You'd have to show proof of that (the transfer of chemical/biological weapons) because I don't believe that for a second. I do know that some dual-use technology was sold to Iraq by a German firm. If you look at the Iran/ Iraq war you'll see the primary chemical weapon use was mustard gas. It's been around since WWI. It's easy to make and quite effective on a large group of unprotected enemies in concentrated areas.

As for the the nerve agents (like the one he reportedly used on the Kurds in 1988). many of these are derived from sarin created during WWII. Again not difficult to make with the right equipment. So why didn't Iraq win the war with these weapons? Because the winds often shifted and they gassed their own troops.

You'd have to tell me what biological agents they used, as I have not heard of any. There use in such close quarter combat does not seem practical.

As far as intel, we couldn't even provide intel on the Iranian revolution that happened a year earlier. But you weren't specific on the type, and I have heard that perhaps some satellite photos of the Iranian defenses were provided. But your post seems to suggest we backed Iraq. You left out a big part though. Iran threatened to capture or destroy oil tankers leaving the Persian Gulf. The US re-flagged the tankers (to US flags) so that any attack on them would be an attack on the US. This kept commerce safe. Since this benefited the Iraqis you could say we helped them, I say we helped ourselves and others not directly involved.

As for anything else, the US didn't face any Iraqi owned US weapons in 91 or 03, because there were none.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sarin

Speaking of... remember the "no WMD found, only some old degraded bio weapons"

Old and degraded my butt, the iraqies had impure sarin, which only lasts a few weeks, it took us longer to find the caches. And we cought scientists and equipment whose task was to make more on demand.

Speaking of.. I learned in school, in the USA, that the US gave chemical weapons to saddam to use against the kurds... But I learned to not beleive everything I am told at school, ESPECIALLY any atrocity committed by the united states.

Yeah you'd think I'd learn my leason, but no. It;s all over on the current Diplomacy and Iran, receipe for disaster thread too LINK. There must be a liberal Canadian tag team.

 

Being one of the conservatives in this forum and being someone who actually takes the time to translate old texts when required, or visit places and talk to people and look at things when needed, and post long essays with links to articles and videos backing up my word, I feel tempted to call the bluff.

Please post examples of at least two liberals who have in the past provided more evidence than I did. Links to their postings will be enough.

Should you feel the need to challenge my statement I will gladly link to my postings about Iraq (with pictures of Saddam's torture chambers I took with my own camera), my postings about Israel (with pictures of the university where I was under fire taken again with my own camera), my postings about religion (with word-for-word translations and analysis of ancient Hebrew, Aramaic, and Latin texts), and my postings about Islam (with quotes of and links to scholars).

I really really want to meet the "few liberals on this forum" who are "far more likely to provide evidence backing up their arguments". That would be tremendous fun.

In this thread alone I backed up my arguments about living under military occupation with a description of my own life growing up in such a situation, a link to a Web site with pictures and descriptions of the military base in my neighbourhood, pictures of pro-coalition souvenirs I bought in Iraq, and a link to a festival in Germany that celebrates the occupation.

And when a liberal gave us a list of questions, I answered and backed up my answers with a link to an article with pictures of the Al-Qaeda camp I was talking about, as well as lots of information I had only because I went to Iraq and looked at things myself. I then continued to back up what I said about Islam with links to two Islamic scholars I am fond of.

Can you please be more precise and tell me exactly which "liberal" on this forum is "far more likely" than I to provide evidence for their claims? Perhaps you can find anything at all of the kind here in this very thread? Or perhaps you will only run into source after source after source given by me (rather than liberals) supporting my claims (rather than liberals').

The only ones I have ever seen demanding "ridiculous levels of evidence" are the local liberals, who will happily make up stuff about something and then demand that they be proven wrong (and then continue not to care when they are shown evidence). I remember how some liberals here claimed that the Shah of Iran had killed 300,000 people during the Iranian revolution (with no evidence at all), despite the fact that it would have been physically impossible to get rid of that many bodies in the time. Even showing them that the Shah's enemies, the mullahs themselves claimed "only" 100,000 victims wouldn't convince the liberals.

So where is this "evidence"? I want pictures and eye witness reports, not propaganda articles and lies. And preferably the evidence should make sense and not "prove" an event that is physically impossible.

I see your "funny" and raise you one "pathetic".

You find it "funny" that liberals here provide "more evidence", I find it pathetic that they usually provide nothing at all and pretend to know a lot about countries they have never seen and people they have never met.

 

 

Humm, that is funny. You know what else is funny? That the few liberals on JU won't accept the word of the conservatives that were there in person! We usually don't get that luxury with the liberals here, most do what they can to stay away and source their usual taking points.

I only try to conserve those traditions that have not yet proven unuseful. In that sense I am indeed a "conservative". My reasons to support the Republicans alas have less to do with conservatism than liberalism. I support the Republicans because the Democrats want to preserve exactly those traditions that I think are wrong. And I'm afraid they have consistently done so for 150 years. There are Republicans I don't like (David Duke, the Crazy Uncle, Bobby Jindal) and Democrats I do like (Bill and Hillary Clinton, Joe Lieberman; in fact my favourite team for President and Vice-President would have been McCain and Lieberman).




I think it was more a shot from the hip thing. I don't think he actually looked over this thread and others and came to the conclusion that liberals provide lots of evidence while conservatives do not. I think he just assumed, as I pointed out before it works, that he was right, hence liberals must have provided more evidence, hence he can claim that as an argument. And the argument was then shot down by a conservative (who, again, provided actual evidence), just as I predicted.




It started when I was a student in Haifa during the Lebanon war. People here were wondering where I was until I showed up posting from Jerusalem (whither we had been evacuated). At that point, if I remember correctly, liberals already "knew" that Israel had attacked Lebanon for no good reason, whereas I had seen, in person, the rockets that had been fired at northern Israel for five years preceeeding the "beginning" of the war. (Unfortunately for the terror supporters, those rockets don't just vanish. Instead they are collected and stored in magazines. People are free to look at them.)




You got me there.

Evidence.

To paraphrase Inigo, "I don't tink dat word means what you tink dat word means."

I have to tell ya, you are a much more patient man than me, Leauki.

Your secret is safe with me.

The conservative provided a link to that data. The "redo the chart" bit was sarcasm.

The simple fact is that in your example both a liberal and a conservative provided evidence. Yet from an example where both sides provided evidence, you get the idea that liberals often provide evidence whereas conservatives rarely do; and then you make that claim while responding to a forum conservative who is (I dare say) well known for providing lots of evidence, personal and researched.

 

As I said, you simply don't accept the evidence I already provided in my first reaction to your claim. So what else can I do?

I think your claim has been proven wrong. Liberals in this forum do not provide more evidence than conservatives do. And I think my claim has been proven right: liberals do ignore evidence, even evidence they acknowledge at first.

 

I understood it. I don't think you could have prevented it.

 

Give your bud Fidel our best wishes.

Thanks Nitro! Unfortunately, I never did get to meet the fellow. Havanah is very nice this time of year though

Well well, aren't we Mr. Stereotype today!

Well, here's the thing Leauki.... not once, have I ever disputed the crimes committed by Saddam against the Kurds. Not once. If you like, go out and find a thread here in which I've disputed his crimes against humanity.

Now let's make one thing damn clear here. Your argument essentially boils down to the assertion that in order to have evidence, a person must have firsthand knowledge of or directly witness an event. If this is true, then no one can personally provide evidence for very much, except for a very small slice of a direct personal experience.

 To illustrate my point, I'd like to use the example of my friend's father. He was in the German Army all throughout WW2, in a Panzer, right from the beginning until the very end. So, not only was he in Germany, he was also in a combatant role that one would imagine would give him a definitive experience of the war. And you know what? If you ask him, he'll tell you that WW2 was the most boring, peaceful experience of his life. Why? Because he was posted on the Swiss border and towards the end of the war (with the fuel shortage) his tank was more of a giant ornament than anything else.

So, I read in a book (produced by a fellow who lists voluminous sources where he got his information from) that WW2 was one of the bloodiest conflicts known to man.

But this other fellow, who directly experienced it and was on the ground the whole time, tells me that that's a load of hogwash because he spent his days watching the birds with the only privation experienced being a little hunger toward the end when the rations were reduced.

Who do I believe?

Now, yes, you did go to Iraq. And you know what? I admire you for it. Good on you for putting your money where your mouth was and heading there on your own initiative.

But to state that travelling somehwere as a tourist for (2 weeks? 3 weeks?) several years after the invasion occured gave you complete knowledge of everything going on in the entire country is utter hogwash. However, you did speak to people who told you of their experiences. So too is Canada full of the refugees of conflicts around the globe with people who tell of their experiences to me.

Going back to my earlier point, yes, Saddam was a very bad man. But the bulk of his transgressions (against the Kurds and all manner of folks inside the country) happened at a time when he was the golden boy of the U.S and other western powers. It wasn't until he failed in his war against Iran and refused to open up his economy that suddenly he became a bad guy who needed to be dealt with!

Well, that book was written by this fellow;

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chalmers_Johnson

He was a consultant for the CIA, served in the military and wrote a trilogy of books in the late 90's that were prescient. He predicted an event like 9/11 well before it happened, he predicted precisely what our response would be, and so far he's been bang on in that it's only served to harm us more than help us.

Now, could the 300,000 number be wrong? Absolutely it could be. Maybe it's 60,000. Maybe it's 100,000. Does that make the Shah a better or worse man?

The truth remains (contrary to the mythic narrative of spreading freedom) that he overthrew the democtratically elected government of his country (which would not have happened without the help of the CIA) and was so oppressive to his people that a massive, popular uprising took him out of power years later.

Just as Saddam was a monster who did not deserve to govern, so too was the Shah a monster that did not deserve to govern. So too was Augusto Pinochet, so too was Suharto. So what was the difference? Saddam did not know  his place and refused to play ball with the west. The others knew very well the balance of power, so as long as they acted in our geopolitical interests, we kept them in power while turning a blind eye to the many, many transgressions they carried out!