perhaps we should send rumsfeld to iraq to help with the current problem....
since he and saddam are old buddies:
<a href="http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn?pagename=article&node=&contentId=A52241-2002Dec29¬Found=true"; target="_blank">washington post</a>
very good read to learn some of the history---found this interesting:
_________________________________________________
In practice, U.S. condemnation of Iraqi use of chemical weapons ranked relatively low on the scale of administration priorities, particularly compared with the all-important goal of preventing an Iranian victory.
Thus, on Nov. 1, 1983, a senior State Department official, Jonathan T. Howe, told Secretary of State George P. Shultz that intelligence reports showed that Iraqi troops were resorting to "almost daily use of CW" against the Iranians. But the Reagan administration had already committed itself to a large-scale diplomatic and political overture to Baghdad, culminating in several visits by the president's recently appointed special envoy to the Middle East, Donald H. Rumsfeld.
Secret talking points prepared for the first Rumsfeld visit to Baghdad enshrined some of the language from NSDD 114, including the statement that the United States would regard "any major reversal of Iraq's fortunes as a strategic defeat for the West." When Rumsfeld finally met with Hussein on Dec. 20, he told the Iraqi leader that Washington was ready for a resumption of full diplomatic relations, according to a State Department report of the conversation. Iraqi leaders later described themselves as "extremely pleased" with the Rumsfeld visit, which had "elevated U.S.-Iraqi relations to a new level."
In a September interview with CNN, Rumsfeld said he "cautioned" Hussein about the use of chemical weapons, a claim at odds with declassified State Department notes of his 90-minute meeting with the Iraqi leader. A Pentagon spokesman, Brian Whitman, now says that Rumsfeld raised the issue not with Hussein, but with Iraqi foreign minister Tariq Aziz. The State Department notes show that he mentioned it largely in passing as one of several matters that "inhibited" U.S. efforts to assist Iraq.
Rumsfeld has also said he had "nothing to do" with helping Iraq in its war against Iran. Although former U.S. officials agree that Rumsfeld was not one of the architects of the Reagan administration's tilt toward Iraq -- he was a private citizen when he was appointed Middle East envoy -- the documents show that his visits to Baghdad led to closer U.S.-Iraqi cooperation on a wide variety of fronts. Washington was willing to resume diplomatic relations immediately, but Hussein insisted on delaying such a step until the following year.
As part of its opening to Baghdad, the Reagan administration removed Iraq from the State Department terrorism list in February 1982
______________________________________________
history is fun....the same players keep popping up time and time again....
and some more
<a href="http://www.guardian.co.uk/Iraq/Story/0,2763,866942,00.html"; target="_blank">here</a>
______________________________________________
The US provided less conventional military equipment than British or German companies but it did allow the export of biological agents, including anthrax; vital ingredients for chemical weapons; and cluster bombs sold by a CIA front organisation in Chile, the report says.
Intelligence on Iranian troop movements was provided, despite detailed knowledge of Iraq's use of nerve gas.
_______________________________________________
and msn weighs in <a href="http://www.msnbc.com/news/795649.asp"; target="_blank">here also</a>
no wonder saddam is confused, bush senior was his friend, rumsfeld was his friend, reagan was his friend....
g
[ 02-28-2003: Message edited by: thegelding ]</p>
<a href="http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn?pagename=article&node=&contentId=A52241-2002Dec29¬Found=true"; target="_blank">washington post</a>
very good read to learn some of the history---found this interesting:
_________________________________________________
In practice, U.S. condemnation of Iraqi use of chemical weapons ranked relatively low on the scale of administration priorities, particularly compared with the all-important goal of preventing an Iranian victory.
Thus, on Nov. 1, 1983, a senior State Department official, Jonathan T. Howe, told Secretary of State George P. Shultz that intelligence reports showed that Iraqi troops were resorting to "almost daily use of CW" against the Iranians. But the Reagan administration had already committed itself to a large-scale diplomatic and political overture to Baghdad, culminating in several visits by the president's recently appointed special envoy to the Middle East, Donald H. Rumsfeld.
Secret talking points prepared for the first Rumsfeld visit to Baghdad enshrined some of the language from NSDD 114, including the statement that the United States would regard "any major reversal of Iraq's fortunes as a strategic defeat for the West." When Rumsfeld finally met with Hussein on Dec. 20, he told the Iraqi leader that Washington was ready for a resumption of full diplomatic relations, according to a State Department report of the conversation. Iraqi leaders later described themselves as "extremely pleased" with the Rumsfeld visit, which had "elevated U.S.-Iraqi relations to a new level."
In a September interview with CNN, Rumsfeld said he "cautioned" Hussein about the use of chemical weapons, a claim at odds with declassified State Department notes of his 90-minute meeting with the Iraqi leader. A Pentagon spokesman, Brian Whitman, now says that Rumsfeld raised the issue not with Hussein, but with Iraqi foreign minister Tariq Aziz. The State Department notes show that he mentioned it largely in passing as one of several matters that "inhibited" U.S. efforts to assist Iraq.
Rumsfeld has also said he had "nothing to do" with helping Iraq in its war against Iran. Although former U.S. officials agree that Rumsfeld was not one of the architects of the Reagan administration's tilt toward Iraq -- he was a private citizen when he was appointed Middle East envoy -- the documents show that his visits to Baghdad led to closer U.S.-Iraqi cooperation on a wide variety of fronts. Washington was willing to resume diplomatic relations immediately, but Hussein insisted on delaying such a step until the following year.
As part of its opening to Baghdad, the Reagan administration removed Iraq from the State Department terrorism list in February 1982
______________________________________________
history is fun....the same players keep popping up time and time again....
and some more
<a href="http://www.guardian.co.uk/Iraq/Story/0,2763,866942,00.html"; target="_blank">here</a>
______________________________________________
The US provided less conventional military equipment than British or German companies but it did allow the export of biological agents, including anthrax; vital ingredients for chemical weapons; and cluster bombs sold by a CIA front organisation in Chile, the report says.
Intelligence on Iranian troop movements was provided, despite detailed knowledge of Iraq's use of nerve gas.
_______________________________________________
and msn weighs in <a href="http://www.msnbc.com/news/795649.asp"; target="_blank">here also</a>
no wonder saddam is confused, bush senior was his friend, rumsfeld was his friend, reagan was his friend....
g
[ 02-28-2003: Message edited by: thegelding ]</p>
Comments
that french guy who looks like a worm on that french magazine
reagan
bush senior
rumsfeld
good company there....g
but what does that article have to do with saddam and rumsfeld??? let's try to keep on topic of a while please...what do you think of those articles?? did you read them??
[ 03-01-2003: Message edited by: thegelding ]</p>
[ 02-28-2003: Message edited by: Randycat99 ]</p>
<strong><a href="http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/846787/posts"; target="_blank">Interesting indeed.</a></strong><hr></blockquote>
This site is a web site, i will not give it too much weight ... See the quotes from the guy named Axion, pure jewel of imbecility and idiocy.
On a more serious note, i think that Saddam fooled many people from democratic countries at the time. And France is one of the principle examples. Selling a nuclear plant was a terrible mistake. At the time, Saddam was looking as a modern leader of the middle east. Time showed that's it's entirely different, the modern leader is a terrible dictator.
The article refear to Giscard d'Estaing and Chirac. One important thing to say about them, is that they hate each others. Chirac helped to let win Mitterand in 1981 (unofficialy of course ,the two guys belonging to the right).
From what i think i know from their psychological pattern, i think it's Chirac who is responsible of the sell of a nuclear plant in Iraq (Giscard is more a brain than chirac who works more with intuition) . Chirac has commited in the past some great political error, like making a new elections of deputes one year in advance, but he also made some brilliants political decisions. The best and the worse can came out from Chirac. Chirac is an affective, that's why before 1991, i guess he finded Saddam sympathic (and i know some tyranic people when i was in university, who where very sympathic when they wanted to be) and was fooled by him.
After 1991, the relationships between France and Iraq changed dramatically (and also the relationships between US and Iraq : at the time according to some analyst, Saddam thinked that US won't do anything against this invasion ). The relationship between Chirac and Saddam have changed. You canno't understand the point of vue of Chirac and all the political leaders of France at the light of this web site.
<strong>cool, so lots of pricks liked saddam....
that french guy who looks like a worm on that french </strong><hr></blockquote>
it was a french edition of an english magazine, the Sun, exclusively avalaible at Paris for free.
People seem to be very very fixated on US support for Iraq but willfully ignorant of the many other nations of the West that helped to build Saddam to what he is today.
just wish rummy had the guts to take out saddam when he had the chance instead of giving him biological weapons and shaking his hand...but back then rummy liked saddam, even though saddam was using chemical weapons on iranians (or maybe that is why rummy liked him)...
[quote] Why don't some of the outspoken "doves" (as you like to call them, or they like to call themselves) go over to Iraq and try rounding up some Iraqis to overthrow the Saddam regime. <hr></blockquote>
actually i like marching and voting for peace...god bless america...perhaps some of you "hawks" should join the military and head out with our boys to kill and die for rummy and his ever-changing list of "friend, no enemy, no friend"...at least i believe what i post...if you believed what you did you would be lining up to fight....
if the iraqi forces were attacking our soil here in the good old USA i would be the first in line to grab a gun, i would even lie about my age if i had to...
as for the photo...eh, it fit in this post and the other, so i linked twice...so sue me...i wouldn't call it a fixation...now when i was young and had that charlie's angel poster on my wall...that was a fixation...
g
[ 02-28-2003: Message edited by: thegelding ]
[ 03-01-2003: Message edited by: thegelding ]</p>
<strong>Oh I'm sure the link I posted has a lot of garbage, I don't mean to promote it as meaningful. Just showing that all these nations have their hands dirty, not just the United States.
People seem to be very very fixated on US support for Iraq but willfully ignorant of the many other nations of the West that helped to build Saddam to what he is today.</strong><hr></blockquote>
yes i agree, Saddam fooled a lot of nations. You will note that i did not blame Rumsfeld for this picture. The misdjudgement of many political leaders of the occidental world at the time for Saddam is amazing. On a side note, the fact that Saddam fooled so many peoples imply he is a political beast. In 1991 , how many of us here on AI, would have bet that Saddam is still in charge in 2003 ?
Not me.
The US provided less conventional military equipment than British or German companies
so i know other countries have dirty hands in iraq, but i mostly only talk about my country (and rag on canada to bug murbot...plus i think of canada as our brother country...our slightly dim and drunk brother country
i think pointing out our countries strenghts and weaknesses is a good thing...helps us grow...pointing out other countries weaknesses should be left to that countries people...seems better that way...
we, the USA, have TONS of strengths...it is the best country in the world...i say that without hesitation...it is also strong enough that it's weaknesses should be noted and addressed also....g
[ 02-28-2003: Message edited by: thegelding ]</p>
<strong>actually i like marching and voting for peace...god bless america...perhaps some of you "hawks" should join the military and head out with our boys to kill and die for rummy and his ever-changing list of "friend, no enemy, no friend"...at least i believe what i post...if you believed what you did you would be lining up to fight....</strong><hr></blockquote>
No, I believe the people most fit to do the job are already there. I don't have to line up for anything to believe what I post anymore than you do, so drop the double standards already. I also did not start any topics saying such and such should go somewhere because of some picture I had of them. You, OTOH, should wonder more about why your friends in Hollywood and various outspoken Democrats are more interested in exposure-whoring video-ops than going right to the source of the problem in Iraq to do something about it. At the very least, your human shield friends in Iraq need your help, so you should be seriously considering to go join them if you really stand behind the logic you keep pushing onto others here.
[ 02-28-2003: Message edited by: Randycat99 ]</p>
Your motives are not so innocent, they are political. You've made it clear that your aim is not to provide objective analysis, but to bash the current administration.
That's fine, but don't expect me to buy that you're just an observer.
[quote] keep pushing onto others here <hr></blockquote>
eh, push, talk, discuss..whatever...chill randy...you want me to go to iraq, i would rather you go to iraq...neither one of us probably will...so be it
as for "my" hollywood friends....shit, i wish...my daughter wants to be an actress (broadway, but hollywood friends would help)....
so if i "have hollywood friends", then i guess "rummy is your good buddy"...perhaps you can ask him why we helped saddam get the weapons we now want to kill saddam for??
as for [quote] No, I believe the people most fit to do the job are already there <hr></blockquote>
don't sell yourself short...the military will give you very good training (the best in the world)...you will be fit in no time....
g
[ 03-01-2003: Message edited by: thegelding ]</p>
g
let it be known that i am posting to a mac user forum and that i am not running for office...hell, i don't have a skeleton in my closet, i have a whole freakin cemetery)
:eek: g
hasn't been up in years i think....g
<strong><a href="http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/846787/posts"; target="_blank">Interesting indeed.</a></strong><hr></blockquote>
Chirac said, ?Iraq is in the process of beginning a coherent nuclear program and France wants to associate herself with that effort in the field of reactors.?
...guess he's still trying to yank his foot out of his mouth... <img src="graemlins/hmmm.gif" border="0" alt="[Hmmm]" />
<strong>
eh, push, talk, discuss..whatever...chill randy...</strong><hr></blockquote>
Oh, now you aren't really serious behind your talk? Frankly, your continued insinuations that those who are pro-war but have not enlisted are cowards, gets to be just a bit grating, let alone offensive. ...but you were just "joking", right? <img src="graemlins/oyvey.gif" border="0" alt="[oyvey]" /> If you really want to talk with your fellow AI posters, instead of talking down to them, you may consider a different tone in your future posts.
<strong> [quote]you want me to go to iraq, i would rather you go to iraq...neither one of us probably will...so be it</strong><hr></blockquote>
Uh, no. I don't specifically want you to go to Iraq. I want you to follow your own logic (which, of course, should lead you to Iraq). If you don't, then quit bandying your logic over what "other" people should do.
<strong> [quote]as for "my" hollywood friends....shit, i wish...my daughter wants to be an actress (broadway, but hollywood friends would help)...</strong><hr></blockquote>
You are of "like" position, so why are they not your "friends" on the topic?
<strong> [quote]so if i "have hollywood friends", then i guess "rummy is your good buddy"...</strong><hr></blockquote>
By your logic they are. I am not bound by your logic, thankfully, so the same analogy cannot be said of me.
<strong> [quote]don't sell yourself short...</strong><hr></blockquote>
...and you know my personal physical disposition how? Any way you cut it, some 20-28 year old who has been in training for years is going to make a far better soldier for this war than 32 year old me could just by jumping on a bus today. I would go if called to service, but evidently Uncle Sam would agree that there is no great need to draft 32 year olds at this time.
You, OTOH, would make a great human shield no matter what your age or if you are sitting in a wheel chair tapping an oxygen tank. So what are you waiting for (pursuant to your logic)?
[ 02-28-2003: Message edited by: Randycat99 ]</p>
Pictures say a thousand words... <img src="graemlins/hmmm.gif" border="0" alt="[Hmmm]" />