Quote:
|
Originally Posted by mjw
And you my friend sound like you're simply regurgitating liberal propaganda.....and the following isn't directed toward you.......
Unlike most people, I'm not basing my judgments on the war in Iraq on random news articles, press releases, or anything of the such. My opinion of what is going on over there is based 100% on my conversations with my friends and family that are over there, and have been over there for pretty much the entire time.
Now you can spout these articles at me all you want, and I will read them and consider what they have to say(because of the fact that I don't consider myself a fanatic, and like to take into consideration both sides of the story), but they're not going to carry as much weight in my mind as the opinions of the people that are there right now.
|
Lemme see.....I'm "regurgitating liberal propaganda" by providing points of
argument, backed by links to opinions of others that contain verifiable, dates,
names, and places, and you are providing vague references to unverifiable
sources. What is the responsibility of your sources in Iraq ? If they are
military, how about a name, rank, and mission history. How many people and
what areas of Iraq have they been in, and when, and for what length of time.
If this is the right war, where are the bodies of the foreign terrorists that our
troops have killed or captured? Now that the reasons for invading Irag in the
first place have been exposed as empty and baseless, what reason could there be for the U.S. to conceal the physical evidence that our troops are
fighting non-Iraqi terrorists and winning ?
Here's some more "liberal propaganda":
Quote:
<a href="http://www.gwu.edu/~nsarchiv/NSAEBB/NSAEBB82/press.htm">http://www.gwu.edu/~nsarchiv/NSAEBB/NSAEBB82/press.htm</a>
Washington, D.C., 25 February 2003 - The National Security Archive at George Washington University today published on the Web a series of declassified U.S. documents detailing the U.S. embrace of Saddam Hussein in the early 1980's, including the renewal of diplomatic relations that had been suspended since 1967. The documents show that during this period of renewed U.S. support for Saddam, he had invaded his neighbor (Iran), had long-range nuclear aspirations that would "probably" include "an eventual nuclear weapon capability," harbored known terrorists in Baghdad, abused the human rights of his citizens, and possessed and used chemical weapons on Iranians and his own people. The U.S. response was to renew ties, to provide intelligence and aid to ensure Iraq would not be defeated by Iran, and to send a high-level presidential envoy named Donald Rumsfeld to shake hands with Saddam (20 December 1983).
The declassified documents posted today include the briefing materials and diplomatic reporting on two Rumsfeld trips to Baghdad, reports on Iraqi chemical weapons use concurrent with the Reagan administration's decision to support Iraq, and decision directives signed by President Reagan that reveal the specific U.S. priorities for the region: preserving access to oil, expanding U.S. ability to project military power in the region, and protecting local allies from internal and external threats. The documents include:
* A U.S. cable recording the December 20, 1983 conversation between Donald Rumsfeld and Saddam Hussein. Although Rumsfeld said during a September 21, 2002 CNN interview, "In that visit, I cautioned him about the use of chemical weapons, as a matter of fact, and discussed a host of other things," the document indicates there was no mention of chemical weapons. Rumsfeld did raise the issue in his subsequent meeting with Iraqi official Tariq Aziz.
* National Security Decision Directive (NSDD) 114 of November 26, 1983, "U.S. Policy toward the Iran-Iraq War," delineating U.S. priorities: the ability to project military force in the Persian Gulf and to protect oil supplies, without reference to chemical weapons or human rights concerns.
* National Security Decision Directive (NSDD) 139 of April 5, 1984, "Measures to Improve U.S. Posture and Readiness to Respond to Developments in the Iran-Iraq War," focusing again on increased access for U.S. military forces in the Persian Gulf and enhanced intelligence-gathering capabilities. The directive calls for "unambiguous" condemnation of chemical weapons use, without naming Iraq, but places "equal stress" on protecting Iraq from Iran's "ruthless and inhumane tactics." The directive orders preparation of "a plan of action designed to avert an Iraqi collapse."
* U.S. and Iraqi consultations about Iran's 1984 draft resolution seeking United Nations Security Council condemnation of Iraq's chemical weapons use. Iraq conveyed several requests to the U.S. about the resolution, including its preference for a lower-level response and one that did not name any country in connection with chemical warfare; the final result complied with Iraq's requests.
* The 1984 public U.S. condemnation of chemical weapons use in the Iran-Iraq war, which said, referring to the Ayatollah Khomeini's refusal to agree to end hostilities until Saddam Hussein was ejected from power, "The United States finds the present Iranian regime's intransigent refusal to deviate from its avowed objective of eliminating the legitimate government of neighboring Iraq to be inconsistent with the accepted norms of behavior among nations and the moral and religious basis which it claims."
|