Bernie Sanders: Blame Bush, Not Obama Over ISIS

Page 2 of 2 [ 29 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2

progaspie
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 22 Jul 2011
Age: 71
Gender: Male
Posts: 673
Location: Australia

13 Oct 2014, 5:56 am

khaoz wrote:
cyberdad wrote:
Seems people forgot about good O'l Ronnie Reagan...

The Reagan administration propped up Saddam Hussein and supported his regime during which time he dropped chemical weapons on the Kurds. Saddam spilled over million lives fighting Iran (who were holding US hostages at the time). In return the US armed the Iraqis with whatever weapons they wanted. Plenty of the weapons ISIS (and for that matter the Taliban) now use originated from the USA.

The support the US (via the CIA and Ollie North) gave Saddam triggered Saddam's greed for expanding his borders, If I remember correctly a US female diplomat misunderstood and gave verbal assurance to Saddam that if he attacked Kuwait then the US would not intervene. The rest as they say is history.

Addendum: the same Kurds who suffered under Saddam and were declared a terrorist organisation by the US (the PKK separatists) are now being funded and supported by the US!! ! Here's how the Kurds are using American weapons
http://www.aljazeera.com/news/middleeas ... 42637.html

My understanding is that female suicide bombers are supposed to be one of the reasons this group were outlawed some years ago. My guess is that the Kurds will wait for this conflict to finish then turn their suicide bombers with their American made explosives against Turkey whom they have long standing grievances. This is going to get messier and messier.


Not only did the Reagan administration support Hussein, and alternately whatever force had power in Iran at various times, the Reagan administration supplied that region with the chemical weapons that were used on the Kurds, and whoever else spoke out against Hussein. The same chemical weapons, a.k.a "weapons of mass destruction" that were talked about as pretense and excuse by the Bush administration to invade Iraq.

Don't know where you get your information from. There is a ban on the sale of chemical weapons under the UN charter, that would have been in force in the 1980's. Saddam was importing the chemical precursors for chemical weapons from all over the world, including Germany, his main supplier and turning those chemicals into the chemical weapons he unleashed against the Kurks. When the rest of the world, found out what he was doing, they banned sales of those chemical precursors to Iraq. Do you honestly think that the U.S. would knowingly export chemical weapons to Iraq, a country that sits perilously close to Israel, America's main ally in the Middle East?



khaoz
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 9 Apr 2013
Age: 69
Gender: Male
Posts: 2,940

13 Oct 2014, 9:01 am

progaspie wrote:
khaoz wrote:
cyberdad wrote:
Seems people forgot about good O'l Ronnie Reagan...

The Reagan administration propped up Saddam Hussein and supported his regime during which time he dropped chemical weapons on the Kurds. Saddam spilled over million lives fighting Iran (who were holding US hostages at the time). In return the US armed the Iraqis with whatever weapons they wanted. Plenty of the weapons ISIS (and for that matter the Taliban) now use originated from the USA.

The support the US (via the CIA and Ollie North) gave Saddam triggered Saddam's greed for expanding his borders, If I remember correctly a US female diplomat misunderstood and gave verbal assurance to Saddam that if he attacked Kuwait then the US would not intervene. The rest as they say is history.

Addendum: the same Kurds who suffered under Saddam and were declared a terrorist organisation by the US (the PKK separatists) are now being funded and supported by the US!! ! Here's how the Kurds are using American weapons
http://www.aljazeera.com/news/middleeas ... 42637.html

My understanding is that female suicide bombers are supposed to be one of the reasons this group were outlawed some years ago. My guess is that the Kurds will wait for this conflict to finish then turn their suicide bombers with their American made explosives against Turkey whom they have long standing grievances. This is going to get messier and messier.


Not only did the Reagan administration support Hussein, and alternately whatever force had power in Iran at various times, the Reagan administration supplied that region with the chemical weapons that were used on the Kurds, and whoever else spoke out against Hussein. The same chemical weapons, a.k.a "weapons of mass destruction" that were talked about as pretense and excuse by the Bush administration to invade Iraq.

Don't know where you get your information from. There is a ban on the sale of chemical weapons under the UN charter, that would have been in force in the 1980's. Saddam was importing the chemical precursors for chemical weapons from all over the world, including Germany, his main supplier and turning those chemicals into the chemical weapons he unleashed against the Kurks. When the rest of the world, found out what he was doing, they banned sales of those chemical precursors to Iraq. Do you honestly think that the U.S. would knowingly export chemical weapons to Iraq, a country that sits perilously close to Israel, America's main ally in the Middle East?


Okay, I amend to say that the Reagan administration helped Iraq obtain chemical weapons, which is the same thing. We knew that Hussein was using chemical agents and planned to continue doing so and Reagan administration still supported and assisted in the effort. you may discount this one source which mentions George Bush admitting to this fact but there were numerous articles and reports from the media at the time covering the issue.
Do I think honestly that the United States would engage in this activity? Hell yes, I have no doubt what our government is capable and willing to do in the middle east, or anywhere else to "protect our "interests""

Do you seriously think the United States is candidate for sainthood or something? There is a reason so many people in this world hate and want to kill Americans, and I have seen many of these reasons with my own eyeballs during my military service, whether you care to believe it or not.

http://www.counterpunch.org/2004/06/17/ ... l-weapons/



Kraichgauer
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 12 Apr 2010
Gender: Male
Posts: 49,246
Location: Spokane area, Washington state.

13 Oct 2014, 10:16 am

There was more than a little help regarding American military hardware and training going to Iraq. So much so that upon learning how America had been supplying weapons to both his country and his enemies in Iran, Saddam Hussein had felt so personally betrayed that he swore never to trust the US ever again. Hence, he was less likely in the future to care about offending American interests in the region, leading to the First Gulf War, and ultimately the Second.


_________________
-Bill, otherwise known as Kraichgauer


khaoz
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 9 Apr 2013
Age: 69
Gender: Male
Posts: 2,940

13 Oct 2014, 12:42 pm

Kraichgauer wrote:
There was more than a little help regarding American military hardware and training going to Iraq. So much so that upon learning how America had been supplying weapons to both his country and his enemies in Iran, Saddam Hussein had felt so personally betrayed that he swore never to trust the US ever again. Hence, he was less likely in the future to care about offending American interests in the region, leading to the First Gulf War, and ultimately the Second.


We are pretty good at turning allies into enemies, and turning nations against each other. Deliberate, me think.



Kraichgauer
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 12 Apr 2010
Gender: Male
Posts: 49,246
Location: Spokane area, Washington state.

13 Oct 2014, 12:56 pm

khaoz wrote:
Kraichgauer wrote:
There was more than a little help regarding American military hardware and training going to Iraq. So much so that upon learning how America had been supplying weapons to both his country and his enemies in Iran, Saddam Hussein had felt so personally betrayed that he swore never to trust the US ever again. Hence, he was less likely in the future to care about offending American interests in the region, leading to the First Gulf War, and ultimately the Second.


We are pretty good at turning allies into enemies, and turning nations against each other. Deliberate, me think.


Sometimes I think it's deliberate, other times I think they're inexcusable blunders caused by Presidents, spooks, and ambassadors who think they are much smarter than they really are, and who don't foresee the consequences for their actions.


_________________
-Bill, otherwise known as Kraichgauer


cyberdad
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 21 Feb 2011
Age: 57
Gender: Male
Posts: 36,036

13 Oct 2014, 10:34 pm

Kraichgauer wrote:
khaoz wrote:
Kraichgauer wrote:
There was more than a little help regarding American military hardware and training going to Iraq. So much so that upon learning how America had been supplying weapons to both his country and his enemies in Iran, Saddam Hussein had felt so personally betrayed that he swore never to trust the US ever again. Hence, he was less likely in the future to care about offending American interests in the region, leading to the First Gulf War, and ultimately the Second.


We are pretty good at turning allies into enemies, and turning nations against each other. Deliberate, me think.


Sometimes I think it's deliberate, other times I think they're inexcusable blunders caused by Presidents, spooks, and ambassadors who think they are much smarter than they really are, and who don't foresee the consequences for their actions.


In the case of Saddam Hussein it was a mix of both. Hussein's incursion into Kuwait (another despotically ruled sultanate) was based on a blunder from an American diplomat. The US reaction was also knee jerk based on the realization that Saddam suddenly now controlled a bigger share of the world's oil reserves in Iraq and Kuwait.

Saddam had the support of tribal chiefs, most of the tribal rule in Iraq was dismantled by the Americans under the assumption tribal leaders collaborated with the bathist regime of Saddam. His eventual ousting and removal of tribal leadership created a power vacuum that was eventually filled by a US backed puppet regime and Iraqi people are today under constant attack from extremists in Al Qaeda and subsequently ISIS. This was either a massive tactical blunder on the part of the CIA? or deliberate?. Take your pick.



cyberdad
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 21 Feb 2011
Age: 57
Gender: Male
Posts: 36,036

13 Oct 2014, 10:43 pm

progaspie wrote:
Don't know where you get your information from. There is a ban on the sale of chemical weapons under the UN charter, that would have been in force in the 1980's. Saddam was importing the chemical precursors for chemical weapons from all over the world, including Germany, his main supplier and turning those chemicals into the chemical weapons he unleashed against the Kurks. When the rest of the world, found out what he was doing, they banned sales of those chemical precursors to Iraq. Do you honestly think that the U.S. would knowingly export chemical weapons to Iraq, a country that sits perilously close to Israel, America's main ally in the Middle East?


Most of the trade in weapons (and materials to make weapons) in the third world occurs through third parties. You are incredibly naive to think American arms dealers and the CIA operates openly and follows the Geneva convention. The bans imposed during the Gulf war on iraq and their "mythical" weapons of mass destruction did not stop the supply of weapons from western countries (with full knowledge of the CIA ) to Iraq prior to Saddam's foray into Kuwait way back in 1990.

I'm not suggesting the Saddam Hussein was a saint or that the Americans were wrong to remove him, the point is the US has acted in their self interest and operated covertly in their dealing with regimes in this region. This really shouldn't be a great shock to anyone (even you?) given the track record of CIA or military operations in countries like Cuba, Chile, Laos, Cambodia or Vietnam where war crimes and assassinations were committed in the name of US interests.



khaoz
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 9 Apr 2013
Age: 69
Gender: Male
Posts: 2,940

13 Oct 2014, 11:05 pm

cyberdad wrote:
progaspie wrote:
Don't know where you get your information from. There is a ban on the sale of chemical weapons under the UN charter, that would have been in force in the 1980's. Saddam was importing the chemical precursors for chemical weapons from all over the world, including Germany, his main supplier and turning those chemicals into the chemical weapons he unleashed against the Kurks. When the rest of the world, found out what he was doing, they banned sales of those chemical precursors to Iraq. Do you honestly think that the U.S. would knowingly export chemical weapons to Iraq, a country that sits perilously close to Israel, America's main ally in the Middle East?


Most of the trade in weapons (and materials to make weapons) in the third world occurs through third parties. You are incredibly naive to think American arms dealers and the CIA operates openly and follows the Geneva convention. The bans imposed during the Gulf war on iraq and their "mythical" weapons of mass destruction did not stop the supply of weapons from western countries (with full knowledge of the CIA ) to Iraq prior to Saddam's foray into Kuwait way back in 1990.

I'm not suggesting the Saddam Hussein was a saint or that the Americans were wrong to remove him, the point is the US has acted in their self interest and operated covertly in their dealing with regimes in this region. This really shouldn't be a great shock to anyone (even you?) given the track record of CIA or military operations in countries like Cuba, Chile, Laos, Cambodia or Vietnam where war crimes and assassinations were committed in the name of US interests.


Tre is nothing "naïve" about me. You have no idea my life experiences and what I have seen. Nothing our government does or could do surprises me. Our government could do a lot in plain sight and not even be recognized by the American public, because for the most part, the American public is about as intelligent as a sidewalk crack. For the most part, the American public does not even pay attention to anything this government does and is not intelligent enough to decipher what they do see of our government. Generally speaking, we may as well only have a President because the public thinks that everything done by our government is done totally by one person. Most Americans could neither tell you the branches of our government, or what the duties of each branch of government are. Most Americans do not know anything about our founding documents other than the words "we the people, the 1st Amendment and the 2nd Amendment" but would be incapable of reciting more than 5 words of any of those phrases. What little bit of information most of the public does know about our government and its documents are misunderstood by the public.



cyberdad
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 21 Feb 2011
Age: 57
Gender: Male
Posts: 36,036

14 Oct 2014, 1:07 am

khaoz wrote:
Tre is nothing "naïve" about me. You have no idea my life experiences and what I have seen.


My post was directed at progaspie?

khaoz wrote:
Nothing our government does or could do surprises me. Our government could do a lot in plain sight and not even be recognized by the American public, because for the most part, the American public is about as intelligent as a sidewalk crack. For the most part, the American public does not even pay attention to anything this government does and is not intelligent enough to decipher what they do see of our government. Generally speaking, we may as well only have a President because the public thinks that everything done by our government is done totally by one person. Most Americans could neither tell you the branches of our government, or what the duties of each branch of government are. Most Americans do not know anything about our founding documents other than the words "we the people, the 1st Amendment and the 2nd Amendment" but would be incapable of reciting more than 5 words of any of those phrases. What little bit of information most of the public does know about our government and its documents are misunderstood by the public.


Agree with everything you posted. I read a insightful book some years ago by Prof Neil Postman in NYU titled "Amusing Ourselves to Death". Postman showed evidence that the average American in the 1800s was far better read and more aware of politics, geography and international affairs than the current generation. Postman blamed television back in 1984 but I'd say his principles of media saturation has gotten worse in the internet age where people fail to use critical thought and rely on the news (packaged as entertainment) to inform them of everything.



Humanaut
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 17 Jul 2014
Age: 54
Gender: Male
Posts: 4,390
Location: Norway

14 Oct 2014, 2:08 am

How about blaming ISIS on ISIS?



cyberdad
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 21 Feb 2011
Age: 57
Gender: Male
Posts: 36,036

14 Oct 2014, 3:09 am

Humanaut wrote:
How about blaming ISIS on ISIS?


A little more complicated as to how they arose.



Humanaut
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 17 Jul 2014
Age: 54
Gender: Male
Posts: 4,390
Location: Norway

14 Oct 2014, 5:15 am

There is a religious aspect.



progaspie
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 22 Jul 2011
Age: 71
Gender: Male
Posts: 673
Location: Australia

20 Oct 2014, 4:43 pm

How does it affect the Middle East that Americians were better informed in the 1800's than in the 2000's? Also, who's pretending that The US hasn't made mistakes on policy towards the the Middle East? For that matter, name me a major economic power in the world that has a faultless foreign policy? How does that negate the fact that the world (not just the US but other countries in the Middle East and in the west) is doing all it can do to prevent the mass slaughter of innocent civilians in Syria and Iraq?