CIA Files Prove America Helped Saddam as He Gassed Iran
- Thread starter Drett
- Start date
-
Christian Chat is a moderated online Christian community allowing Christians around the world to fellowship with each other in real time chat via webcam, voice, and text, with the Christian Chat app. You can also start or participate in a Bible-based discussion here in the Christian Chat Forums, where members can also share with each other their own videos, pictures, or favorite Christian music.
If you are a Christian and need encouragement and fellowship, we're here for you! If you are not a Christian but interested in knowing more about Jesus our Lord, you're also welcome! Want to know what the Bible says, and how you can apply it to your life? Join us!
To make new Christian friends now around the world, click here to join Christian Chat.
I know you are only 23, but you might want to get started on practising humility.
It's not like Australia were passive partners in WW2, and that our land wasn't a great base for operations in the Pacific, and continue to be as we let Marine bases and CIA bases be here. Let me know the next time you'll be happy to have a garrison of foreign troops based on your soil. ..You're welcome?
It's not like Australia were passive partners in WW2, and that our land wasn't a great base for operations in the Pacific, and continue to be as we let Marine bases and CIA bases be here. Let me know the next time you'll be happy to have a garrison of foreign troops based on your soil. ..You're welcome?
There is a difference though between:
A. Claiming credit for something.
and
B. Responding with a sardonic edge.
I'm a pretty big WWII history buff, and as such I'm a pretty big fan of Australia's conduct during WWII and thereafter. During the battle of El Almein (if I'm not mistaken) Rommel regarded the Australians as the toughest troops the Commonwealth brought into the fray. I would also be a fool to deny Australia's place in the Pacific theater.
Nevertheless, if we are going to argue relative importance to peace and stability in the world the United States has played a bigger role than the land girt by sea. Just as valiant Australian blood halted the advance of Rommel so did American blood, tears, and treasure ensure that your wonderful country (and I say this with no sarcasm) did not become the top vacation destination for a host of 20th century tyrants.
I will be one of the first Americans on here to call a spade a spade when it comes to national crimes and war atrocities not to mention when my nation does not live up to her ideals. I will also be the last person to say anything ill of your country without extremely compelling cause.
Keep a clear eye at the historical record for what it is, and show some respect.
A. Claiming credit for something.
and
B. Responding with a sardonic edge.
I'm a pretty big WWII history buff, and as such I'm a pretty big fan of Australia's conduct during WWII and thereafter. During the battle of El Almein (if I'm not mistaken) Rommel regarded the Australians as the toughest troops the Commonwealth brought into the fray. I would also be a fool to deny Australia's place in the Pacific theater.
Nevertheless, if we are going to argue relative importance to peace and stability in the world the United States has played a bigger role than the land girt by sea. Just as valiant Australian blood halted the advance of Rommel so did American blood, tears, and treasure ensure that your wonderful country (and I say this with no sarcasm) did not become the top vacation destination for a host of 20th century tyrants.
I will be one of the first Americans on here to call a spade a spade when it comes to national crimes and war atrocities not to mention when my nation does not live up to her ideals. I will also be the last person to say anything ill of your country without extremely compelling cause.
Keep a clear eye at the historical record for what it is, and show some respect.
the firebombing of Japan killed more people than the nukes did.
Using both convinced the Japanese to surrender, saving, literally millions of lives, on both sides.
I would not call that atrocity. I would say it stopped atrocities.
The problems I had with the same article from multiple sources was....they had no facts in them. None. Only anecdotal stories with no studies or any real data...at all. The articles said nothing, showed nothing and proved nothing.
Its called hyperbole.
Still waiting on the great atrocities the USA has done. Ya know like Russia and China HAVE done in their pasts. Comparing the ''evil'' America has done with the rest of the world would be like comparing Obama with Ronald Reagan.....there isn't any.
Using both convinced the Japanese to surrender, saving, literally millions of lives, on both sides.
I would not call that atrocity. I would say it stopped atrocities.
The problems I had with the same article from multiple sources was....they had no facts in them. None. Only anecdotal stories with no studies or any real data...at all. The articles said nothing, showed nothing and proved nothing.
Its called hyperbole.
Still waiting on the great atrocities the USA has done. Ya know like Russia and China HAVE done in their pasts. Comparing the ''evil'' America has done with the rest of the world would be like comparing Obama with Ronald Reagan.....there isn't any.
I thought I did enough on the gassing in St Louis. For whatever reason you want to reject it. If I get time I will revisit it.
The main differences between what China and Russia have done and what the US is doing now is their crimes were mainly inside their borders while the US is mainly outside their borders. Eventually a huge protest (Indonesia 1998) or civil war will remove these leaders who commit crimes against their people. When you manipulate the system so that you crimes outside your borders are unaccountable, you can go on indefinitely.
As for comparing the two. I see a closer comparison than you think.
The killing of 500,000 Iraqi children in the 90s through medical sanctions would make any dictator proud.
Madeleine Albright Defends Mass-Murder of iraqi Children (500,000 Children dead) - YouTube
Depleted Uranium another one that has caused cancer in the many thousands. A declassified memo from 1943 stated the danger of it. Pentagon's own internal reports warned that the radiation and heavy metal of DU weapons could cause kidney, lung and liver damage and increased rates of cancer. George Bush allowed depleted uranium in the Gulf war. 697,000 US soldiers involved in the 1991 war reported serious illness from using depleted uranium. George W Bush also allowed the use of depleted uranium in the Iraqi war of 2003.
U.S. Depleted Uranium as Malicious as Syrian Chemical Weapons | Craig Considine
When "non-Westerners" make use of weapons of mass destruction, there is outrage and calls for military intervention from "the West," but when "Westerners" themselves use them, it is totally permissible, and the world can hardly react.
William Hague UK Foreign Minister
The main differences between what China and Russia have done and what the US is doing now is their crimes were mainly inside their borders while the US is mainly outside their borders. Eventually a huge protest (Indonesia 1998) or civil war will remove these leaders who commit crimes against their people. When you manipulate the system so that you crimes outside your borders are unaccountable, you can go on indefinitely.
As for comparing the two. I see a closer comparison than you think.
The killing of 500,000 Iraqi children in the 90s through medical sanctions would make any dictator proud.
Madeleine Albright Defends Mass-Murder of iraqi Children (500,000 Children dead) - YouTube
Depleted Uranium another one that has caused cancer in the many thousands. A declassified memo from 1943 stated the danger of it. Pentagon's own internal reports warned that the radiation and heavy metal of DU weapons could cause kidney, lung and liver damage and increased rates of cancer. George Bush allowed depleted uranium in the Gulf war. 697,000 US soldiers involved in the 1991 war reported serious illness from using depleted uranium. George W Bush also allowed the use of depleted uranium in the Iraqi war of 2003.
U.S. Depleted Uranium as Malicious as Syrian Chemical Weapons | Craig Considine
When "non-Westerners" make use of weapons of mass destruction, there is outrage and calls for military intervention from "the West," but when "Westerners" themselves use them, it is totally permissible, and the world can hardly react.
William Hague UK Foreign Minister
reality does clash with delusion.
Using that article to suggest the USA gassed their own people is absolutely ridiculous.
No facts given. No studies showing an increase of cancer in this affected area. No statistics. Only a story by one woman and some claims of what the army did. Not even a mention wether or not the chemical, supposedly used, could cause cancer.
If this is the ''quality'' of ''news'' you use to resource your ideologies.....wow.
Its called living in the real world, not make-believe.
Using that article to suggest the USA gassed their own people is absolutely ridiculous.
No facts given. No studies showing an increase of cancer in this affected area. No statistics. Only a story by one woman and some claims of what the army did. Not even a mention wether or not the chemical, supposedly used, could cause cancer.
If this is the ''quality'' of ''news'' you use to resource your ideologies.....wow.
Its called living in the real world, not make-believe.
Blaming the USA for the deaths of Iraqi children is like blaming the alcohol for a drunk driver who kills someone in an accident.
Saddam knew the consequences of his actions and did them anyways. I am sorry you cannot recognise the truth of the Iraq war, but Saddam caused it, not us.
If the USA is so evil...go to Russia and China for answers and the next time the world needs us, call Putin
Saddam knew the consequences of his actions and did them anyways. I am sorry you cannot recognise the truth of the Iraq war, but Saddam caused it, not us.
If the USA is so evil...go to Russia and China for answers and the next time the world needs us, call Putin
This would have been a good point ten years ago, but of late it seems the Russians have been making more common-sense proposals. Largely because it is in their national interest to do so, but it is a good lesson for our Executive Branch.
I realize this is a sad reality.
I think the US government would be an easier fix to be honest. The UN is only as good as its most influential members.
I realize this is a sad reality.
I think the US government would be an easier fix to be honest. The UN is only as good as its most influential members.
so......the US is the drunk driver then.
who got her all drunked up and behind the wheel?
who got her all intoxicated out careening around?
did you know a motor vehicle can considered a deadly weapon by law?
an accident?
weeerdo.
the US gleefully put sanctions on Iraq that killed half a million children
CBS's 60 Minutes (May 12, 1996) Lesley Stahl:
"We have heard that half a million children have died. I mean, that's more children than died in Hiroshima. And, you know, is the price worth it?"
Madeleine Korbel Albright : "I think this is a very hard choice, but the price — we think the price is worth it."
Albright was U.S. ambassador to the United Nations at the time.
who got her all drunked up and behind the wheel?
who got her all intoxicated out careening around?
did you know a motor vehicle can considered a deadly weapon by law?
an accident?
weeerdo.
the US gleefully put sanctions on Iraq that killed half a million children
CBS's 60 Minutes (May 12, 1996) Lesley Stahl:
"We have heard that half a million children have died. I mean, that's more children than died in Hiroshima. And, you know, is the price worth it?"
Madeleine Korbel Albright : "I think this is a very hard choice, but the price — we think the price is worth it."
Albright was U.S. ambassador to the United Nations at the time.
Last edited:
how about this article?
1994 General Accounting Office (now the Government Accountability Office)
http://archive.gao.gov/t2pbat2/152601.pdf < click
The Department of Veterans Affairs has reported that military scientists tested hundreds of chemical and biological substances on them, including VX, tabun, soman, sarin, cyanide, LSD, PCP, and World War I-era blister agents like phosgene and mustard.
....
or this one?
When the Second World War began, there was a new urgency to research poison gases, and the work focussed intensively on mustard gas and similar chemicals. In 1941, President Franklin D. Roosevelt appointed Alfred Richards, a respected pharmacologist, to coördinate the wartime medical research. A year later, Richards wrote to the Secretaries of the Army and the Navy, asking their permission to use soldiers as test subjects. “In the study of vesicant gases, investigators are confronted by one major obstacle, namely, that the skin of man is so different anatomically from that of laboratory animals that the latter are relatively useless as subjects for experimentation,” he explained. He argued that human experiments with poison gas were necessary and could be done safely. “In the hands of competent experimenters much can be learned concerning the prevention and treatment of gas burns in men without subjecting them to more than relatively trivial annoyance or disability,” he promised.
Using a Freedom of Information Act request, The New Yorker was able to obtain his letter (click on the documents to expand):
At Edgewood Arsenal, in Maryland, the Army built a gas chamber to advance its clinical research. The chamber—an upgrade of an earlier model—occupied a corner of Building 326, which also housed the Officers’ Club. The structure’s walls, made of tile and brick, gave it a vaultlike appearance. Its door was airtight and forged out of thick metal; it had been salvaged from a First World War Navy ship, as was a porthole that served as its sole window. The chamber was a perfect cube, nine feet in all dimensions. Inside, the only source of light was a hundred-watt bulb mounted behind an explosion-proof shield. No more than seven men would be in the room at any given time. “It has been one of the guiding principles of gassing chamber design at Edgewood to have the animals or subjects occupy less than five percent of the chamber volume,” a classified report from the time, “Gassing Chamber for Human Tests: Construction and Operation,” notes. Army scientists knew from experience that too many people caused the concentration of gas to shift in unpredictable ways.
The classified report explains that the chamber’s equipment was designed to run “completely automatically,” with an attendant necessary only to manipulate the dials and to observe the glass bubblers and the pressurized containers and the ducts used to control the flow of gas. Here is a picture, taken in July, 1944, and included in the report:
The New Yorker online
1994 General Accounting Office (now the Government Accountability Office)
http://archive.gao.gov/t2pbat2/152601.pdf < click
The Department of Veterans Affairs has reported that military scientists tested hundreds of chemical and biological substances on them, including VX, tabun, soman, sarin, cyanide, LSD, PCP, and World War I-era blister agents like phosgene and mustard.
....
or this one?
When the Second World War began, there was a new urgency to research poison gases, and the work focussed intensively on mustard gas and similar chemicals. In 1941, President Franklin D. Roosevelt appointed Alfred Richards, a respected pharmacologist, to coördinate the wartime medical research. A year later, Richards wrote to the Secretaries of the Army and the Navy, asking their permission to use soldiers as test subjects. “In the study of vesicant gases, investigators are confronted by one major obstacle, namely, that the skin of man is so different anatomically from that of laboratory animals that the latter are relatively useless as subjects for experimentation,” he explained. He argued that human experiments with poison gas were necessary and could be done safely. “In the hands of competent experimenters much can be learned concerning the prevention and treatment of gas burns in men without subjecting them to more than relatively trivial annoyance or disability,” he promised.
Using a Freedom of Information Act request, The New Yorker was able to obtain his letter (click on the documents to expand):
At Edgewood Arsenal, in Maryland, the Army built a gas chamber to advance its clinical research. The chamber—an upgrade of an earlier model—occupied a corner of Building 326, which also housed the Officers’ Club. The structure’s walls, made of tile and brick, gave it a vaultlike appearance. Its door was airtight and forged out of thick metal; it had been salvaged from a First World War Navy ship, as was a porthole that served as its sole window. The chamber was a perfect cube, nine feet in all dimensions. Inside, the only source of light was a hundred-watt bulb mounted behind an explosion-proof shield. No more than seven men would be in the room at any given time. “It has been one of the guiding principles of gassing chamber design at Edgewood to have the animals or subjects occupy less than five percent of the chamber volume,” a classified report from the time, “Gassing Chamber for Human Tests: Construction and Operation,” notes. Army scientists knew from experience that too many people caused the concentration of gas to shift in unpredictable ways.
The classified report explains that the chamber’s equipment was designed to run “completely automatically,” with an attendant necessary only to manipulate the dials and to observe the glass bubblers and the pressurized containers and the ducts used to control the flow of gas. Here is a picture, taken in July, 1944, and included in the report:
The New Yorker online
CIA Files Prove America Helped Saddam as He Gassed Iran
The Iraqis used mustard gas and sarin prior to four major offensives in early 1988 that relied on U.S. satellite imagery, maps, and other intelligence. These attacks helped to tilt the war in Iraq's favor and bring Iran to the negotiating table, and they ensured that the Reagan administration's long-standing policy of securing an Iraqi victory would succeed. But they were also the last in a series of chemical strikes stretching back several years that the Reagan administration knew about and didn't disclose.
U.S. officials have long denied acquiescing to Iraqi chemical attacks, insisting that Hussein's government never announced he was going to use the weapons. But retired Air Force Col. Rick Francona, who was a military attaché in Baghdad during the 1988 strikes, paints a different picture.
"The Iraqis never told us that they intended to use nerve gas. They didn't have to. We already knew," he told Foreign Policy.
According to recently declassified CIA documents and interviews with former intelligence officials like Francona, the U.S. had firm evidence of Iraqi chemical attacks beginning in 1983. At the time, Iran was publicly alleging that illegal chemical attacks were carried out on its forces, and was building a case to present to the United Nations. But it lacked the evidence implicating Iraq, much of which was contained in top secret reports and memoranda sent to the most senior intelligence officials in the U.S. government. The CIA declined to comment for this story.
ZCommunications | CIA Files Prove America Helped Saddam as He Gassed Iran by Matthew M. Aid | ZNet Article
The Iraqis used mustard gas and sarin prior to four major offensives in early 1988 that relied on U.S. satellite imagery, maps, and other intelligence. These attacks helped to tilt the war in Iraq's favor and bring Iran to the negotiating table, and they ensured that the Reagan administration's long-standing policy of securing an Iraqi victory would succeed. But they were also the last in a series of chemical strikes stretching back several years that the Reagan administration knew about and didn't disclose.
U.S. officials have long denied acquiescing to Iraqi chemical attacks, insisting that Hussein's government never announced he was going to use the weapons. But retired Air Force Col. Rick Francona, who was a military attaché in Baghdad during the 1988 strikes, paints a different picture.
"The Iraqis never told us that they intended to use nerve gas. They didn't have to. We already knew," he told Foreign Policy.
According to recently declassified CIA documents and interviews with former intelligence officials like Francona, the U.S. had firm evidence of Iraqi chemical attacks beginning in 1983. At the time, Iran was publicly alleging that illegal chemical attacks were carried out on its forces, and was building a case to present to the United Nations. But it lacked the evidence implicating Iraq, much of which was contained in top secret reports and memoranda sent to the most senior intelligence officials in the U.S. government. The CIA declined to comment for this story.
ZCommunications | CIA Files Prove America Helped Saddam as He Gassed Iran by Matthew M. Aid | ZNet Article
I appreciate your comments on this. Just as it is dangerous to have banks that are too large to fail. It is dangerous to have countries that are too large to be held to account. The US government may be easier to fix but I think the world should be governed by a group that make decision in the world's interest rather than decision driven by their own interests. That is the reason the UN was created in the first place. We need a functioning UN more than ever now.
I see nothing criminal or on the level of atrocities in any of the articles you have posted.
The testing on army personal in the article seemed to be well regulated and safe and probably they used volunteers. Funny your article did not mention that. Would seem to be important.
One soldier said we knew about Iraq using chemical weapons...ok.
Helping Iraq defeat Iran was in our best interests...I don't see the problem.
I see absolutely nothing painting the USA as some power hungry war criminal.
So, its your position we went into Iraq to purposely murder 500,000 Iraqi children? Why were so many killed...could it be the insurgents hid with families...? I doubt there was ever a more conscientious effort made by a country to protect civilians than we did in Iraq in a war.
All you can see is the deaths and you could care less about why they died. It fits your anti-america agenda so you hang your hat on it.
The testing on army personal in the article seemed to be well regulated and safe and probably they used volunteers. Funny your article did not mention that. Would seem to be important.
One soldier said we knew about Iraq using chemical weapons...ok.
Helping Iraq defeat Iran was in our best interests...I don't see the problem.
I see absolutely nothing painting the USA as some power hungry war criminal.
So, its your position we went into Iraq to purposely murder 500,000 Iraqi children? Why were so many killed...could it be the insurgents hid with families...? I doubt there was ever a more conscientious effort made by a country to protect civilians than we did in Iraq in a war.
All you can see is the deaths and you could care less about why they died. It fits your anti-america agenda so you hang your hat on it.
X
You really are in the minority, Most Americans know that America has been very corrupt in its political/economical/militaristic involvement. There is evidence everywhere you look. Every time someone posts something you just ignorantly shrug it off. Its almost as if you arent educated. The world hates America for the most part, many Americans are seeing the corrupt government unfold before our eyes and this is nothing new. Try to see things from both perspectives. What if America had internal conflicts and Russia came over and used depleted uranium on our land, agent orange, invaded with land troops and held bases on our land. I know for a fact, you would have a very different stance. Its your patriotism that is clouding your judgement. I know, I was an American solider and pro-war, now I am neutral and even I can admit when we've messed up a few hundred times.
O
I think it's easier to spout these dispairing remarks than to come up with examples backing your claim. I can admit that the US is pretty much self centered. She is concerned with the welfare of herself. Her interest come first. That's just the way it is. US leaders have broken laws - US laws as well as international and even human law, but the NATION has never sanctioned those actions. She's called every offensive name in the book along with being imperialistic but the ONLY land she's ever taken from another country is that little piece necessary to bury YOUR BROTHERS IN ARMS sent there to defend it and I would like to ask you what other super power country would you like at the helm?
I have problems with things our country does. It's a nation that allows my dissent free of persecution but NOT from consequence. I served her military too - in the Navy, way before you I'm assuming. I wasn't even crazy about how the killing of Osama bin Laden went down - but none of my love of country or partisanship can be characterized by some mindless inability to judge her worth. I take exception to these generalizations you make.
I have problems with things our country does. It's a nation that allows my dissent free of persecution but NOT from consequence. I served her military too - in the Navy, way before you I'm assuming. I wasn't even crazy about how the killing of Osama bin Laden went down - but none of my love of country or partisanship can be characterized by some mindless inability to judge her worth. I take exception to these generalizations you make.