Bofredrik
Topic Author
Posts: 1133
Joined: Sat Oct 30, 1999 4:17 pm

Halabja, Iraq; It Was Iran Who Killed The +5000

Thu Oct 20, 2005 1:10 am

Stephen C. Pelletiere, the Central Intelligence Agency's senior political analyst on Iraq during the Iran-Iraq war, professor at the Army War College from 1988 to 2000, head of a 1991 US Army investigation into how the Iraqis would fight a war against the United States, and author of Iraq and the International Oil System: Why America Went to War in the Persian Gulf.

And here is Pelletiere's article:

http://www.sovereignty.org.uk/siteinfo/newsround/iraq2.html
 
User avatar
jetjack74
Posts: 6585
Joined: Sun Jul 27, 2003 6:35 am

RE: Halabja, Iraq; It Was Iran Who Killed The +5000

Thu Oct 20, 2005 1:56 am

Just another conspiracy theorist:

ECHANICSBURG, Pa. -
There is no such place in PA, There's a Mechanicsburg. The fact they don't proof-read their op-ed pieces, makes me doubt their assertions. No credibility.
Made from jets!
 
JeffSFO
Posts: 806
Joined: Wed Dec 29, 2004 2:55 pm

RE: Halabja, Iraq; It Was Iran Who Killed The +5000

Thu Oct 20, 2005 2:14 am

Quoting Jetjack74 (Reply 1):
Just another conspiracy theorist:

No he isn't. Did you read the whole article? Also, look at Pelletiere's credentials:

http://www.strategicstudiesinstitute...my.mil/pubs/people.cfm?authorID=32

Quoting Jetjack74 (Reply 1):
ECHANICSBURG, Pa. -
There is no such place in PA, There's a Mechanicsburg. The fact they don't proof-read their op-ed pieces, makes me doubt their assertions. No credibility.

The first link had it wrong and ommitted the "M" accidentally. Here's the original from the NY Times (requires registration):

http://www.nytimes.com/2003/01/31/op...L.html?pagewanted=all&position=top
 
User avatar
jetjack74
Posts: 6585
Joined: Sun Jul 27, 2003 6:35 am

RE: Halabja, Iraq; It Was Iran Who Killed The +5000

Thu Oct 20, 2005 3:08 am

Quoting JeffSFO (Reply 2):
No he isn't. Did you read the whole article? Also, look at Pelletiere's credentials:

Yes I read the article, and nothing in there can be presented as fact, just hypothises. These all opinions of one man, who happens to have a resume. It appears on the NYT, who will print anything that is anti-war, and bunch of kooky lib webpages. None of this could ever be proven unless the Iranians admit to something like this, which I doubt they would, even if there was credible evidence to suggest that this actually was the case.
Made from jets!
 
B744F
Posts: 2927
Joined: Sat Jan 21, 2006 4:52 pm

RE: Halabja, Iraq; It Was Iran Who Killed The +5000

Thu Oct 20, 2005 3:19 am

Just more proof that anything that threatens your viewpoint is a conspiracy theorist.

This guy was an analyst during that war, and during that war the CIA was giving intelligence, training, weapons, etc. to BOTH Iraq and Iran. I'd say if anybody knew who was doing what, it would be that guy.

Quoting Jetjack74 (Reply 3):
It appears on the NYT, who will print anything that is anti-war

Yes of course, they don't just print the news and opinions, they have an agenda! Boy if only every news organization could be as level headed as the WSJ and Faux News
 
Falcon84
Posts: 13775
Joined: Fri Sep 10, 2004 11:52 am

RE: Halabja, Iraq; It Was Iran Who Killed The +5000

Thu Oct 20, 2005 3:35 am

I side with JetJack on this one. I don't see any hard evidence, on a website source I've never heard of, and it really has no documentation to back it up.

I think the most likely premise was the original one-that Saddam killed those people. He certainly had done it before, and did it afterwards, so I'll stick with believing that till I see something credible to back up the claim Iran did it.

I think the author of this thread, someone known to be pretty anti-US, is fishing for a red herring here, nothing else. And remember-I'm as big a critic of this war as anyone, but I think this is just anti-US propoganda here.
Work Right, Fly Hard
 
B744F
Posts: 2927
Joined: Sat Jan 21, 2006 4:52 pm

RE: Halabja, Iraq; It Was Iran Who Killed The +5000

Thu Oct 20, 2005 3:43 am

Quoting Falcon84 (Reply 5):
but I think this is just anti-US propoganda here.

From a CIA agent who probably was there during that??

Quoting Falcon84 (Reply 5):
I think the author of this thread, someone known to be pretty anti-US, is fishing for a red herring here, nothing else.

LOL!

I think you have a identical twin, your current self runs around pretending to be an intelligent moderate who is willing to see all sides of the issue even without using the critical thinking it takes to make a decision
 
ANCFlyer
Posts: 21391
Joined: Mon Nov 15, 2004 3:51 pm

RE: Halabja, Iraq; It Was Iran Who Killed The +5000

Thu Oct 20, 2005 3:47 am

Quoting Falcon84 (Reply 5):
I think the author of this thread, someone known to be pretty anti-US, is fishing for a red herring here, nothing else.

 checkmark 

Find some corroboration and I'll rethink this but for now: Propaganda, nothing more. . . the Analysts Credientials notwithstanding. . . we all know how accurate our CIA intelligence appears to have been of late . . .
FOR THOSE THAT FOUGHT FOR IT, FREEDOM HAS A FLAVOR THE PROTECTED WILL NEVER KNOW OR UNDERSTAND
 
jaysit
Posts: 10186
Joined: Thu Jun 01, 2000 11:50 pm

RE: Halabja, Iraq; It Was Iran Who Killed The +5000

Thu Oct 20, 2005 3:57 am

Quoting Jetjack74 (Reply 3):
appears on the NYT, who will print anything that is anti-war, and bunch of kooky lib webpages.

Clearly you hadn't been reading all the pro-war garbage it published, courtesy of a certain Judith Miller.
Atheism is Myth Understood.
 
Falcon84
Posts: 13775
Joined: Fri Sep 10, 2004 11:52 am

RE: Halabja, Iraq; It Was Iran Who Killed The +5000

Thu Oct 20, 2005 4:09 am

Quoting B744F (Reply 6):
From a CIA agent who probably was there during that??

You're taking as Gospel someone who MIGHT HAVE been there? Maybe the guy has been RIF'd and is doing the old Potomic Two-Step of grinding an ax? It's been done before.

I see nothing that give creedence to this story. Nothing. Could Iran have done it? It's possible, but I've never seen anything to corroborate that story. The best evidence seen today says it was Saddam.
Work Right, Fly Hard
 
B744F
Posts: 2927
Joined: Sat Jan 21, 2006 4:52 pm

RE: Halabja, Iraq; It Was Iran Who Killed The +5000

Thu Oct 20, 2005 5:21 am

Quoting Falcon84 (Reply 9):
You're taking as Gospel someone who MIGHT HAVE been there? Maybe the guy has been RIF'd and is doing the old Potomic Two-Step of grinding an ax? It's been done before.

Umm, gospel? No. I just said if anyone would have had the information it would be someone like him

Quoting Falcon84 (Reply 9):
I see nothing that give creedence to this story. Nothing. Could Iran have done it? It's possible, but I've never seen anything to corroborate that story. The best evidence seen today says it was Saddam.

Nothing? Please please please don't ever be a lawyer or a judge
 
JeffSFO
Posts: 806
Joined: Wed Dec 29, 2004 2:55 pm

RE: Halabja, Iraq; It Was Iran Who Killed The +500

Thu Oct 20, 2005 5:30 am

Quoting Jetjack74 (Reply 3):
Yes I read the article, and nothing in there can be presented as fact, just hypothises.

This isn't a hypothesis, it's an admission:

...the truth is, all we know for certain is that Kurds were bombarded with poison gas that day at Halabja. We cannot say with any certainty that Iraqi chemical weapons killed the Kurds.

Just because he believes the DIA (not CIA) report, it doesn't make him a conspiracy theorist. However, said report isn't the only point-of-view on the situation, but even this article on Wikipedia asserts there's some ambiguity on the attack on Halabja and that the sole perpetrators being the Iraqi military is not a foregone conclusion.

Quoting Jetjack74 (Reply 3):
It appears on the NYT, who will print anything that is anti-war, and bunch of kooky lib webpages.



Quoting ANCFlyer (Reply 7):
Find some corroboration and I'll rethink this but for now: Propaganda, nothing more. . . the Analysts Credientials notwithstanding. . . we all know how accurate our CIA intelligence appears to have been of late . . .

In this report written for the US Army War College by Pelletiere and a colleague back in 1990, they came to this conclusion based on the evidence available to them. Does that put the Marine Corps Combat Development Command, which circulated a draft of the report, on the level of the NY Times Editorial Board and a "bunch of kooky lib webpages"? This report wasn't propaganda piece.

That the NY Times, "will print anything that is anti-war" is grossly innaccurate. They're in very hot water because one of their reporters toed the Bush Administration line before the start of the war:

http://www.salon.com/news/feature/2004/05/27/times/index_np.html
 
Falcon84
Posts: 13775
Joined: Fri Sep 10, 2004 11:52 am

RE: Halabja, Iraq; It Was Iran Who Killed The +5000

Thu Oct 20, 2005 6:20 am

B744F, unlike you, I'm not ready to excoriate the Bush Administration over everything, despite some of my critics who say otherwise. If I thnk this is credible, I'd say so on here. I don't think, in essence, an unsourced article gives credibility to a major incident like this. I just don't.

Again, being anti-Bush is one thing. I'm anti-Bush. Being blindingly so, like you are, tells me you don't think, you just react. Sorry, but that's how I see it here.
Work Right, Fly Hard
 
ANCFlyer
Posts: 21391
Joined: Mon Nov 15, 2004 3:51 pm

RE: Halabja, Iraq; It Was Iran Who Killed The +5000

Thu Oct 20, 2005 6:28 am

Quoting JeffSFO (Reply 11):
Does that put the Marine Corps Combat Development Command, which circulated a draft of the report, on the level of the NY Times Editorial Board and a "bunch of kooky lib webpages"?

Jeff, I never said the USMC Combat Development Command, or anything else, was a "kooky lib webpage". You've got your posters mixed up.

What I said was - if this guy is a CIA operative/analyst, etc, any findings he may or may not have might be suspect.

Quoting JeffSFO (Reply 11):
That the NY Times, "will print anything that is anti-war" is grossly innaccurate.

I also didn't say that . . . .

Although I think the NYT is a bit too far to the left for my taste, it's generally a decent paper. I read it occasionally . . . .
FOR THOSE THAT FOUGHT FOR IT, FREEDOM HAS A FLAVOR THE PROTECTED WILL NEVER KNOW OR UNDERSTAND
 
JeffSFO
Posts: 806
Joined: Wed Dec 29, 2004 2:55 pm

RE: Halabja, Iraq; It Was Iran Who Killed The +500

Thu Oct 20, 2005 7:55 am

Quoting ANCFlyer (Reply 13):
Jeff, I never said the USMC Combat Development Command, or anything else, was a "kooky lib webpage". You've got your posters mixed up.

What I said was - if this guy is a CIA operative/analyst, etc, any findings he may or may not have might be suspect.



Quoting ANCFlyer (Reply 13):
Quoting JeffSFO (Reply 11):
That the NY Times, "will print anything that is anti-war" is grossly innaccurate.

I also didn't say that . . . .

No, no, no!

I was referring to JetJack's comments from Reply 3 in both of those instances. I was trying to address his quotes and yours with one response but I can see how that was confusing and I'm sorry if you took it the wrong way, it was unintentional on my part.

Hopefully, this will make things more clear:

Quoting ANCFlyer (Reply 7):
Find some corroboration and I'll rethink this but for now: Propaganda, nothing more. . . the Analysts Credientials notwithstanding. . . we all know how accurate our CIA intelligence appears to have been of late . . .

In this report written for the US Army War College by Pelletiere and a colleague back in 1990, they came to this conclusion based on the evidence available to them. It doesn't look like a propaganda piece.

Quoting Jetjack74 (Reply 3):
It appears on the NYT, who will print anything that is anti-war, and bunch of kooky lib webpages.

Does that put the Marine Corps Combat Development Command, which circulated a draft of the abovementioned report (on which Pelletiere's editorial was based), on the level of the NY Times Editorial Board and a "bunch of kooky lib webpages"?  Yeah sure

That the NY Times, "will print anything that is anti-war" is grossly innaccurate. They're in very hot water because one of their reporters toed the Bush Administration line before the start of the war:

http://www.salon.com/news/feature/2004/05/27/times/index_np.html

-Jeff
 
ANCFlyer
Posts: 21391
Joined: Mon Nov 15, 2004 3:51 pm

RE: Halabja, Iraq; It Was Iran Who Killed The +5000

Thu Oct 20, 2005 8:15 am

Quoting JeffSFO (Reply 14):
I'm sorry if you took it the wrong way, it was unintentional on my part.

No worries . . . .

http://www.fas.org/man/dod-101/ops/war/docs/3203/appb.pdf

The "conclusion" doesn't appear on the surface to be Propaganda. . . granted. But I all evidence, save this document, points to Saddam as the culprit. As I said earlier - anything is possible, and everything is suspect . . .

The report cites that they don't think Iraq had the capability at the point the attacks occured in Halabja. It further states they believe the Iranians did, and therefore they are saying the Iranians are responsible. With no evidence to the contrary, I can't dispute the report. That said, given Saddam's history, on his own people and his enemies, I'm simply not convinced.

I will say, at this point, I don't think it's propaganda . . . rather an inconclusive investigation.
FOR THOSE THAT FOUGHT FOR IT, FREEDOM HAS A FLAVOR THE PROTECTED WILL NEVER KNOW OR UNDERSTAND
 
User avatar
jetjack74
Posts: 6585
Joined: Sun Jul 27, 2003 6:35 am

RE: Halabja, Iraq; It Was Iran Who Killed The +5000

Thu Oct 20, 2005 10:23 am

Quoting JeffSFO (Reply 14):
That the NY Times, "will print anything that is anti-war" is grossly innaccurate. They're in very hot water because one of their reporters toed the Bush Administration line before the start of the war:

Really? Then you aren't reading The New York Times Jeff. The New York Times is EXTREMELY liberal. Judy Miller is one of only 2 reporters there who wrote favourable op-ed pieces on the war. The rest of the reporting there is grossly anti-war.
Made from jets!
 
JeffSFO
Posts: 806
Joined: Wed Dec 29, 2004 2:55 pm

RE: Halabja, Iraq; It Was Iran Who Killed The +500

Thu Oct 20, 2005 2:57 pm

Quoting Jetjack74 (Reply 16):
Really? Then you aren't reading The New York Times Jeff. The New York Times is EXTREMELY liberal. Judy Miller is one of only 2 reporters there who wrote favourable op-ed pieces on the war. The rest of the reporting there is grossly anti-war.

Yes, really. They're EXTREMELY liberal how JJ? Do you have an example?

Any newspaper which regularly features William Safire, David Brooks, John Tierney, Bill Friedman and Judith Miller can't be EXTREMELY liberal. It seems they have a well balanced collection of op-ed contributors from the left, center and right. Evidently, you're not reading the Times either...

Also, you never answered my question from before. If the Times is so liberal, what does the make the USMC Combat Development Command?

Quoting JeffSFO (Reply 14):
Quoting Jetjack74 (Reply 3):
It appears on the NYT, who will print anything that is anti-war, and bunch of kooky lib webpages.

Does that put the Marine Corps Combat Development Command, which circulated a draft of the abovementioned report (on which Pelletiere's editorial was based), on the level of the NY Times Editorial Board and a "bunch of kooky lib webpages"?



Quoting ANCFlyer (Reply 15):

I will say, at this point, I don't think it's propaganda . . . rather an inconclusive investigation.

Fair enough. The point I was trying to make to everyone is that the editorial shouldn't be dismissed out-of-hand as liberal propaganda or a conspiracy theory. I'd like to see the classified version of the 1991 report which featured the details on the Halabja attack but, unfortunately, it's not privy to us.
 
User avatar
jetjack74
Posts: 6585
Joined: Sun Jul 27, 2003 6:35 am

RE: Halabja, Iraq; It Was Iran Who Killed The +5000

Thu Oct 20, 2005 3:53 pm

Quoting JeffSFO (Reply 17):
Any newspaper which regularly features William Safire, David Brooks, John Tierney, Bill Friedman and Judith Miller can't be EXTREMELY liberal. It seems they have a well balanced collection of op-ed contributors from the left, center and right. Evidently, you're not reading the Times either...

If I actually gave a crap, I could pick up a copy of the NYT, and point out the stories in the front page section. With my eyes closed, my middle finger could land on a liberal slanted story. They, as does the Washington Post, and the LA Times take swipes at the Bush Administration constantly. I'll admit I very seldom read it anymore because it's the same story everyday. They had 76 straight days on Abu Ghraib stories on the front page trying implicate the Bush Administration with some of the most outrageous stories that ended up going nowhere, including Judy Millers WMD story which was never printed. She was pulled from the story before she could finish.

Quoting JeffSFO (Reply 14):
. They're in very hot water because one of their reporters toed the Bush Administration line before the start of the war:

They're not in hot water, the propaganda and the hype make it look that way. Matt Cooper, Scooter Libby, and Karl Rove are the ones in the hotseat, not the NYT. The papers credibility is hurt because they hung one of their reporters out to dry and pressed her to come clean about her sources instead of protecting them and their sources.

Quoting JeffSFO (Reply 17):
Also, you never answered my question from before. If the Times is so liberal, what does the make the USMC Combat Development Command?

Ok i'll answer it. The report chronicles the 8 year Iran-Iraq War(of which we(the public) know little about what actually went on, except that thousands of Iranians died from chemical and biological attacks by Saddam). And in it, predicts possible senarios the coalition forces could face, of which we now know were grossly overestimated. The Iraqi's hardly put up a fight. Your man Pelletiere says that "Iraq and Saddam was not known to have these nerve and blood agents", but we know full well that after his surrender from the 1991 Gulf War, that he did have stockpiles on VX, Sarin, Mustard Gas, and Napalm when the UN weapons inspector tagged and bagged the stuff. We have videos as evidence that he used it. So he's either in a fog or he's lying about his assertions. The NYT can use some outdated dossier as a source, doesn't mean it's fact, nor does it prove your point though. Nuff said? Great.
Made from jets!
 
JeffSFO
Posts: 806
Joined: Wed Dec 29, 2004 2:55 pm

RE: Halabja, Iraq; It Was Iran Who Killed The +500

Thu Oct 20, 2005 6:46 pm

Quoting Jetjack74 (Reply 18):
If I actually gave a crap, I could pick up a copy of the NYT, and point out the stories in the front page section. With my eyes closed, my middle finger could land on a liberal slanted story.

So EVERYTHING printed in the NY Times has a liberal slant? That's a pretty black & white point of view.

Quoting Jetjack74 (Reply 18):
They're not in hot water, the propaganda and the hype make it look that way.

What propaganda? According to this article in Wikipedia, it seems that mainstream observers of the press disagree with you (even someone from the Washington Post, which regularly takes swipes at the Bush Administration):

In October 2005, Judith Miller was released from prison after an 85-day stay, when she agreed to testify to Patrick Fitzgerald's grand jury. She said she finally relented only after receiving a personal waiver, both on the phone and in writing, of her earlier confidential source agreement with Scooter Libby, although Libby's lawyer claimed the offer of a waiver had been standing for a year. After Miller's appearance before the grand jury, she was released from her contempt of court finding, after which the New York Times became free to write their own account of the affair. This account [11] was published on October 16, along with a personal account by Miller [12]. However, these accounts were widely criticized as revealing even more flaws and failings of both Miller and the Times than they answered, including uncooperativeness and dissembling by Miller to the Times and a lack of reasonable oversight of Miller's work by the Times, as summarized for example in the Washington Post [13]. This included several predictions and calls for Miller to be fired, including by Alex Jones, director of the Shorenstein Center on the Press, Politics and Public Policy at Harvard University (and a former New York Times reporter); Jay Rosen, journalism professor at New York University; and Editor and Publisher columnist Greg Mitchell. Mitchell said Miller was guilty of "crimes against journalism" and "did far more damage to her newspaper than did Jayson Blair, and that's not even counting her WMD reporting, which hurt and embarrassed the paper in other ways."

Source.

Who has more credibility on this issue, you or they?

Quoting Jetjack74 (Reply 18):
Your man Pelletiere says that "Iraq and Saddam was not known to have these nerve and blood agents", but we know full well that after his surrender from the 1991 Gulf War, that he did have stockpiles on VX, Sarin, Mustard Gas, and Napalm when the UN weapons inspector tagged and bagged the stuff.

Are you in a fog or lying? You misquoted him. What he said was, "The agency did find that each side used gas against the other in the battle around Halabja. The condition of the dead Kurds' bodies, however, indicated they had been killed with a blood agent - that is, a cyanide-based gas - which Iran was known to use. The Iraqis, who are thought to have used mustard gas in the battle, are not known to have possessed blood agents at the time." He never said they didn't have nerve agents. If you don't believe me, read it again.

Also, VX and Sarin are nerve agents. Mustard gas is a blister agent. Napalm isn't considered to be a chemical weapon agent at all. Did the UN weapons inspectors ever recover Cyanogen chloride or Hydrogen cyanide (blood agents) from Iraqi stockpiles after the first Gulf War? If so, please show me the info.

Quoting Jetjack74 (Reply 18):
We have videos as evidence that he used it. So he's either in a fog or he's lying about his assertions. The NYT can use some outdated dossier as a source, doesn't mean it's fact, nor does it prove your point though. Nuff said? Great.

That the Iraqi military used chemical weapons in Halabja or elsewhere is not in dispute; Pelletier's assertion is that the Kurdish civilians who died there perished from an Iranian chemical attack. This does not make him a conspiracy theorist and it does not make the Times a propaganda machine, unless you want to call every news source everywhere (BBC, Reuters, Fox, CNN, NPR, Christian Science Monitor) one as well, because that would only be fair.
 
User avatar
jetjack74
Posts: 6585
Joined: Sun Jul 27, 2003 6:35 am

RE: Halabja, Iraq; It Was Iran Who Killed The +5000

Fri Oct 21, 2005 1:31 am

Quoting JeffSFO (Reply 19):

Honestly Jeff, I really could care less. So I misquoted him, big deal. This is so not-important to me. The fact that NYT published this guy's account on his guesses and nobody else ran with it, except some internet news site. Nobody else would touch it, and that is what is most important. But just keep believing these conspiracies, Saddam's justice is coming, and the Iranians day will come.
Made from jets!
 
B744F
Posts: 2927
Joined: Sat Jan 21, 2006 4:52 pm

RE: Halabja, Iraq; It Was Iran Who Killed The +500

Fri Oct 21, 2005 5:17 am

Quoting Jetjack74 (Reply 18):
If I actually gave a crap, I could pick up a copy of the NYT, and point out the stories in the front page section.

So let me get this straight, you can jump to such broad conclusions without actually READING the paper itself, you just "know" it to be true?

Quoting Falcon84 (Reply 12):
Again, being anti-Bush is one thing. I'm anti-Bush. Being blindingly so, like you are, tells me you don't think, you just react. Sorry, but that's how I see it here.

I'm as anti-dnc as I am anti-Bush, but the Republicans always give much better fodder. The only person who is blind is a person like you who refuses to admit this story has a chance of being true and would rather just claim conspiracy theory and go back to your bubble
 
User avatar
jetjack74
Posts: 6585
Joined: Sun Jul 27, 2003 6:35 am

RE: Halabja, Iraq; It Was Iran Who Killed The +5000

Fri Oct 21, 2005 5:34 am

Quoting B744F (Reply 21):
So let me get this straight, you can jump to such broad conclusions without actually READING the paper itself, you just "know" it to be true?

Did I ever say I never read the NYT? I used to be a subscriber to the Sunday Edition of the Times, but after 3 years of noticing the same stories being rehashed over and over again, I cancelled it in 2004. What do you want? My credit card statements?
Made from jets!
 
B744F
Posts: 2927
Joined: Sat Jan 21, 2006 4:52 pm

RE: Halabja, Iraq; It Was Iran Who Killed The +5000

Fri Oct 21, 2005 5:40 am

No, I don't really care. Unfortunately, when you see something that you disagree with, you automatically label it liberal
 
JeffSFO
Posts: 806
Joined: Wed Dec 29, 2004 2:55 pm

RE: Halabja, Iraq; It Was Iran Who Killed The +500

Fri Oct 21, 2005 6:15 am

Quoting Jetjack74 (Reply 20):
So I misquoted him, big deal.

So much for accuracy and integrity.  Yeah sure

Quoting Jetjack74 (Reply 20):
The fact that NYT published this guy's account on his guesses and nobody else ran with it, except some internet news site. Nobody else would touch it, and that is what is most important.

This was not a syndicated press piece, it was an OP-ED piece submitted to the Times for publishing--that's why no one else carried it. You can't even get your facts straight.

Just because this is a matter of historical debate and you don't agree with the guy doesn't make it a conspiracy theory.
 
Marco
Posts: 4005
Joined: Sun Jul 09, 2000 3:41 pm

RE: Halabja, Iraq; It Was Iran Who Killed The +5000

Fri Oct 21, 2005 6:50 am

Just another conspiracy theorist:

Yes everyone in the world is a conspiracy theorist except for Bush and Co. How about you acknowledge the fact that the reality could be different from what the Western media has to say?
Proud to be an Assyrian!
 
User avatar
jetjack74
Posts: 6585
Joined: Sun Jul 27, 2003 6:35 am

RE: Halabja, Iraq; It Was Iran Who Killed The +5000

Fri Oct 21, 2005 7:26 am

Quoting Jetjack74 (Reply 16):
The New York Times is EXTREMELY liberal. Judy Miller is one of only 2 reporters there who wrote favourable op-ed pieces on the war

Learn how to read Jeff
Made from jets!
 
JeffSFO
Posts: 806
Joined: Wed Dec 29, 2004 2:55 pm

RE: Halabja, Iraq; It Was Iran Who Killed The +500

Fri Oct 21, 2005 7:53 am

Quoting Jetjack74 (Reply 26):
Quoting Jetjack74 (Reply 16):
The New York Times is EXTREMELY liberal. Judy Miller is one of only 2 reporters there who wrote favourable op-ed pieces on the war

Learn how to read Jeff

So you counted all op-ed pieces from the Times ever written about the Iraq War? Show me a breakdown of them and then I'll take you seriously.

Also, by your reasoning, would that make anyone who is opposed to the war EXTREMELY liberal? Even Brent Scowcroft and Colin Powell?  Yeah sure

Bush 41 didn't go into Baghdad in '91. Does that make him EXTREMELY liberal too? Just because someone isn't a neocon, it doesn't make them EXTREMELY liberal.

Learn how to answer a question:

Quoting JeffSFO (Reply 19):
Did the UN weapons inspectors ever recover Cyanogen chloride or Hydrogen cyanide (blood agents) from Iraqi stockpiles after the first Gulf War? If so, please show me the info.
 
User avatar
jetjack74
Posts: 6585
Joined: Sun Jul 27, 2003 6:35 am

RE: Halabja, Iraq; It Was Iran Who Killed The +5000

Fri Oct 21, 2005 9:51 am

Quoting JeffSFO (Reply 27):
Bush 41 didn't go into Baghdad in '91. Does that make him EXTREMELY liberal too? Just because someone isn't a neocon, it doesn't make them EXTREMELY liberal.

Learn how to answer a question:

Bush didn't go in to Baghdad because he never would've the votes in congress, the Senate or the UN Security Counsel. Learn your history.The rest of your line of questioning is hardly worth responding too, because you don't get it. You never will. Come on Jeff, embrace the NYT for what they are, embrace liberalism for what you are.
Made from jets!
 
JeffSFO
Posts: 806
Joined: Wed Dec 29, 2004 2:55 pm

RE: Halabja, Iraq; It Was Iran Who Killed The +500

Fri Oct 21, 2005 6:51 pm

Quoting Jetjack74 (Reply 28):
Bush didn't go in to Baghdad because he never would've the votes in congress, the Senate or the UN Security Counsel. Learn your history.

From "Crusade: The Untold Story of the Persian Gulf War" by Rick Atkinson, published in 1993:

As the triumph of the air campaign against the Iraq became evident, the Small Group [A Bush 41 policy group comprised of Paul Wolfowitz from Defense; Robert Kimmitt from State; Admiral David Jeremiah, vice chairman of the Joint Chiefs; Richard Kerr, deputy CIA director; Robert Gates, deputy national security advisor; and Richard Haass, resident White House Middle East expert]--stalked by the Korean poltergeist--resisted the urge to reach for a larger prize. By mid-February, Wolfowitz and others suspected that an armored spearhead to Baghdad would be an easier enterprise than anyone could have dreamed on January 17; yet all agreed that liberating Kuwait and demolishing the enemy army of occupation should remain the cornerstones of U.S. policy. Unless Saddam used chemical or biological weapons, the toppling of this would not be a formal war aim, however devoutly it might be wished.

----

The U.S. government also worried, perhaps excessively, that a power vacuum in Baghdad might "Lebanonize" Iraq by dicing the country into warring duchies under the sway of Iran, Turkey or Syria. Moreover, if the prospect of installing an American viceroy in Baghdad seemed quaint, no strong, pro-Western Iraqi alternative to Saddam waited in the wings to assume power. Even MacArthur had warned that "nothing is gained by military occupation. All occupations are failures."

----

As in Vietnam and eventually in Korea, the Persian Gulf War would be fought for relatively modest objectives. Unlike those earlier wars, the objectives in the gulf were plainly stated and rigidly maintained. Bush and his men concluded that the excessive price of total victory would be indefinite responsibility for rebuilding a hostile nation with no tradition of democracy but with immensely complex internal politics. This was--and remains in retrospect--a sensible strategic calculation.

In pondering how to conclude the war after a presumably successful ground campaign, the Small Group hoped for a crisp, resolute finale--something akin to a surrender ceremony on the deck of the
Missouri--while fearing that a more likely outcome was what came to be known as "the ragged ending."

Since the nineteenth century, wars more often than not had been characterized by a pernicious inconclusiveness. Again, the Korean experience seemed ominous. Even if American war aims were achieved, with Kuwait liberated and the Iraqi army routed, the war would not necessarily be over. What if the Iraqis refused to capitulate? What if some units surrendered, but others kept fighting? Saddam appeared obstinate enough to transform his seven-hundred-mile southern border into a new 38th Parallel. Would forty thousand American troops be needed here, too, as a trip wire to forestall another invasion?

The prospect was chilling and wholly at odds with the first principle underlying the Small Group’s mandate: win the war with minimum loss of American life and avoid a southwest Asian quagmire. Both American and British planners became so preoccupied with this vision of the ragged ending--“getting an arm caught in the mangle,” in Margaret Thatcher’s metaphor--that no clairvoyant foresaw an equally ragged alternative: twin rebellions by Kurds and Shi’ites, suppressed with sanguinary zeal by an Iraqi army that would throw in its lot with the Ba’athist regime.


Here's a more concise counterpoint to your POV provided by Atkinson here:

Q: And yet with all that, Bush has limited war aims......

Atkinson: Throughout the run-up to the war, and throughout the war itself, there were innumerable debates in Washington over exactly what the war ambitions should be. How far should you push it? And a great concern that the limited aims of a limited war not be changed. The antecedent that was most often in the minds of policy-makers in Washington was not Vietnam, but it was Korea. A concern that as in Korea there would be a decision made that the war is going well, why not just push on up to the Chinese border, which happened in Korea and brought China into the war with disastrous consequences. Bush ultimately decided that occupying Iraq, occupying Baghdad was not only militarily difficult, but politically foolhardy. It placed a burden of responsibility on the Americans in particular that would have implied an American presence in Iraq that could last for decades. There was also a recognition that the Iraqis would probably fight better in defense of hearth and homeland in Baghdad than they had in defense of Kuwait. You could make the case that you would be willing to die for your own home in Baghdad, when you're not willing to die for the Emir's Mercedes in Kuwait. All of this led to a conclusion that the war would be stopped at a point short of total victory. And it planted the seeds of a limited victory that would lead to a clear dissatisfaction and discontent at home.


Source: http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/gulf/oral/atkinson/5.html

Quoting Jetjack74 (Reply 28):
The rest of your line of questioning is hardly worth responding too, because you don't get it. You never will. Come on Jeff, embrace the NYT for what they are, embrace liberalism for what you are.

You're obviously too intellectually puerile to recognize that I've been playing devil's advocate throughout all of this.  Yeah sure
 
B744F
Posts: 2927
Joined: Sat Jan 21, 2006 4:52 pm

RE: Halabja, Iraq; It Was Iran Who Killed The +5000

Sat Oct 22, 2005 4:48 am

Quoting Jetjack74 (Reply 28):
Come on Jeff, embrace the NYT for what they are, embrace liberalism for what you are.

lib·er·al Audio pronunciation of "liberal" ( P ) Pronunciation Key (lbr-l, lbrl)
adj.

1.
1. Not limited to or by established, traditional, orthodox, or authoritarian attitudes, views, or dogmas; free from bigotry.
2. Favoring proposals for reform, open to new ideas for progress, and tolerant of the ideas and behavior of others; broad-minded.
3. Of, relating to, or characteristic of liberalism.
4. Liberal Of, designating, or characteristic of a political party founded on or associated with principles of social and political liberalism, especially in Great Britain, Canada, and the United States.
2.
1. Tending to give freely; generous: a liberal benefactor.
2. Generous in amount; ample: a liberal serving of potatoes.
3. Not strict or literal; loose or approximate: a liberal translation.
4. Of, relating to, or based on the traditional arts and sciences of a college or university curriculum: a liberal education.
5.
1. Archaic. Permissible or appropriate for a person of free birth; befitting a lady or gentleman.
2. Obsolete. Morally unrestrained; licentious.


n.

1. A person with liberal ideas or opinions.
2. Liberal A member of a Liberal political party.
3. Someone who doesn't agree with what JetJack believes


Well going by that definition of liberal, I'd say hes right, everyone who doesn't have such a warped version of history is a liberal! Including those "liberal" news organizations who were so willing to suppor the President going to war, and who stopped at nothing to bash Clinton whenever they could find more dirt the Republicans made up...

I think its about time for an IQ test to see if people have enough common sense to vote, otherwise their actions are destroying this country

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: 2707200X, Moose135 and 5 guests