Two oil tankers struck in suspected attacks in Gulf of Oman

The discussion was over the Taliban and Al Qaeda and you alleged Reagan supported the Taliban and al qaeda. Suddenly you were off the reservation saying Reagan supported what Saddam did.

Your best of all sources on this is found in this book. It is magnificent. It should be taught as the history of Reagan.

Democrats at least by 1995 concocted this story of a virtual partnership between Saddam and Reagan but they are fabricating is all.

 

I did not say Reagan supported either the Taliban or Al Qaeda. You must have misunderstood something. The Reagan administration did however support Saddam during and after his use of Chemical weapons. Reagan threat to veto the "Prevention of Genocide Act" - something likely not mentioned in the book you post promoting love for Reagan - resulted in continued support for Saddam. Support even increased under Bush Sr.

 

International affairs are not a One-size-fits-all exercise in diplomacy

 

Agreed. That the moon is not made of green cheese is also true. What does this have to do with Reagan supporting Saddam while using chemical weapons ?

 

Your claim Reagan supported Saddam sounds like the green cheese rule of the moon.
Thus far, you document nothing.

Why did you leap from Al Qaeda and the Taliban clear over to Saddam and last to Reagan?

 

Which, even if true, has nothing whatever to do with Iran today?

 

Thats not really true.

In 1991, Iraq was loaded with wmd, and those scuds that hit israel had nerve gas.

 

What part of "Reagan threatened to veto the Prevention of Genocide act" did you not understand. How is this not "documented". Do you have any idea what this even was ?

Read the post and the post that was being responded to.

 

Robert, here you go. It's not a long article.

https://foreignpolicy.com/2013/08/2...rove-america-helped-saddam-as-he-gassed-iran/

 

Iran was our enemy

And they were being punished for the hostage crises

 

Nothing to give up and there is no desperate attempts to nitpick. There were no weapons of mass destruction other than that leftover from abandoned programs.

The yellowcake from you NBC, link concerned leftover material from the Tuwaitha nuclear plant that had been bombed by Iran and Israel in the 80's and by the US in '91. This was residual stored material and there is absolutely no evidence that Saddam was trying to restart the nuclear program.

From your own CIA link:

"While a small number of old, abandoned chemical munitions have been discovered, ISG judges that Iraq unilaterally destroyed its undeclared chemical weapons stockpile in 1991. There are no credible indications that Baghdad resumed production of chemical munitions thereafter, a policy ISG attributes to Baghdad’s desire to see sanctions lifted, or rendered ineffectual, or its fear of force against it should WMD be discovered.

• The scale of the Iraqi conventional munitions stockpile, among other factors, precluded an examination of the entire stockpile; however, ISG inspected sites judged most likely associated with possible storage or deployment of chemical weapons.

Iraq’sCW program was crippled by the Gulf war and the legitimate chemical industry, which suffered under sanctions, only began to recover in the mid-1990s. Subsequent changes in the management of key military and civilian organizations, followed by an influx of funding and resources, provided Iraq with the ability to reinvigorate its industrial base."

So the CIA report is examining how easy it would have been to restart the program after the Gulf War but neither the CIA report you are citing or any of the inspectors running around Iraq before the US invasion found any credible evidence that a CW program had actually been restarted except that there were residual chemicals leftover and that Iraq was attempting to rebuild it's industrial capacity and perhaps preparing to defend itself in case of a US attack.

Your attempt to rewrite history is noted but of course, the truth is pretty clear and has been admitted by both the State Dept. and the CIA.

There were no WMD's in Iraq and your attempt to say otherwise is wrong.

And you didn't just back Iraq in it's war against Iran.

The old joke goes, "how did W know that Iraq had WMD's?

His daddy kept the receipts".

 

OK then - so you believe that some nation being our enemy legitimizes the use of chemical weapons. Got it

 

And for daring to overthrow the US installed Shah and his murderous Savak police.

 

Your words not mine

 

Reagan in many ways was as divorced from the covert foreign policy taking part in his administration as Trump is today.

If you really want to understand covert operations in the 80's you need to explore the long history of George HW Bush and what was happening in central America with mercenary armies and cocaine. The history of Iran/Contra, the Savings and loan thing and BCCI are all instructive into how the CIA was operating in those days and still operates in similar ways today.

 

Just trying to help.......

 

Amazing to me how you believe that intelligence yet argue against the intelligence reports when G.W. Bush was president. Think that one over.

If you want the truth about Iraq from an actual Iraqi General officer, a true insider, read this book.

 

You would need to quote me arguing against Bush before making that statement. No I don't care to buy a book.

 

The top book of all on those things are in this book.

Reagan was very informed and on top of his covert operations.

 

I said intelligence. The book opens up the discussion to understanding Saddam.

 

I felt far more empathy to those our forces could blow off the heads, legs and arms of than those Saddam took out using his own chemical weapons.

Today, though never discussed by Democrats, Saddam at the time was a huge ally of the Soviets. Iran was not. Iraq was desired by the Reagan team to work with us and not the Soviets.

Unless one is such a devoted Democrat, one hardly recalls the days the Soviets were truly a frightening force against America. Then they truly were a fright to the world.

 

Well you sure are linking and sourcing away to claim it's all "alternative facts".
As for handing it over to an impartial court / system.... makes totally sense.
Do note, the US was torturing away in a framework outside any law.
The EU wouldn't have it as well. They refuse to hand over anybody for that,
and demand no death penalty as part of the sentence.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Extradition#Possibility_of_certain_forms_of_punishment
European nations except Belarus, will not allow extradition if the death penalty may be imposed on the suspect unless they are assured that the death sentence will not be passed or carried out.

 

https://www.independent.co.uk/news/...-weapons-after-2003-invasion-and-9795485.html
According to the Times, the reports were embarrassing for the Pentagon because, in five of the six incidents in which troops were wounded by chemical agents, the munitions appeared to have been “designed in the US, manufactured in Europe and filled in chemical agent production lines built in Iraq by Western companies”.

the US government told the Times that the abandoned weapons no longer pose a threat.


They were WMD's build with the FULL cooperation of the west, and it was considered chemical waist during that pointless war the US held. It wasn't what they claimed... as in mobile trucks with newly made WMD's. Them were all massive lies to start a war.

 

Yeah... as if you put your trust in a compulsive liar in a court...
whatever.