No, hitler was smart, and could articulate.

So far Bush hasn't killed hundreds of thousands of people.

And Hilter was much smarter.

Bud - you need to go learn some real history instead of learning your rheotric from Fox - the US most certainly did put him in power in a coalition with the UK - and it was done for no other reason than to go against Iran
Who the fuck do you think gave him the chemical weapons that he used against "his own people" (I love this line - these people were the idiots he was fighting against) - the US supplied every weapon of mass destruction he owned - go read the UN report - it details every shipment of chemical weapon we shipped to him to fight against Iran.
See - if you get rid of the BS and go right to the official sources - you sometimes can learn a thing or two instead of listening to the BS spouted here and on the media

Funny but a bit off, lol.

Not the same at all no matter how mush I hate Bush

Civilians not being specifically targetted does not make their deaths any less tragic, nor do practices of past wars.

When innocents die, the right response is not "well, chances are they were assholes anyway", nor is it "well, in the past, everyone killed them", nor is it even "it's unintended but unavoidable collateral damage". When talking about human lives being lost, one should first and foremost acknowledge the tragedy of it.

You can espouse BS all you want...but the facts are that the US did not put Saddam in power...did not sell any weapons of any type to Iraq other than a handfull of rotary wing aircraft and the indirect sale of some cluster bombs. The US government most certainly never sold a single weapon of mass destruction to Iraq. American private enterprise did sell dual use materials that the Iraqi's weaponized. When the US government learned that the Iraq's were weaponizing weapons from dual use materials...the ordered was issued to private enterprise to cease and desist...even then a few companies continued to sell dual use materials and heads rolled when this was discovered.

theking: you are spewing nonsense.

In Vietnam and other wars ten year olds (even younger) have given aide to the armed militant and have even been armed militants themselves. They are the enemy and self preservation dictates that they be killed. Tragic yes...reread the above.

It is tragic...but the human animal reigns and the innocent among the human animals are far and few in between...tragedy will exist until the human animal is exterminated...and the history of the world indicates that it will be.

Your post seriously pissed me off, but for now I'll blame the offensive nature of what you said on ignorance rather that bad intentions.

Saddam Hussein killed thousands of people of Iraq's Kurdish minority. The people he killed were for the most part innocent, oppressed people whose only fault was being born in the wrong part of Iraq.

http://www.kdp.pp.se/2604.jpg

Facts are facts...if you find facts to be nonsensical so be it.

You won't even try to understand it, will you?

I won't argue this any further, because I think you realize, somewhere, the truth of what I'm saying, but just don't want to acknowledge it for some reason. I don't think you seriously don't believe that large numbers of innocent civilians (accepting innocent as a relative term) who don't support the "bad guys" are getting killed.
That would make you either stupid or a monster, and I don't believe you to be either. Maybe it's just a part of military training or something. Soldiers who couldn't erase the bad parts of war in their minds by rationalizing them would probably be pretty inefficient.

My boozing friend ... Ya really got to start on some history lessons. :winkwink:

The US... courtesy of the CIA... specifically engaged Mr Hussein because he was already a well-known thug, and took him to the UK and together they all sat down for almost a year in a hotel in Park Lane and conspired to kill off members of the Iranian government, which, at that time, were no problem to anyone, - apart from the fact they controlled a small oil supply which had an appeal :-)

The first attempt at assassination failed, but they never gave up and eventually he did kill off the Iranian Finance Minister. In return for this assassination, the US then supported Saddam in getting him to power in Iran - it's good to have friends ya know and trust in the region.

This known thug, Hussein and the US were then like bugs in a rug and he was provided with arms by the US with the specific object of engaging in a war with Iran. Even people like Rumsfeld and others had this "need" to visit and sign up arms deals with the guy they knew was a murderer paid by them. Of course, as in most crap, there is a profit element and nothing quite like a US greenback - so why not give/sell as much arms as Saddam wanted?

Indirect sale of cluster bombs eh?? Ya got the biggest share of the world arms trade (60% something) and the best ya can do is an "indirect sale of cluster bombs"? Don't pass the clean towel and try to wash your hands - it's embarassing. :1orglaugh

And no, the US is not alone in these strange deals at times - but don't try to rewrite history to suit. :winkwink:

Specify what it is that you want me to understand? If it is that civilians that do not want any part of assisting either side of this conflict and or other conflicts of times past...that would prefer to be anywhere other than where they are...are killed. I understand this...and I understand that it is tragic.

If it is something else that you want me to understand then you will have to specify what it is.

Virtually everything you said in this post is BS and did not happen. Saddam put himself in power...period...with zero help from the US. The US did not sell a single round of small arms ammunition...not a single sale of small arms...not a single mortar...artillary piece...not a single tank....not a single armoured vehicle...not a single plane...not a single humvee...etc. etc. I repeat the US sold a handfull of rotary wing aircraft and indirectly some cluster bombs.

The US did not provide Iraq with a single WMD.

Thats a bunch of BS - read about the history of the Kurds here - http://www.culturalorientation.net/kurds/khist.html and you'll find out what really happened
The Kurds aligned themselves with Iran - and yes while many innocents were killed - its no different than the ones we killed with our bombings - just a side casualty of war - get over it

:1orglaugh :1orglaugh :1orglaugh

Sheesh.... where were you born that ya don't even have any knowledge of stuff that is already known???

I'd hate to be so positive about "not a single round of small arms ammunition" - how the fuck can you say such crap?? Did Rummy tell ya? :1orglaugh

The background is not new - it's history that is not denied. Better ask the guy in the Pentagon what the fuck he traded with the guy they used to take a pop at assassinating democratically elected members of other nations. :winkwink:


PS.. I got no clue if they traded "humvee's" - these were never mentioned :1orglaugh

Apparently you understand it after all. Why then take so long to acknowledge that simple fact, before going into how Saddam is responsible for more, how many innocents aren't so innocent and how in other wars it was much worse?

Accepting this simple fact, and only after that pointing out other factors or things like necessity is a much better way to show both your respect for the victims and not seem like an asshole yourself, which lends credibility to your argument.

Just think of 9/11... It's a different kind of example, not really comparable in any way, but look at how those who immediately focused on how America offended the arab world, without paying any respect to the victims, seemed like complete heartless bastards.

Heres a link for you to look over - I would look primarily at the 1986 time frame when the US blocked the UN from imposing sanctions against Iraq for the use of biological/chemical weapons - that we supplied to them - and were later used in your "attack on innocent Kurds"
http://www.iranchamber.com/history/a...rming_iraq.php - if you need a little more in depth history and the documentation form the UN and the Senate hearings that were held back then I can either link them for you or you can research them yourself
But dont fool yourself into thinking that the vice-president of Iraq (which is what Saddam was at the time) was doing all of these things on his own - and please dont think that I am anywhere close to anti-military as I was over there when this was happening - seems we had a little problem with some people that were taken hostage in Iran a little earlier and if you need documentation of that - I have the service medals and commendation letters to back it up if youd like to see them

Do a google search and supply a single "reliable" (or any) source that acknowledges the arms sale to Iraq that you are speaking about. It should be an easy search if it is true that we supplied Iraq with its weapons of war.

Iraq was allied with the Russians and the weapons Iraq possessed were almost exclusively Russian made...with some French and German weapons and technology. Their Officers were trained by the Russians...their military tactics were Russian.

Ok, so apparently you are the kind of worthless scum I suspected you were.

If you read your own link, you would have realized that Saddam specifically targetted innocent Kurdish civilians and killed them by the thousands. These people were, like I said in my previous post, for the most part innocent, oppressed people whose only fault was being born in the wrong part of Iraq. And no, that is not comparable to what the US is doing at present.

How I hate having discussions with illiterate idiots like you :disgust

Lets see - the quote from the page I linked - "In 1979, the Shah of Iran was overthrown by the Ayatollah Khomeini, and in 1980 Iraq went to war against Iran. The Iraqi Kurds supported the Iranians, and toward the end of the war the Iraqi government retaliated with an extensive, devastatingly cruel campaign against the Kurds" - sounds like not only were they in the wrong part of Iraq - but gee - go figure - they were fighting against Iraq - Idiot!!!

I guess you werent around during the Vietnam war when we did exactly the same thing to Viet Cong civilians

Sometimes I think ya may just be taking the piss and saying black is white - dunno why I think this. :winkwink: Do you wear a blindfold during waking hours?

Save you the bother in Googling - simply check out the link above and the sources. If you really want to Google... go ahead - there are many "reliable sources" and papers already on this timespan in history.

Here's an extract from that link alone which may give you a clue - but, predictably - you'll be saying all of it is lies:

I do not like the source...but it does seem to be reasonably accurate.

I was aware of this as I have stated that we sold them some rotary wing aircraft that were not gunships...but this not to say that Iraq did not convert them into being gunships.

Howitzers are news to me and as I previously stated we sold some cluster bombs to Iraq.

Since no other report I have read stated anything about Howitzers...I take this report with a grain of salt.

The sale of some rotary wing aircraft...cluster bombs...and even some howitzers is not the Arming of one of the largest Armies in the world at the time.

I repeat that the US did not sell a single WMD to Iraq. It was known at the time and has always been known that US private enterprise did sell dual use materials.

There are 20 "sources" alone mentioned - plus another five "off page links" in that one page alone.

Now you come out with "I do not like the source"??? DUH??? :1orglaugh

Hell ... I'm finished with ya King... not worth the effort!

Cheers!

BTW...as far as the US assisting Iraq with intelligence...the US also assisted Iran with intelligence as the US did not want either side to defeat the other.

Well gee, let's look at the second part of the paragraph you so conveniently forgot to quote:

Or let's look at that other link you posted:

Those civilians were civilians, meaning they were part of Iraq, and were not soldiers. Are you really so fucking stupid you can't see the difference between civilians and soldiers? The difference between attacking militant groups and gassing villages?
And just because groups in your country oppose you does not mean that they cease to be groups in your country. Much less does it mean that the civilians in the areas where these groups are dominant cease to be civilians in your country.

Oh, and as for you comment about the Vietnam war... That was the Vietnam war. We are now talking about what the US are doing in Iraq. There's a differnce.

Does it hurt to be as stupid as you are? :Oh crap

The sale of some rotary wing aircraft...cluster bombs...and even some howitzers is not the Arming of one of the largest Armies in the world at the time.

From the same article.

Alright - since you decided to just skim the history - here's the important quotes:

July, 1984. CIA begins giving Iraq intelligence necessary to calibrate its mustard gas attacks on Iranian troops

May, 1986. The US Department of Commerce licenses 70 biological exports to Iraq between May of 1985 and 1989, including at least 21 batches of lethal strains of anthrax. [3]

May, 1986. US Department of Commerce approves shipment of weapons grade botulin poison to Iraq. [7]

April, 1988. US Department of Commerce approves shipment of chemicals used in manufacture of mustard gas

August, 1988. Four major battles were fought from April to August 1988, in which the Iraqis massively and effectively used chemical weapons to defeat the Iranians. Nerve gas and blister agents such as mustard gas are used. By this time the US Defense Intelligence Agency is heavily involved with Saddam Hussein in battle plan assistance, intelligence gathering and post battle debriefing. In the last major battle with of the war, 65,000 Iranians are killed, many with poison gas. Use of chemical weapons in war is in violation of the Geneva accords

September, 1988. US Department of Commerce approves shipment of weapons grade anthrax and botulinum to Iraq. [7]

September, 1988. Richard Murphy, Assistant Secretary of State: "The US-Iraqi relationship is... important to our long-term political and economic objectives." [15] Note - this is one month into the attacks on the Kurd population that is fighting with Iran

December, 1988. Dow chemical sells $1.5 million in pesticides to Iraq despite knowledge that these would be used in chemical weapons

And most importantly - even after the first Bush invaded Iraq:

February, 1994. Senator Riegle from Michigan, chairman of the Senate Banking Committee, testifies before the senate revealing large US shipments of dual-use biological and chemical agents to Iraq that may have been used against US troops in the Gulf War and probably was the cause of the illness known as Gulf War Syndrome. [7]

August, 2002. "The use of gas [during the Iran-Iraq war] on the battle field by the Iraqis was not a matter of deep strategic concern... We were desperate to make sure that Iraq did not lose". Colonel Walter Lang, former senior US Defense Intelligence officer tells the New York Times

I did not skim anything. I have always been aware of the fact that dual use materials were sold to Iraq. It made the news when they were being sold dual use materials. There is nothing new about this and nothing new to learn about this.

If you have a point then present it please.

Pain comes in all forms ... and this discussion is one. :winkwink:

OK... explain the below.... And, don't tell me botulin and anthrax strains are connected to the healthcare of Iranians and used to clear their noses after a bad flu...

I did not skim anything. I have always been aware of the fact that dual use materials were sold to Iraq. It made the news when they were being sold dual use materials. There is nothing new about this and nothing new to learn about this.

If you have a point then present it please.

Sorry... did you say anthrax and botulin are no longer chemical weapons and something called "dual use"?? That's novel.

Maybe I can't read correctly...

Mr Hussein was with the CIA or friends with them. I've heard people who've come to America from Iran say this.

I got 46 strains of anthrax and a few lethal dozes of botulin I need to ship thru US Customs next week... Can ya just clear it with em King? They are "dual use" you understand :1orglaugh :1orglaugh

You may read correctly but you are not very bright. Botulin and anthrax are bacteria and not chemicals so...no they are not chemical weapons.

Both have to be weaponized...to become effective for battlefield use...so in their singular form they are not bacterial weapons of war.

Since anthrax and botulin can also be used for medical and biological research, yes, they are dual use materials. On the other hand, pretty much everyone realized what they were going to be used for.
It's a bit like selling a hunting rifle to a drunk guy who's ranting on about killing the guy he caught sleeping with his wife. He could use the gun just to shoot deer.

He was used to do shit by a "CIA contractor" who worked closely with him when there was a need for killing. He was selected for jobs simply because he was a known thug and would complete the job - one being the killing of Iraqi govt members that I mentioned earlier.

The UK govt laid on "facilities" for this as well...

The motivation? Iran did not sell their oil.. first at the right price, then they held some back after the shit started. It was a botched deal from the start and would never have been a problem if they never let Saddam loose on Iran.

You are persistent in getting things wrong...now aren't you?