildcat brought up how horrific the Cold War was for the people of America. Snide remarks about how old I was at the time aside, I quite clearly remember the cold war during the '80's, especially the fear that nuclear war was inevitable after the US bombed Libya in 1986.

What was all this 'fear' about, though? We were afraid the Soviets were coming. Well, post Perestroika, the Communist Menace is simply a joke to all but the most adamant conspiracy theorist. So the US supported a repressive regime in a war that was basically none of her business in order to keep Communists who weren't a threat from becoming a threat. Great.

In other words, the US didn't have to support any evil, lesser or otherwise.

[Troll]

Originally posted by Mr Manifesto
"Supporting the lesser of two evils" is another argument usually used by those excusing US intervention policies that have gone awry. Lesser of two evils of what, though?

Wildcat brought up how horrific the Cold War was for the people of America. Snide remarks about how old I was at the time aside, I quite clearly remember the cold war during the '80's, especially the fear that nuclear war was inevitable after the US bombed Libya in 1986.

What was all this 'fear' about, though? We were afraid the Soviets were coming. Well, post Perestroika, the Communist Menace is simply a joke to all but the most adamant conspiracy theorist. So the US supported a repressive regime in a war that was basically none of her business in order to keep Communists who weren't a threat from becoming a threat. Great.

In other words, the US didn't have to support any evil, lesser or otherwise.

Ah, the miracle of hindsight.