Irony, Thy Name Is Rumsfeld - Tilted Forum Project Discussion Community

ctembreull · 08-05-2003, 08:31 PM

"U.S. Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld apologized today for referring to France and Germany as an "Axis of Weasels." "I'm sorry about that Axis of Weasels remark," said Mr. Rumsfeld. "I didn't mean to dredge up the history that France and Germany share of pathetic compliance with ruthless dictators." (Reuters, January 2003)

Here's Rummy shaking hands with ruthless dictator Saddam Hussein:

And here's George W. Bush shaking hands with ruthless dictator and noted dissident-boiling afficionado Islam Karimov:

I wonder how anyone can possibly take this so-called "government" seriously anymore.

Phaenx · 08-05-2003, 09:08 PM

By that yardstick we haven't had a government in decades.

The_Dude · 08-05-2003, 09:14 PM

really really really ironic about rummy

xxmsaxx · 08-05-2003, 09:43 PM

what is it they always say, "the enemies of my enemies are my friend" so by that logic, if someone like John Wayne Gacy didnt like my mother-in-law id go hang out with him and play Nintendo. I agree Rumsfeld is a damn liar and this whole administration is a joke. I wish Jim Hightower would run for president.

Dragonlich · 08-05-2003, 09:46 PM

How is shaking hands with dictators, or even trading with them and supporting them to further *your own cause* somehow equal to "pathetic compliance with ruthless dictators"?

Had the US given Saddam support after he had threatened to attack, then you might have been correct. But that was clearly not the case. One might argue that these petty dictators were the ones that were pathetic, because they were so dependent on foreign support...

ctembreull · 08-05-2003, 10:25 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Dragonlich
How is shaking hands with dictators, or even trading with them and supporting them to further *your own cause* somehow equal to "pathetic compliance with ruthless dictators"?

This is a nonquestion, as the answer is manifest. If you're going to blast other nations about their dealings with "ruthless dictators", best make sure you're not chummy with any yourself. Oh, sure, we helped Saddam 'cos he fought against the Ayatollah. Maybe there's something legit there. I doubt it, but my mind is open enough to admit that much.

But giving money to the Taliban? Propping up Pervez Musharraf? Cozying up to Islam Karimov? How on earth are these things justified? How can this not be considered compliance? You're saying that since the United States is the one giving them the things that they want (usually hard currency or weapons) isn't fairly "pathetic compliance" with their demands? Get real.

Quote:

Had the US given Saddam support after he had threatened to attack, then you might have been correct. But that was clearly not the case.

Ever hear of April Glaspie? Read this, and then try to make that statement again. I would argue that granting him tacit permission to attack Kuwait was all the support he needed at that moment.

Quote:

One might argue that these petty dictators were the ones that were pathetic, because they were so dependent on foreign support...

Or was it the United States who was dependent upon their support? We got really cozy with Pervez Musharraf in a big hurry, didn't we? And what exactly did we have to promise Islam Karimov to get his backing for the "war on terra"?

But, of course, we're the United States of America!. When we cozy up to foreign lunatics, it's "good statemanship". When France does it, it's "pathetic compliance." Gotcha.

One of these days, someone's gonna have to compile a Republican-to-English translation dictionary. Maybe then these tragic misunderstandings will stop happening.

j8ear · 08-06-2003, 09:02 AM

Rumsfeld as the SecDef years ago is no secret...nor is the propping up of many dictators over the years by the US, from administrations of all stripes. I'm unsure of the issue here?

If it's that the US supports dictator's, and shouldn't...agreed.

That photo of bush looks photochopped to me. Not that it didn't happen, just that BOTH of the heads on those bodies look manufactured.

-b-

Superbelt · 08-06-2003, 09:38 AM

Quote:

Had the US given Saddam support after he had threatened to attack, then you might have been correct. But that was clearly not the case. One might argue that these petty dictators were the ones that were pathetic, because they were so dependent on foreign support...

This is all but giving support to Iraq's stated willingness to attack

The US initially didn't care whether or not Iraq attacked Kuwait

http://www.whatreallyhappened.com/ARTICLE5/april.html

Quote:

U.S. Ambassador Glaspie - We have no opinion on your Arab - Arab conflicts, such as your dispute with Kuwait. Secretary (of State James) Baker has directed me to emphasize the instruction, first given to Iraq in the 1960's, that the Kuwait issue is not associated with America. (Saddam smiles)

Saddam basically asks for our permission to attack Kuwait (who admittedly were invading Iraq's borders by slant oil drilling into Iraqi oil fields.) And we gave it to him.

EDIT: oops, just noticed that ctembreull said the same thing. Ill leave mine up since it has commentary though...

Superbelt · 08-06-2003, 09:43 AM

And here's some more if that isn't enough "support" for you.

http://lists.econ.utah.edu/pipermai...ber/020330.html

http://www.doublestandards.org/mackay1.html

Quote:

Reports by the US Senate's committee on banking, housing and urban affairs -- which oversees American exports policy -- reveal that the US, under the successive administrations of Ronald Reagan and George Bush Snr, sold materials including anthrax, VX nerve gas, West Nile fever germs and botulism to Iraq right up until March 1992, as well as germs similar to tuberculosis and pneumonia. Other bacteria sold included brucella melitensis, which damages major organs, and clostridium perfringens, which causes gas gangrene.
Classified US Defence Department documents also seen by the Sunday Herald show that Britain sold Iraq the drug pralidoxine, an antidote to nerve gas, in March 1992, after the end of the Gulf war. Pralidoxine can be reverse engineered to create nerve gas.

Dragonlich · 08-06-2003, 11:25 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by ctembreull
This is a nonquestion, as the answer is manifest. If you're going to blast other nations about their dealings with "ruthless dictators", best make sure you're not chummy with any yourself. Oh, sure, we helped Saddam 'cos he fought against the Ayatollah. Maybe there's something legit there. I doubt it, but my mind is open enough to admit that much.

But giving money to the Taliban? Propping up Pervez Musharraf? Cozying up to Islam Karimov? How on earth are these things justified? How can this not be considered compliance? You're saying that since the United States is the one giving them the things that they want (usually hard currency or weapons) isn't fairly "pathetic compliance" with their demands? Get real.

Back in the olde days when Saddam was still mister nice guy, the US supported his regime in it's fight against Iran, because Iran was seen as the worst of the two. Later, when it turned out how evil Saddam was, the US (at least officially) stopped their support. In international politics, especially during the cold war, you could not (and still cannot) choose your allies - you take what's offered. Later on you might regret it, or you may get attacked for it, but at the time you usually have no choice. Is that "compliance with their demands"? Nope, it's called "supporting friendly regimes". You give them weapons or money, they support you in the fight against fascism/communism/terrorism. They scratch your back, you scratch theirs.

Quote:

Ever hear of April Glaspie? Read this, and then try to make that statement again. I would argue that granting him tacit permission to attack Kuwait was all the support he needed at that moment.

To you, and Superbelt: the US did NOT give Saddam permission to invade Kuwait. That they didn't say "don't do it or else" would be called *diplomacy*. Again, in the real world, you usually do not insult leaders of foreign countries, especially if those countries supply you with a lot of oil. Saddam should have known the US would never accept his aggression, if only because there was no reason to assume he'd stop at Kuwait...

As for the sale of chemical and biological agents: true. And? German companies build chemical factories in Iraq, France supplied him with an atomic power plant, and loads of weapons, Russia supplied even more weapons; hell, even the Netherlands joined in - we supplied him with night-vision goggles. At the time, it seemed like a good idea, given that he was fighting the evil extremist Iran, which was threatening to overrun the entire middle-east, drive the Jews back into the sea, and cut our vital oil supply...

Quote:

Or was it the United States who was dependent upon their support? We got really cozy with Pervez Musharraf in a big hurry, didn't we? And what exactly did we have to promise Islam Karimov to get his backing for the "war on terra"?

But, of course, we're the United States of America!. When we cozy up to foreign lunatics, it's "good statemanship". When France does it, it's "pathetic compliance." Gotcha.

One of these days, someone's gonna have to compile a Republican-to-English translation dictionary. Maybe then these tragic misunderstandings will stop happening.

I don't blame France for kissing up to foreign leaders; I just blame them for a bad choice at a bad time - supporting Saddam at the very end was clearly not in their best interests. They should have known better, and should not have let their national pride cloud their judgment... But what can one expect from the French...

Superbelt · 08-07-2003, 03:55 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by Dragonlich
To you, and Superbelt: the US did NOT give Saddam permission to invade Kuwait. That they didn't say "don't do it or else" would be called *diplomacy*. Again, in the real world, you usually do not insult leaders of foreign countries, especially if those countries supply you with a lot of oil. Saddam should have known the US would never accept his aggression, if only because there was no reason to assume he'd stop at Kuwait...

As for the sale of chemical and biological agents: true. And? German companies build chemical factories in Iraq, France supplied him with an atomic power plant, and loads of weapons, Russia supplied even more weapons; hell, even the Netherlands joined in - we supplied him with night-vision goggles. At the time, it seemed like a good idea, given that he was fighting the evil extremist Iran, which was threatening to overrun the entire middle-east, drive the Jews back into the sea, and cut our vital oil supply...

If that transcript won't convince you of our permission to invade Kuwait, nothing will. Iraq felt they had to ask us first if they could invade, and we said it isn't our business they can do as they want. That's us giving our permission.

And the USA supplied him with more than just night-vision goggles.

List of US Companies That Sold Weapons Technology to Iraq

Key: A - nuclear K - chemical B - biological R - rockets (missiles)

1. Honeywell (R,K)
2. Spektra Physics (K)
3. Semetex (R)
4. TI Coating (A,K)
5. UNISYS (A,K)
6. Sperry Corp. (R,K)
7. Tektronix (R,A)
8. Rockwell (K)
9. Leybold Vacuum Systems (A)
10. Finnigan-MAT-U.S. (A)
11. Hewlett Packard (A.R,K)
12. Dupont (A) 13. Eastman Kodak (R)
14. American Type Culture Collection (B)
15. Alcolac International (C)
16. Consarc (A)
17. Carl Zeis -US (K)
18. Cerberus (LTD) (A)
19. Electronic Associates (R)
20. International Computer Systems
21. Bechtel (K)
22. EZ Logic Data Systems,Inc. (R)
23. Canberra Industries Inc. (A)
24. Axel Electronics Inc. (A)

Dragonlich · 08-07-2003, 05:07 AM

Superbelt, no, nothing will convince me that the US gave him permission to invade.

My take: Saddam talks in vague diplomatic terms about a conflict between the two countries, *meaning* he will attack if the conflict is resolved. Glaspie doesn't pick up that hidden meaning, but says he won't interfere in the conflict, *meaning* he won't pick a side in the financial conflict...

Besides, does "not saying no" mean that it's okay to invade? Saddam should have taken his case to the UN, remember? That's what the US should have done in it's conflict with Iraq, after all...

Now, as for the US supplies: yes, the US supplied Iraq with nasty weapons. Big deal... EVERYONE supplied Iraq with weapons at that time. The main suppliers (by a HUGE margin) were France and Russia. I already told you that... So what exactly is your point with this list?

Superbelt · 08-07-2003, 06:29 AM

Your one post saying "we gave him night-vision goggles" seems to be saying to me you think we didn't give him any of the wmd's.

And my other point, we were still selling it to him through 1992 AFTER the gulf war.

http://www.doublestandards.org/mackay1.html

We continued to support him militarially after the war we had with him. It took Clinton to enforce the bans on weapons.

Dragonlich · 08-07-2003, 08:45 AM

I pointed at *Dutch* night-vision goggles sales. I did not imply that the US had sold such small things. But still, when you look at the big picture, the US barely sold anything compared to France and Russia.

Again: *German* companies build the factories that allowed Saddam to make his own chemical weapons, while *France* build a nuclear power plant for him. Russia is also suspected of building another nuke plant.

In short: Nobody is innocent in this instance, so *some people* should stop blaming it all on the US.

As for the sales after the gulf war: proof it. The link you provide does not say that. It says biological agents were sold, and *something* was sold up to march '92. This might have been *anything*, including needles, normal medical equipment, medicines and such.

I find it highly unlikely that the Bush (sr) administration would knowingly supply Saddam with biological weapons after they just kicked his arse in a war, a war in which they almost faced those same weapons.

Superbelt · 08-07-2003, 08:49 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by Dragonlich
As for the sales after the gulf war: proof it. The link you provide does not say that. It says biological agents were sold, and *something* was sold up to march '92. This might have been *anything*, including needles, normal medical equipment, medicines and such.

http://www.gulfweb.org/bigdoc/report/riegle1.html

08-05-2003, 08:31 PM	#1 (permalink)
ctembreull Crazy Location: Silicon Valley, CA, USA, Earth	Irony, Thy Name Is Rumsfeld "U.S. Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld apologized today for referring to France and Germany as an "Axis of Weasels." "I'm sorry about that Axis of Weasels remark," said Mr. Rumsfeld. "I didn't mean to dredge up the history that France and Germany share of pathetic compliance with ruthless dictators." (Reuters, January 2003) Here's Rummy shaking hands with ruthless dictator Saddam Hussein: And here's George W. Bush shaking hands with ruthless dictator and noted dissident-boiling afficionado Islam Karimov: I wonder how anyone can possibly take this so-called "government" seriously anymore. __________________ Mac "If it's nae Scottish, it's crap!

08-05-2003, 09:08 PM	#2 (permalink)
Phaenx The Northern Ward Location: Columbus, Ohio	By that yardstick we haven't had a government in decades. __________________ "I went shopping last night at like 1am. The place was empty and this old woman just making polite conversation said to me, 'where is everyone??' I replied, 'In bed, same place you and I should be!' Took me ten minutes to figure out why she gave me a dirty look." --Some guy

08-05-2003, 09:14 PM	#3 (permalink)
The_Dude The GrandDaddy of them all! Location: Austin, TX	really really really ironic about rummy __________________ "Luck is what happens when preparation meets opportunity." - Darrel K Royal

08-05-2003, 09:43 PM	#4 (permalink)
xxmsaxx Tilted Location: Home of the First Clone	what is it they always say, "the enemies of my enemies are my friend" so by that logic, if someone like John Wayne Gacy didnt like my mother-in-law id go hang out with him and play Nintendo. I agree Rumsfeld is a damn liar and this whole administration is a joke. I wish Jim Hightower would run for president. __________________ .................. /..../\../\....\ \|.S.\|..V..\|.A.\| \....\..../..../ .................. Work for pay and pay for freedom

08-06-2003, 09:02 AM	#7 (permalink)
j8ear Gentlemen Farmer Location: Middle of nowhere, Jersey	Rumsfeld as the SecDef years ago is no secret...nor is the propping up of many dictators over the years by the US, from administrations of all stripes. I'm unsure of the issue here? If it's that the US supports dictator's, and shouldn't...agreed. That photo of bush looks photochopped to me. Not that it didn't happen, just that BOTH of the heads on those bodies look manufactured. -b- __________________ It's alot easier to ask for forgiveness then it is to ask for permission.

08-05-2003, 09:46 PM	#5 (permalink)
Dragonlich 42, baby! Location: The Netherlands	How is shaking hands with dictators, or even trading with them and supporting them to further your own cause somehow equal to "pathetic compliance with ruthless dictators"? Had the US given Saddam support after he had threatened to attack, then you might have been correct. But that was clearly not the case. One might argue that these petty dictators were the ones that were pathetic, because they were so dependent on foreign support...

08-07-2003, 05:07 AM	#12 (permalink)
Dragonlich 42, baby! Location: The Netherlands	Superbelt, no, nothing will convince me that the US gave him permission to invade. My take: Saddam talks in vague diplomatic terms about a conflict between the two countries, meaning he will attack if the conflict is resolved. Glaspie doesn't pick up that hidden meaning, but says he won't interfere in the conflict, meaning he won't pick a side in the financial conflict... Besides, does "not saying no" mean that it's okay to invade? Saddam should have taken his case to the UN, remember? That's what the US should have done in it's conflict with Iraq, after all... Now, as for the US supplies: yes, the US supplied Iraq with nasty weapons. Big deal... EVERYONE supplied Iraq with weapons at that time. The main suppliers (by a HUGE margin) were France and Russia. I already told you that... So what exactly is your point with this list?

08-07-2003, 06:29 AM	#13 (permalink)
Superbelt This vexes me. I am terribly vexed. Location: Grantville, Pa	Your one post saying "we gave him night-vision goggles" seems to be saying to me you think we didn't give him any of the wmd's. And my other point, we were still selling it to him through 1992 AFTER the gulf war. http://www.doublestandards.org/mackay1.html We continued to support him militarially after the war we had with him. It took Clinton to enforce the bans on weapons.

08-07-2003, 08:45 AM	#14 (permalink)
Dragonlich 42, baby! Location: The Netherlands	I pointed at Dutch night-vision goggles sales. I did not imply that the US had sold such small things. But still, when you look at the big picture, the US barely sold anything compared to France and Russia. Again: German companies build the factories that allowed Saddam to make his own chemical weapons, while France build a nuclear power plant for him. Russia is also suspected of building another nuke plant. In short: Nobody is innocent in this instance, so some people should stop blaming it all on the US. As for the sales after the gulf war: proof it. The link you provide does not say that. It says biological agents were sold, and something was sold up to march '92. This might have been anything, including needles, normal medical equipment, medicines and such. I find it highly unlikely that the Bush (sr) administration would knowingly supply Saddam with biological weapons after they just kicked his arse in a war, a war in which they almost faced those same weapons.