A Hangman's Day - Page 3

Steeler · 11-07-2006, 04:49 PM

Um, we weren't just playing diplomatic footsie with Hussein in the 80s, we were financing him with arms and equipment in his war with Iran. Reagan knew who he was and what kind of government he was running, but he was our strongman against Iran, so he didn't care.

Anyway, good riddance. But let's not act as if we don't have some embarassing old blood stains on our pant cuffs, even if they are not on our hands.

**DudeMan** · 11-07-2006, 04:52 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by leejo

Right.

right right...

**TheFatKidDeath** · 11-07-2006, 04:58 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by CingularDuality

Are you suggesting that if you and I go shooting together at a target range, and you loan me some ammo, and then, years later, I murder someone with the bullets you gave me, that you're a co-conspirator in the murder?

No, that's not what I am suggesting and your analogy is inaccurate, simplistic and misleading. First, Saddam Hussein did not commit his crime years after the Regan Administration supplied him with weapons. In fact, he was committing his worst crimes (ironically for the same crimes for which he was just sentenced to death), at the same period in which US Government was providing the technology, aid and weapons and not years after the fact. The Reagan Administration weren’t naïve or stupid and the idea that they did not know that Saddam Hussein was going to use the aid and weapons to further his repressive regime is highly dubious.

Secondly, don’t take my word for it, look it up for yourself. There are declassified documents that now available to view the historical record of the US Government and its relationship to Saddam Hussein. Here's the link if you missed it the first time:

http://www.gwu.edu/~nsarchiv/NSAEBB/NSAEBB82/index.htm

**leejo** · 11-07-2006, 05:11 PM

Maybe we should give him a ticker tape parade then? What's your point?

**TheFatKidDeath** · 11-07-2006, 05:14 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by leejo

Maybe we should give him a ticker tape parade then? What's your point?

The point is we helped create this monster and now it's come back to bite us in the ass! The CIA calls it "blowback".

**leejo** · 11-07-2006, 05:22 PM

OK. Did you have a useful point?

**TheFatKidDeath** · 11-07-2006, 05:25 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by leejo

OK. Did you have a useful point?

Yes. The point is we helped create this monster and now it's come back to bite us in the ass! The CIA calls it "blowback".

**leejo** · 11-07-2006, 05:27 PM

OK. So what action do your amazing powers of hindsight suggest we take?

**TheFatKidDeath** · 11-07-2006, 05:51 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by leejo

OK. So what action do your amazing powers of hindsight suggest we take?

Why do I have amazing powers of hindsight? Because I’m simply citing a historical record that anyone can read and access? This is not rocket science and one does not need to be an academic to access information. I’m proof of that.

I don’t understand the question. What should we do now in Iraq? With Saddam Hussein? Our future foreign policy decisions?

**leejo** · 11-07-2006, 06:46 PM

I'm asking why you find it important to remind us, repeatedly, of information that, as you say, anyone can read and access. In fact, people several posts ahead of you did exactly that. So what's your point? Why do you find it important to beat this particular drum?

**TheFatKidDeath** · 11-07-2006, 07:56 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by leejo

I'm asking why you find it important to remind us, repeatedly, of information that, as you say, anyone can read and access. In fact, people several posts ahead of you did exactly that. So what's your point? Why do you find it important to beat this particular drum?

Give me a break my friend. I'm beating the drum because I believe it to be an important part of the discussion. Just as you beat your drum on issues you believe to be of importance:

http://www.tacticalgamer.com/sandbox...ring-iraq.html

http://www.tacticalgamer.com/sandbox...ver-islam.html

http://www.tacticalgamer.com/sandbox...n-soldier.html

Hasn't the drum been beaten enough on THESE topics?

Kerostasis · 11-07-2006, 08:03 PM

Normally, one beats a drum repeatedly when there is some conclusion you want people to draw from the information you keep reminding us of.

So whats your conclusion? Back in the 80s, the US was using Saddam instead of trying to have him killed. Whats your point? What do you suggest we do different today because of it? Do you just want us to feel guilty?

**CingularDuality** · 11-08-2006, 05:06 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by TheFatKidDeath

Give me a break my friend. I'm beating the drum because I believe it to be an important part of the discussion.

I, too, don't understand your point. I thought you were trying to bring something to the discussion. Everyone knows that throughout history unsavory alliances have been made. And it'll happen again. This does not make someone a "co-conspirator", nor does it affect whether or not justice should be brought to one or more parties of such an alliance.

**TheFatKidDeath** · 11-08-2006, 10:01 AM

My point is this:

Supporting tin pot dictators for short term benefits is not in the long term interest of our country, security or moral standing in the world. The CIA, as I stated before, calls this policy “blowback”. To quote a former CIA official Chalmers Johnson:

"Blowback" is a CIA term first used in March 1954 in a recently declassified report on the 1953 operation to overthrow the government of Mohammed Mossadegh in Iran. It is a metaphor for the unintended consequences of the US government's international activities that have been kept secret from the American people. The CIA's fears that there might ultimately be some blowback from its egregious interference in the affairs of Iran were well founded. Installing the Shah in power brought twenty-five years of tyranny and repression to the Iranian people and elicited the Ayatollah Khomeini's revolution. The staff of the American embassy in Teheran was held hostage for more than a year. This misguided "covert operation" of the US government helped convince many capable people throughout the Islamic world that the United States was an implacable enemy.

Additionally, the US support of Saddam Hussein and the crimes he committed are not separate issues. Are we really to believe that the US government did not know of his actions at the time the military and economic aid was given?

**leejo** · 11-08-2006, 10:26 AM

I think these are pretty simple observations that fail to account for the context of these relationships. For example, there are plenty of pictures of Churchill and Stalin hanging out and acting like buddies, but no-one who has read about Churchill is under any illusion about his thoughts on Soviet Russia. The only thing he hated and feared more was Nazi Germany. Stalin was crucial in winning THAT fight. Once it was done, so was the opportunity for cheery photo-ops, so to speak.

Same with SH. Had Soviet-backed mullah-governed Iran not been at war with SH I doubt very seriously that you would have seen Reagan's team partner with him at all.

It's a matter of setting priorities and fighting the most critical fight first. Sometimes this creates worse problems down the road. We can't see the future. But allowing Nazi Germany to crush Europe because someone decided Stalin was an unworthy partner would have been bad, I think, and allowing Iran to crush Iraq would have been bad too, I think.

Should we not be working with China and using our partnerships to lobby them to change some of the ways they treat their people? Musharrif is a pretty rough customer, and no-one thinks of Pakistan as a model democracy, but he is critical in the fight against Al Qaeda NOW. What should we do?

11-07-2006, 04:49 PM	#31 (permalink)
Steeler Join Date: Aug 2005 Location: Taxachusetts Age: 30 Posts: 2,921	Re: A Hangman's Day Um, we weren't just playing diplomatic footsie with Hussein in the 80s, we were financing him with arms and equipment in his war with Iran. Reagan knew who he was and what kind of government he was running, but he was our strongman against Iran, so he didn't care. Anyway, good riddance. But let's not act as if we don't have some embarassing old blood stains on our pant cuffs, even if they are not on our hands. __________________

11-07-2006, 05:11 PM	#34 (permalink)
leejo Join Date: Sep 2003 Age: 39 Posts: 7,524	Re: A Hangman's Day Maybe we should give him a ticker tape parade then? What's your point?

11-07-2006, 05:22 PM	#36 (permalink)
leejo Join Date: Sep 2003 Age: 39 Posts: 7,524	Re: A Hangman's Day OK. Did you have a useful point?

11-07-2006, 05:27 PM	#38 (permalink)
leejo Join Date: Sep 2003 Age: 39 Posts: 7,524	Re: A Hangman's Day OK. So what action do your amazing powers of hindsight suggest we take?

11-07-2006, 06:46 PM	#40 (permalink)
leejo Join Date: Sep 2003 Age: 39 Posts: 7,524	Re: A Hangman's Day I'm asking why you find it important to remind us, repeatedly, of information that, as you say, anyone can read and access. In fact, people several posts ahead of you did exactly that. So what's your point? Why do you find it important to beat this particular drum?

11-08-2006, 10:01 AM	#44 (permalink)
TheFatKidDeath Join Date: Jun 2005 Location: Santa Monica, CA Age: 39 Posts: 2,646	Re: A Hangman's Day My point is this: Supporting tin pot dictators for short term benefits is not in the long term interest of our country, security or moral standing in the world. The CIA, as I stated before, calls this policy “blowback”. To quote a former CIA official Chalmers Johnson: "Blowback" is a CIA term first used in March 1954 in a recently declassified report on the 1953 operation to overthrow the government of Mohammed Mossadegh in Iran. It is a metaphor for the unintended consequences of the US government's international activities that have been kept secret from the American people. The CIA's fears that there might ultimately be some blowback from its egregious interference in the affairs of Iran were well founded. Installing the Shah in power brought twenty-five years of tyranny and repression to the Iranian people and elicited the Ayatollah Khomeini's revolution. The staff of the American embassy in Teheran was held hostage for more than a year. This misguided "covert operation" of the US government helped convince many capable people throughout the Islamic world that the United States was an implacable enemy. Additionally, the US support of Saddam Hussein and the crimes he committed are not separate issues. Are we really to believe that the US government did not know of his actions at the time the military and economic aid was given? __________________ \|TG-9th\| TheFatKidDeath "Born to Party, Forced to Work." http://www.theonion.com/content/node/55640 - Check me out on The Onion http://www.theonion.com/content/vide...ssfully_avoids - I'm on the local news!

11-08-2006, 10:26 AM	#45 (permalink)
leejo Join Date: Sep 2003 Age: 39 Posts: 7,524	Re: A Hangman's Day I think these are pretty simple observations that fail to account for the context of these relationships. For example, there are plenty of pictures of Churchill and Stalin hanging out and acting like buddies, but no-one who has read about Churchill is under any illusion about his thoughts on Soviet Russia. The only thing he hated and feared more was Nazi Germany. Stalin was crucial in winning THAT fight. Once it was done, so was the opportunity for cheery photo-ops, so to speak. Same with SH. Had Soviet-backed mullah-governed Iran not been at war with SH I doubt very seriously that you would have seen Reagan's team partner with him at all. It's a matter of setting priorities and fighting the most critical fight first. Sometimes this creates worse problems down the road. We can't see the future. But allowing Nazi Germany to crush Europe because someone decided Stalin was an unworthy partner would have been bad, I think, and allowing Iran to crush Iraq would have been bad too, I think. Should we not be working with China and using our partnerships to lobby them to change some of the ways they treat their people? Musharrif is a pretty rough customer, and no-one thinks of Pakistan as a model democracy, but he is critical in the fight against Al Qaeda NOW. What should we do? Last edited by leejo; 11-08-2006 at 10:47 AM.

Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 1 (0 members and 1 guests)

Sponsored links

Sponsored links

Sponsored links

Sponsored links