US service member injured in rocket attack in Iraq

I didn't say it wasn't important. What I said is that this is irrelevant to the Fact - that our support of Saddam while using chemical weapons - is historical fact ..

So why did you call this "Conspiracy" and now trying to back track and change the topic.

If you want to try to justify the support of the enemy of our enemy - that is fine - but doing so will not turn Historical fact into "Conspiracy theory"

And why you are blubbering on about the ME going nuclear - in a conversation about Iran / Iraq war - I have no clue.

 

Our policies in that region were based on our capabilities at the time. While we may not have approved of Saddam's methods of warfare we were limited in our ability to respond. His eventual overstep into Kuwait with the threat it posed to SA and the rest of the region gave us a staging point to put him down. The whole mess grew out of the Iranian revolution and our blunders there. It explains our position in the Iran/Iraq war and how the entire string of events up to today are connected.

 

Our policies in that region were based upon the influence of AIPAC and the staged events of 11 September.

 

No, you are ignoring how we got there. 9/11 happened because we had American troops on the ground in SA as a blocking force and how we got there goes back to our differences with Iran. It's a continuous chain of events all the way back to our Cold War policies in the region. The driving force for all western powers was oil.

 

Our policies there were the direct result of our Global War Of Terror, declared and waged by Dubya and Company, and strongly approved of by Tel Aviv.

 

9/11 happened because a rich, Saudi, fugitive expatriate hired goons to terrorize the US into leaving Saudi Arabia. It didn't work. Other rich Saudis wanted us there, having seen satellite images of Saddam's build-up on their border, after invading Kuwait. 12 years went by, while the US military figured out how to shoot down Scuds.
President Clinton wrote a policy of regime change in Iraq, quickly adopted as official US policy by Congress, called the Iraq Liberation Act. Kuwaitis and Saudi's liked it. Most Iraqis liked it. Osama didn't.

The War on Terror was a response to 9/11. Before 9/11, Democrats in Congress harped and carped at Bush43 for not pursuing the Iraq Liberation Act. After 9/11, Democrats and Republicans, including Hillary, voted to authorize war. As soon as Bush waged war, they cut his political legs off, complaining they were misled on WMD.

It used to be easy to find Clinton's policy, and videos of those Democrats demanding war in Iraq. Winston Smith memory holed them. Also, a Hillary junket to Saudi in the fall of '04 now seems never to have happened.

 

"Our policies were based on our capabilities at the time" - What on earth are you talking about ? What capabilities - ?

and what do you mean our ability to respond was limited ? What was limiting our ability respond and how was it limited.

You must have missed my previous comment on the "Prevention of Genocide Act" - Which Reagan threatened to veto and effectively killed .. despite overwhelming bipartisan support in the house - a bill that would have at lest been a small response.


Your response is gibberish - not really saying anything other than vague generalities - and even those don't make sense as is - and of course is unsupported..

We gave him the nod to go into Kuwait .. but yes ... then we took action - but we did not put Saddam Down .. In fact what we did was put the Shia revolution down - the one we had encouraged prior to taking Saddam out -- dropping leaflets telling the Shia to Rebel.. and that is exactly what they did .. and they were taking over as we controlled the skies - so Saddam could not use air power.

Daddy Bush then lifted this restriction and our man Saddam crushed the Shia revolution with Air power.

I do agree that this mess was started when we engaged in Regime Change in Iran .. installing a radical Islamist Theocrat .. over a more Secular Regime.

Bad move.

 

So it's Israel causing all our problems?

 

That was an Alex Jones lie. His article linked to a transcript of a meeting between our ambassador and Saddam. I guess Jones trusted that no one would read it.
There was no green light. Saddam knew Bush41 would bomb him for invading Kuwait. He predicted he could win anyway, by shedding some American blood to inflame anti-war sentiment.

 

You talk as if you research the subject and yet know so little about the years and chain of events. Go to your bad move (which you got right) and just track events from there. There was a Life Magazine article way back in the day about the Shah and Iran. How they were a buffer between the Soviets and the oil fields of the Arab countries. Cold war link and oil. That little seed spawned all we have had and will have there.

 

What a joke of a post .. projecting your flaws onto others.. you are the one that presented no material in support of your claim thus far .. and in fact can't even seem to clarify or figure out what you are claiming.

The topic is Saddam's use of Chemical Weapons - and our support therof - against big bad Iran .. during the "Cold War" initially you were claiming nukes had something to do with this .. now you have given "The Cold War" as support .. which is a massive fail - as Iran's did not have nukes during the Cold war .. and the war with Iran was involved in the cold war "HOW" .in the 1980's such that we had to attack them militarily .. or at least be on that side. What big bad expansionist evil had Iran done...

Do tell Mr. "Knows so much" about the chain of events .. I can't wait.

 

I already told you.

 

No you didn't .. you spoke in vague generalities that made no sense - "We acted according to our Capabilities at the time" What a nonsense statement.. and when asked to clarify .. you run into never never land . all of a sudden we were allied with Saddam because of some cold war Nuclear Scare ...

Were you not the one who started out crying "Conspiracy - Conspiracy" .. or was that another ?

 

Yeah, he's so much more of a push-over than turned-tail & running Trump. From yesterday's U.S. News report, about our proportional-response missile attack on an Iran-backed militia installation in Syria:

Michael McCaul, the top Republican on the House of Representatives' foreign affairs committee, said the strikes "remind Iran, its proxies, and our adversaries around the world that attacks on U.S. interests will not be tolerated."

Suzanne Maloney, of the Brookings Institution think tank, declared the strikes a "Good move" on Twitter, saying they showed the Biden administration could both negotiate with Iran on the nuclear deal and push back against the militias Tehran backed.

https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.usnews.com/news/world/articles/2021-02-25/exclusive-us-carries-out-airstrike-against-iranian-backed-militia-target-in-syria-officials?context=amp

 

I read it - and you are the one spewing falsehood. as obviously We did not tell Saddam - Go ahead and invade. What absurd nonsense.

What did happen when the subject came up is we expressed ambivalence .. which Saddam took for a Green light.

Your made up nonsense that he predicted he would win against the US .. is just that ... complete nonsense that you pulled out of your backside because you thought it would sound good.

 

Wasn't me. I'm gonna just back outa here now.

 

I always thought Osama had plans to take over the Kingdom which made it imperative to get the US outa there.

 

The Brookings Institute is a left wing think tank and Trump attacked Iranian "proxies" too. It didn't work. In fact, the democrats were screaming he was trying to start World War III when he did. https://edition.cnn.com/2020/01/05/...nding-opinion-weekly-column-galant/index.html

 

Your appraisal is a very stilted, unobjective one (i.e., "if it's more liberal than me, then it's liberal").
This is from wikipedia:

The University of Pennsylvania's Global Go To Think Tank Index Report has named Brookings "Think Tank of the Year" and "Top Think Tank in the World" every year since 2008.[14] The Economist describes Brookings as "perhaps America’s most prestigious think-tank."[15]

Brookings states that its staff "represent diverse points of view" and describes itself as non-partisan,[16]...An academic analysis of Congressional records from 1993 to 2002 found that Brookings was referred to by conservative politicians almost as frequently as liberal politicians, earning a score of 53 on a 1–100 scale with 100 representing the most liberal score.[19] The same study found Brookings to be the most frequently cited think tank by the U.S. media and politicians.[19]

A 53 on a scale of 1 - 100. So I guess one could call it, "liberal," technically. Just like you could say, if your I.Q. was higher than 52% of others' scores, that you were, "smarter than most people," and you would, technically speaking, be accurate. But the inference, that you were noticeably more intelligent, relatively speaking, would be false. Likewise, what would you consider, "centrist," those that rank from 30-40? I would contend that, relative to both extremes, 53 is well w/in the margins of the, "center."

Just to touch base with the original point of my post, it was in reply to your suggesting that President Biden would try to deal with Iran by buying their cooperation; regardless of your take on any particular think tank, Biden's quick response has proven your speculation-- which had been w/out any informed evidence, to begin with-- to have been utterly wrong. Biden will be at least as tough as Trump, who had a very mixed record in that regard, with our military adversaries.

This swift response, even garnering an endorsement from the TOP REPUBLICAN, Michael McCaul, on the HOUSE FOREIGN AFFAIRS COMMITTEE (saying the strikes, "remind Iran, its proxies, and our adversaries around the world that attacks on U.S. interests will not be tolerated"), would be much stronger ground, in fact, for one to base a guess that Biden will be tougher than the very inconsistent Trump-- a.k.a. lover of Kim Jong-Un-- had been. But only time will tell, for sure.

 

How many Iranians died in the Biden attack?

 

We at one stage supported Hussein in his war, but we didn't support his methods of fighting.
Separating the two is rather hard.

 

We were supporting and aiding him - as in aiding in the war giving him logistics and stuff .. troop locations - while he was using Chemical weapons.
So Yes ... separating the two is real hard in this instance .. I would not call the aid we were giving "complicity in Genocide" though.

Yemen Yes .. Syria 100 X over yes -- not complicity but full on responsibility.

 

The liberal media likes to cite a liberal think tank. What a shocker. In the mean time when Trump did it it was "OMG WWIII" and when Biden did it the media is like "Bold Leadership!!!"

 

https://www.juancole.com/2011/01/glaspie-memo-vindicates-her-shows-saddams-thinking.html
The story echoes what I found in the transcript. Notice the link is broken. I can no longer find it.

This is Glaspie's report, not the transcript. It's all informative. Paragraphs 9 and 14.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/politics/documents/glaspie1-13.pdf?sid=ST2008040203634

 

I have the transcript in a book .. and it is as I told you - they did not say "Go Invade Kuwait" but were ambivalent - no comment on tensions with Kuwait .. get the exact wording and you will see..

but what matters this in the Grande Scheme of things .. Rotten Ronnie did plenty of dirty deeds - would not classify this as one of them. We were all buddy buddy with Saddam and then we had some war play when he advanced on Kuwait ... Somehow he was good for attacking Iran - but not Kuwait . ?!