web analytics

SYRIAN SIRENS….

By ATWadmin On October 27th, 2008

I was pleased to read that American helicopters flying from Iraq landed inside Syria yesterday and dropped special forces who killed eight people, the Damascus government alleged last night, as Washington admitted it had targeted ….ahem…”foreign fighters.” (Or Jihadists to give these scum their correct title) Syria warned that it held the US “wholly responsible for this act of aggression and all its repercussions”. It described the dead as Syrian civilians, five of them members of the same family. Syrian state television reported that the attack was against a farm near Abu Kamal, five miles from the Iraqi border. Doctors in nearby al-Sukkariya said another seven people were taken to hospital with bullet wounds.

I’m surprised it wasn’t another one of those “wedding parties” that the US military apparently targets!

Listen up – Syria is a terror enabler and deserves all it gets. I’m glad the US has taken this direct action and hope it is a sign of things to come. Boy Bashar has got away with murder, literally, as his country has been willingly used as a Jihad conveyor belt into Iraq and therefore HE, not the USA, is responsible for what happens when the US strikes back. Beware Syrian sirens.

156 Responses to “SYRIAN SIRENS….”

  1. Funny about the USA harping on about peace and democracy etc….but it seems they and their zionist buddies are the ones who seem to ignore the sovereignty and legitimacy of other nations. Well, you reap what you sow.

  2. LOL – two words Syria and Lebanon.

  3. Thats three words David.

    Perhaps you care to elaborate?

  4. RS

    Syria has been involved in the murder of a number of Lebanese politicians in recent years. You know, the ones who would not toe the Syrian line. It regards Lebanon as part of a "greater Syria".

  5. Peter as Hariri and Geymael were murderd a couple of years ago, I doubt the Yanks would be either interested in interveing or wait so long. Nevermind the fact that no definite links were established leading back to Damascus. No, with both USA and Israeli continued agression toward other countries, they merely create more of David’s hated Jihadis and as a result, more American soldiers will die, as will more Israeli civilians.

  6. Syria has no problem taking "executive action" in other peoples countries so I dont really shed any tears for them.

    My only concern is whether or not this is really the most effective way of going about this.
    And of course how many if any of the dead were actually civilians.

  7. However I should add that Talabani has been pretty positive about Syria efforts to halt foreign fighters in the past couple of years.

    Consequently I do find the timing of this a bit odd – especially as Syria is coming in from the cold to a certain extent – indirect talks with Israel, Sarkozy coming over to visit, better relations with other Arab countries etc.

  8. "Consequently I do find the timing of this a bit odd"

    Let’s just say, with there only a being a week or so to the US Election, that the Bush Doctrine need a little bit of help to get McCain’s support going again.

    In reality, when Syria interferes with another country it is wrong. When the United States interferes with another country it is wrong. These murders by the United States need to be condemned from all sides.

  9. America calls women and children ‘foreign fighters’ when it slaughters them. At least this time they did not rape the girls first! Syria may ba a ‘terrorist enabler’ but what does that make the US? Death squads in South America, state sponsored terrorism by Israel, Guantanamo, Abu Graib, Osama Bin Laden, Saddam Hussain etc. All supported by the US making any terrorism support by Syria insignificant in comparison.

  10. –America calls women and children ‘foreign fighters’ when it slaughters them–

    You know, its possible to take a position on this without lying through your teeth.

  11. Phantom -it isn’t possible for Michael, he knows no other way.

  12. I hope Syria strike back in whatever way is feasible.

  13. DC
    you may want to reflect on who that would benefit given the US elections.

    I suppose you could also reflect on whether that lay behind the timing of the raid, given that there must have been foreign fighters based in Syria for years (as well as Jordan and Saudi), and its curious that such a raid would only start now, given that Syria and the Iraqi government have good relations and as I said before Syria is gradually coming back into the fold.

  14. Andy, I don’t give a stuff who it benefits.

  15. Considering the ‘Iraqi Army’ were also involved perhaps this is yet again part of the USA’s strategy to sow discord among middle east nations and prevent hegemony in the region which might threaten the USA’s ability to interfere so much.

  16. RS

    And its ok with you if foreign adventurers cross through Syria into Iraq?

  17. Phantom,

    Is it ok with you that the US drop bombs on Syria? If so would you accept that Syria is entitled to respond?

  18. ‘Considering the ‘Iraqi Army’ were also involved perhaps this is yet again part of the USA’s strategy to sow discord among middle east nations and prevent hegemony in the region which might threaten the USA’s ability to interfere so much.’

    I have a feeling this is in some way related to the recent upheaval, and Iraqi opposition to America’s plan to stay 3 more years in Iraq. ( To secure the Oil).

  19. And its ok with you if foreign adventurers cross through Syria into Iraq?

    Foreign adventurers have been passing from the US into Iraq since 2003 leaving death and chaos in their wake. A far greater crime than anything Syria may be guilty of.

  20. DC

    I think that it is right that foreign terrorists ( not Syrian troops ) are attacked wherever they are.

  21. If it turns out the US killed a load of civilians should those responsible be punished?

  22. I think that it is right that foreign terrorists ( not Syrian troops ) are attacked wherever they are.

    You must be a politician. You answered the question you’d like to have been asked, rather than the one you were actually asked.

  23. ‘And its ok with you if foreign adventurers cross through Syria into Iraq?’Well considering a couple of hundred thousand foreigners from the USA and further afield crossed Iraqi sovereign borders in 2003, I fail to see how the USA can complain. If Syria had invaded Canada would the USA stay out of it?

    ‘I think that it is right that foreign terrorists ( not Syrian troops ) are attacked wherever they are’

    So you agree Iraqi resistance have the right then to bomb US army bases in the USA?

  24. Don’t the lefties wish civilians were injured or killed.

    I don’t recall DC complaining too vociferously about the "foreign (ahem) fighters" killing civilians. Perhaps I missed them

    No one should attack civilians intentionally ( which the terrorists have done again and again ) and the greatest of care should be taken to avoid hitting them accidentally ( which the US and Brits and coalition have always tried to do )

  25. Phantom, read very slowly

    If it turns out the US killed a load of civilians should those responsible be punished?

  26. I don’t answer loaded questions, senor.

    The so called Iraq resistance has the right to stop fighting and reconcile themselves with their countrymen. If they don’t do that they are responsible for the consequences

  27. Don’t the lefties wish civilians were injured or killed.

    An appalling comment.

  28. I don’t answer loaded questions, senor.

    Remove ‘loaded’ from the sentence and we have the truth.

  29. DC

    I’m not playing your assholish game.

    If civilians were harmed due to intent or due to recklessness, those responsible should be punished.

  30. I’m not playing your assholish game

    Yes how unfair of me to ask you to play the ‘provide a straight answer to a straight question’ game.

  31. –Don’t the lefties wish civilians were injured or killed.–

    Its the gospel truth. It would suit the political purposes of many.

    Including those who rarely or only begrudingly criticized the very intentional killings of civilians by the so called resistance

  32. The fact is that civilians will be killed in any war, especially when one side intentionally hides among them.

    All efforts should be made to protect civilians. Period.

    That is a straight answer to your crooked question.

  33. can i just say that "assholish" is a good word ?
    – and one that I shall be endeavouring to make more use of.

  34. Andy

    Glad you like it! No charge!!

  35. Its the gospel truth

    No. It’s a gross insult but then that’s what rightworld does best.

  36. It may be a hurtful truth, but it is the truth.

  37. Stria reaps what it sews.

    And our troops will keep insuring the likes of Michael, RS and Drunken can live in free societies while they criticise without comprehending.

  38. not saying I approve of Phantom’s use of it in this context of course..

  39. >>Stria reaps what it sews.<<

    Mahons, I would say Europe sews what Bush rips.

  40. Stria reaps what it sews.

    Troll, is that you? lol

    And our troops will keep insuring the likes of Michael, RS and Drunken can live in free societies…

    Mahons, I sincerely hope Syria punishes the US in whatever way is practical and feasible for this act of aggression and I apologise to nobody for that.

  41. Stria is a bigger problem than Syria

  42. ‘And our troops will keep insuring the likes of Michael, RS and Drunken can live in free societies while they criticise without comprehending.’

    US troops insure that Irish /Norwegian/Austrailian ( choose your countr) people live in free societies?

  43. US troops insure that Irish /Norwegian/Austrailian ( choose your countr) people live in free societies?

    I know Pinky, the mind boggles.

  44. ‘No one should attack civilians intentionally ( which the terrorists have done again and again ) and the greatest of care should be taken to avoid hitting them accidentally ( which the US and Brits and coalition have always tried to do )’

    Really Phantom you sure?

  45. sorry if my last post sounded churlish Phantom – I posted it before I read your 2:18

    (as a return tip, I find I am using the word "ass-clown" a lot at the moment)

    On topic –

    Syria in the past has conducted raids on what it (rightly) described as terrorist training camps in Iraq and Jordan (I’m talking 1980s here) so can have no real moral problem with what the US did here.

    However, no offence to anyone here personallly, but its a bit rich to complain about Syria interfering in other countries when it has done absolutely nothing on the scale of "interference" a la "Operation Iraqi Freedom".

    Additionally, its probably better to get punters like Syria on side, despite their faults. Better in the tent and all that..

    Interestingly that’s what Bush’s father did in the 1991 Gulf war.

  46. RS

    Phantom has drunk the cool aid. His ears are blocked.

  47. ‘And our troops will keep insuring the likes of Michael, RS and Drunken can live in free societies while’

    I wasn’t aware Iraq was planning on invading Ireland, nor was i aware the taliban had a beef with the emerald isle !!!!!!!

  48. An excellent capitalist Cool Aid it is, DC

    Most refreshing.

  49. I wasn’t aware Iraq was planning on invading Ireland, nor was i aware the taliban had a beef with the emerald isle !!!!!!!

    LOL

    They want to take over the world, RS. Quick, run and hide!

  50. I wouldn’t count the Aussies, They pull their fair shair of defense.

  51. Really, you sure?

    Fisk and your choice of newspaper are going to get slammed.

    Look, discussing the Middle East with Americans and those from rightworld, is an exercise in futility, really. The rest of the civilised world is wrong, but the yanks are right.

    End of story 🙂

  52. Andy

    No worries

    The Norwegians have been pro US and pro NATO over the years, and have done a good job , considering their important position right next to Russia / USSR

  53. Indeed Pinky. They get very testy when you ask them did all those children who died in Iraq under the sanctions deserve it.

  54. Your probably right Pinky, we all know the righties prefer to get into bed….I mean embed their journalists.

  55. Well if the knee jerk " America is always wrong" batallion exit the field, perhaps a more serious conversation will unfold.

    " If the Americans bomb kittens, should that behavior be encouraged" type questions don’t really help much

  56. Well if the knee jerk " America is always wrong" batallion exit the field, perhaps a more serious conversation will unfold.

    You’d like an echo chamber wouldn’t you, all cosy inside?

    Tough.

  57. No, serious conversation is to be encouraged. But IMHO your approach of always criticizing the actions of the Americans and Coalition and ( I think ) rarely or never criticizing the intentional acts of the foreign adventurers is not serious discussion at all.

  58. ‘They get very testy when you ask them did all those children who died in Iraq under the sanctions deserve it.’

    Yes, that type of response is common:’ We will discuss it rationally ( which is of course impossible b/c they are so ill-informed on the matter) if you do not bring up the fact that the US and Israel combined have killed thousands maybe even millions of innocent people in the Middle East. Please do not mention our brutality.’

    It’s just they don’t like to know the truth. Futile exercise, really.

  59. But IMHO your approach of always criticizing the actions of the Americans

    I don’t do that but the US has done much damage these past years and I won’t hesitate to highlight it. I’m totally oppossed to imperialism.

  60. ‘No, serious conversation is to be encouraged. But IMHO your approach of always criticizing the actions of the Americans and Coalition and ( I think ) rarely or never criticizing the intentional acts of the foreign adventurers is not serious discussion at all.’

    Phantom, when my taxes are paid to iraqi insurgents to arm themselves in the slaughter of innocents and they form a govt with the help of my vote and then go completely against the wishes of the majority and invade another country who didn’t attack us, then I’ll turn my attention to criticisng them more often.

  61. i think its very rare to get any kind of synthesis of ideas on blogs. I think ATW is better than most but most "debates" here consist of two sides effectively shouting at each other. If we’re lucky then these exchanges are evidence /logic based and people may moderate their stance over time.

  62. And still some hold on desperately to the idea of American exceptionalism, a US beyong criticism, even as ‘the empire ‘ splutters on the world stage.

    It used to be that the world believed in the ‘exceptionalism’ claim; those days are gone, and Americans are havong a difficult time coming to terms with that.

    ( Which of course, ties into international support for Barack Obama- the world is looking for the US to regain some morality in global affairs).

  63. One of the most common criticisms of the Iraq invasion was that it was not necessary, as sanctions had Saddam Hussein in a tight box, and that further international crimes on his part were impossible.

    But it has always been my point, here and elsewhere, that sanctions were about to fall.

    And here again, criticism of the sanctions, in 2008.

    Sanctions would have indeed fallen by 2003 or so, had there been no invasion and the world situation would have been much worse than it is now.

    If the war is ultimately judged to be a bad thing, then those who criticized sanctions will bear great responsibility for that war happening. It was they who made the war necessary.

    If they had their way, there would be both no war and no sanctions. And at this stage, that would mean a very rich and unreformed Saddam Hussein.

  64. This incident is of course not without precedent. In 1943, when Hitler’s armies were tramping over the helpless all over Europe, the United States army had nothing better to do than invade neutral Ireland one night, an act that will surely forever live in infamy.

    But they reckoned without the LDF! Locals went from cottage to cottage all over Cavan waking up volunteers of the Local Defence force, who with their paltry arms hurried to the border to repel this rude breach of your sovereignty.

    Although the Sons of Oisin unfortunately weren’t able to find the border in the fog, rumours of their advance and fighting mettle had evidently instilled such fear in many an American breast that the USAF quickly beat the most Ulster of all retreats – a reverse not seen again until the Saigon embassy episode a generation later.

    One of the young men mobilised on that fateful and historic night was my father.

  65. Huh?

    You speak of the US forces that were in NI?

  66. Although the Sons of Oisin unfortunately weren’t able to find the border in the fog,

    LOL LOL

  67. "If the war is ultimately judged to be a bad thing, then those who criticized sanctions will bear great responsibility for that war happening. It was they who made the war necessary."

    Saddam Hussein had been completely defanged following the first Gulf War. If America really cared about the threat of Iraq why didn’t they remove him then?

    In reality the war was not neccessary and its only effects on the world is to make it more dangerous and more expensive.

  68. –If America really cared about the threat of Iraq why didn’t they remove him then?–

    Because the UN Resolution did not authorize it. The coalition at the time would have fallen apart

    And I remember severe criticism by the usual lefties of the actions taken by the US in the days before the ceasefire.

    Saddam would have been able to rearm quickly in the sanctions free regime that was about to happen. You think that Putin would have had any problems selling him advanced weapons in exchange for hard currency?

  69. ‘Because the UN Resolution did not authorize it.’

    So are you saying the USA should abide by every resolution or just the ones that suit?

  70. Putin would have had bother selling anyone anything in 1991.

  71. "They get very testy when you ask them did all those children who died in Iraq under the sanctions deserve it."

    They didn’t deserve it, but the blame lies entirely with Saddam’s regime. Iraq wasn’t prevented from importing food or medicine under the sanctions.

  72. "Because the UN Resolution did not authorize it."

    When did the United States require UN authorisation for its actions?

  73. Iraq wasn’t prevented from importing food or medicine under the sanctions.

    Ross, it was prevented from importing medicines.

  74. RS

    We should continue to do what’s right. That’s the best policy.

    –It was prevented from importing medicines–

    Believe that is incorrect. They may not have had enough money to buy the medicines needed ( thanks in no small part due to chiseling by Saddam and his friends at home and abroad ) but there were I believe explicit exceptions to allow for imports of both food and medicine via the Oil for Food program.

  75. The problem with that is the US gets to unilaterally decide what’s right. And in this context ‘right’ means ‘in America’s strategic interest’ which generally means misery for those on the recieving end of America’s ‘right’ actions.

  76. right. And in this context ‘right’ means ‘in America’s strategic interest’

    Of course, which is why in the 80’s the US was Saddams best pal- and Rumsfeld/Cheney/Rightnuts were constant visitors to the Iraqi dictators palaces!!!!

  77. "Ross, it was prevented from importing medicines."

    No, as Phantom said there were specific exemptions to the sanctions that allowed medicine to be imported.

    "Of course, which is why in the 80’s the US was Saddams best pal- and Rumsfeld/Cheney/Rightnuts were constant visitors to the Iraqi dictators palaces!!!!"

    Rumsfeld went once. I’m not aware of Cheney ever having visited him.

  78. Ross,

    Were the US and Iraq allies during the 1980’s? When the widespread slaughter of Kurds and other groups was taking place in Iraq? Chemical weapon attacks?

    So if they were OK in the 80’s why were they not OK in the 90’s ?

  79. Churchill and Roosevelt were allied with the monstrous Stalin. Met with him too. When two monsters ( Stalin and Hitler ) fought one another, the West had to do something. Being neutral was not an honest policy.

    Similarly, when two monsters ( Saddam and Khomeini ) fought one another, the US did tilt to Saddam. For understandable reasons. There were no wonderful options

  80. **in this context ‘right’ means ‘in America’s strategic interest’ which generally means misery for those on the recieving end of America’s ‘right’ actions.**

    DC, I would argue that it is in ALL contexts- as so amply displayed on this thread.

  81. "Were the US and Iraq allies during the 1980’s? "

    They weren’t allies, that suggests a much closer relationship than that which existed. When Iran started to win the war with Iraq the USA helped Iraq avoid total defeat by providing satellite intelligence to them.

  82. Pinky, agreed.

  83. >>Saddam and Khomeini <<

    Phantom, Khomeini was a small-time tyrant, and admittedly the greater enemy of the US. But he was nothing of the monster that Saddam was. Besides it was Saddam that attacked and invaded Iran and killed over a quarter of a million Iranians. It was shameful to assist him in this in any way.

    Besides, didn’t the hawks in the Reagan administration also sell Khomeini weapons!

  84. They are asking us to pay for the knives

    they gave Saddam to slaughter us.

    — Dr. Hasim al Hassani, Iraqi Islamic Party

  85. Noel

    Iraq did invade Iran. I think that Saddam thought that the regime there would quickly crumble, which certainly was not the case.

  86. Noel
    Israel too actually.
    Interestingly they were on the verge of selling the Shah nuclear technology prior to the Revolution.

  87. Phantom
    Tilt is an understatement. The US and many other countries in the West supplied chemical weapons to Iraq and stood by and did nothing when they were used against Iran and in numerous attcks internally in Iraq. Only when Kuwait was invaded did anyone care and that was again because of a threat to the world oil supply.

  88. Pinky –

    Of course, which is why in the 80’s the US was Saddams best pal

    Rubbish. The Soviet Union, the Chinese and the French and Germans were his pals. Those countries sold him arms and built his chemical and biological factories.

    As Ross says, during the Iran-Iraq war the US handed Iraq some satellite photographs of Iranian positions.

  89. The Noble Role of the United States.

    ‘Analysis of thousands of captured Iraqi secret police documents and declassified U.S. government documents, as well as interviews with scores of Kurdish survivors, senior Iraqi defectors and retired U.S. intelligence officers, show (1) that Iraq carried out the attack on Halabja, and (2) that the United States, fully aware it was Iraq, accused Iran, Iraq’s enemy in a fierce war, of being partly responsible for the attack. The State Department instructed its diplomats to say that Iran was partly to blame. The result of this stunning act of sophistry was that the international community failed to muster the will to condemn Iraq strongly for an act as heinous as the terrorist strike on the World Trade Center.

    This was at a time when Iraq was launching what proved to be the final battles of the war against Iran. Its wholesale use of poison gas against Iranian troops and Iranian Kurdish towns, and its threat to place chemical warheads on the missiles it was lobbing at Tehran, brought Iran to its knees.

    Iraq had also just embarked on a counterinsurgency campaign, called the Anfal, against its rebellious Kurds. In this effort, too, the regime’s resort to chemical weapons gave it a decisive edge, enabling the systematic killing of an estimated 100,000 men, women, and children.

    The deliberate American prevarication on Halabja was the logical, although probably undesired, outcome of a pronounced six-year tilt toward Iraq, seen as a bulwark against the perceived threat posed by Iran’s zealous brand of politicized Islam. The United States began the tilt after Iraq, the aggressor in the war, was expelled from Iranian territory by a resurgent Iran, which then decided to pursue its own, fruitless version of regime change in Baghdad. There was little love for what virtually all of Washington recognized as an unsavory regime, but Iraq was considered the lesser evil. Sealed by National Security Decision Directive 114 in 1983, the tilt included billions of dollars in loan guarantees and other credits to Iraq.

    Sensing correctly that it had carte blanche, Saddam’s regime escalated its resort to gas warfare, graduating to ever more lethal agents. Because of the strong Western animus against Iran, few paid heed. Then came Halabja.

    Unfortunately for Iraq’s sponsors, Iran rushed Western reporters to the blighted town. The horrifying scenes they filmed were presented on prime time television a few days later. Soon Ted Koppel could be seen putting the Iraqi ambassador’s feet to the fire on Nightline.

    In response, the United States launched the "Iran too" gambit. The story was cooked up in the Pentagon, interviews with the principals show. A newly declassified State Department document demonstrates that U.S. diplomats received instructions to press this line with U.S. allies, and to decline to discuss the details.

    It took seven weeks for the UN Security Council to censure the Halabja attack. Even then, its choice of neutral language (condemning the "continued use of chemical weapons in the conflict between the Islamic Republic of Iran and Iraq," and calling on "both sides to refrain from the future use of chemical weapons") diffused the effect of its belated move. Iraq proceeded to step up its use of gas until the end of the war and even afterward, during the final stage of the Anfal campaign, to devastating effect. When I visited Halabja last spring, the town, razed by successive Iranian and Iraqi occupiers, had been rebuilt, but the physical and psychological wounds remained.

    Some of those who engineered the tilt today are back in power in the Bush administration.

    They have yet to account for their judgment that it was Iran, not Iraq, that posed the primary threat to the Gulf; for building up Iraq so that it thought it could invade Kuwait and get away with it; for encouraging Iraq’s weapons of mass destruction programs by giving the regime a de facto green light on chemical weapons use; and for turning a blind eye to Iraq’s worst atrocities, and then lying about it.

    http://www.globalpolicy.org/security/issues/iraq/history/husseinindex.htm

  90. PM is right. Saddams’s biggest allies were definitely France and the USSR.

    However the USA helped with much more than satellite imagery – they also gave Iraq a lot of diplomatic cover and verging on direct military support.
    When Iraq started attaching Iranian shipping in the Gulf, Iran threated to respond by attacking ships going to Iraq. The US then said they could re-flag the ships American so that an attack on them would be classed as an attack on the US.

    They also shot down an Iranian airline. While I would imagine that was an "accident" – the fact they promoted the captain responsible and gave the ship’s crew a heros welcome when it returned was a bit impolite.

  91. >>, during the Iran-Iraq war the US handed Iraq some satellite photographs of Iranian positions.<<

    Implying that that’s all they handed him.

    The Washington Post tells it differently (Washington Post Weekly Edition” (1/6-12/2003):

    The main facts are no longer in dispute. In violation of the Geneva Protocol of 1925 (which outlaws chemical warfare), the Reagan-Bush administration authorized the sale of poisonous chemicals and deadly biological viruses, from anthrax to bubonic plague, throughout the ’80s. In 1982, while Saddam Hussein constructed his machinery of war, Reagan and Bush removed Iraq from the State Department list of terrorist states.

    Iraq was already using chemical weapons on an "almost daily basis" when Donald Rumsfeld met with Saddam Hussein in 1983, consolidating the U.S.-Iraq military alliance.

    Subsequently, the Pentagon supplied logistical and military support; U.S. banks provided billions of dollars in credits; and the C.I.A., using a Chilean conduit, increased Saddam’s supply of cluster bombs. U.S. companies also supplied steel tubes and chemical substances, the types of material for which the Security Council is now searching.

    As late as 1989 and 1990, according to a report from U.S. representative Dennis Kucinich (Democrat, Ohio), U.S. companies, under permits from the first Bush administration, sent mustard gas materials, live cultures for bacteriological research, to Iraq. U.S. companies helped Iraq build a chemical weapons factory, and then shipped Hussein a West Nile virus, hydrogen cyanide precursors, and parts for a new nuclear plant.

    The infamous massacre at Halabja — the gassing of the Kurds — took place in March 1988. On September 19, sixth months later, U.S. companies sent eleven strains of germs, four types of anthrax to Iraq, including a microbe strain, called 11966, developed for germ warfare at Fort Detrick in the ’50s. (Judith Miller provides a partial account of the sordid traffic in U.S. chemicals and germs in her book, “Germs: Biological Weapons And America’s Secret War”.)

    Dow Chemical (infamous for its napalm in the Vietnam War) sold large amounts of pesticides, toxins that cause death by asphyxiation. Twenty-four U.S. firms exported arms and materials to Baghdad. France also sent Hussein 200 AMX medium tanks, Mirage bombers, and Gazelle helicopter gunships. As Assistant Secretary of Defense Richard Armitage testified in 1987: "We cannot stand to see Iraq defeated."

  92. We can cut through this crap right now. Other nations armed the Baathist regime.

    The US is well down the list, dwarfed in its efforts by other nations. Here, a nice, simple graph to illustrate who armed Iraq from 1973 to 1990:

    http://www.indybay.org/uploads/2003/12/05/iraqiweapons.jpg

    Let’s have some intellectual honesty for once. Before trotting out the usual, dreary, unthinking tosh about the United States, let’s have some condemnation for the Soviets, the Chinese and the Czechs and the French and all those other countries ahead of the US in arming Saddam Hussein.

  93. Pete, did you read Noel’s post?!!!

  94. US intelligence helped Saddam’s Ba`ath Party seize power for the first time in 1963. Evidence suggests that Saddam was on the CIA payroll as early as 1959, when he participated in a failed assassination attempt against Iraqi strongman Abd al-Karim Qassem. In the 1980s, the US and Britain backed Saddam in the war against Iran, giving Iraq arms, money, satellite intelligence, and even chemical & bio-weapon precursors. As many as 90 US military advisors supported Iraqi forces and helped pick targets for Iraqi air and missile attacks.

  95. ‘Let’s have some intellectual honesty for once. Before trotting out the usual, dreary, unthinking tosh about the United States let’s have some condemnation for the Soviets, the Chinese and the Czechs and the French and all those other countries ahead of the US in arming Saddam Hussein.’

    In case you hadn’t noticed Pete, the thread is about military action from the USA. People are merely pointing out the form the USA has in this area.

  96. I think that it is right that foreign terrorists ( not Syrian troops ) are attacked wherever they are.

    So does Al Queda.

  97. DC –

    Yes, I read that WaPo piece twice and like many such pieces it leaves much more unsaid than resolved. I read it twice because I suspect it conceal much For example:

    the Reagan-Bush administration authorized the sale of poisonous chemicals and deadly biological viruses, from anthrax to bubonic plague, throughout the ’80s.

    Well hang on a minute. Base substances for chemicals and biologicals weapons have many uses – agricultural, medicinal, industrial. You can blame Germany and India and the Netherlands for selling Iraq the chemicals to bring about Halabja.

    You can blame the Soviets, the Chinese and France for selling the military hardware to bring it about. Those gas shells were delivered by artillery that wasn’t built in the US.

    Did you look at the graph I linked to?

  98. Pete

    I was going to make the same comment. Iraq isn’t a small country, and they do have a need for pesticides and a conceivable need for the other products

    Could you criticize anyone selling such products to such a regime? For having improper due diligence? Very possibly or probably yes. But that does not mean that Rumsfeld said " Sure buy all the chemicals you like so that you can gas your enemies with them "

    I shall imagine that some or all of these products were sold to all kinds of countries, not just Iraq.

  99. But that does not mean that Rumsfeld said " Sure buy all the chemicals you like so that you can gas your enemies "

    No Rumsfeld is far too moral to ever even think such a thing.

  100. Phantom –

    Lemme see if I get this right. The sanctions were immoral and resulted in the deaths of hundreds of thousands, although medicines weren’t part of the sanctions. But it was also immoral of the US not to ban the sale to Iraq of all sorts of chemicals which could have been used for endless peaceful purposes, include clinical and medicinal.

    The Lefties have this one figured out to their usual high standards.

    So far on this thread we’ve had the US upbraided for not violating the sovereignty of Iraq, yet the US is upbraided for violating the sovereignty of Syria.

    The usual suspects have criticized the US for complying with the UN Resolution which which authorised only the liberation of Kuwait, instead of steaming on to Baghdad.

    Yet before and after 2003 the US was roundly criticized for invading Iraq without the backing of a UN resolution.

    Funny, Clinton bombing Kosovo and Serbia without a UN Resolution never seemed to trouble them.

    And today we’re just in Syria and the violation of theor sovereignty. Well, boo hoo. A senior terrorist is reported dead and I’ll drink to that.

    Yet when Obama talked of Operaton Leap the Mountains and his invasion of Pakistan – not a peep from this crowd.

    What a shower.

  101. The sanctions… resulted in the deaths of hundreds of thousands

    That’s not disputed by anyone. Apart from you perhaps!

    But it was also immoral of the US not to ban the sale to Iraq of all sorts of chemicals which could have been used for endless peaceful purposes, include clinical and medicinal.

    Wrong again. It was immoral to back Saddam politically when he was gasing his own people.

    The usual suspects have criticized the US for complying with the UN Resolution which which authorised only the liberation of Kuwait, instead of steaming on to Baghdad.

    Not me.

    Yet before and after 2003 the US was roundly criticized for invading Iraq without the backing of a UN resolution.

    Yes. Because it set such a dangerous precedant. Is it only the US that is allowed to whatever it wants or is it fine for every state to do likewise?

    Funny, Clinton bombing Kosovo and Serbia without a UN Resolution never seemed to trouble them.

    Nonsense. It was a cowardly, criminal act which made the situation on the ground even worse.

    And today we’re just in Syria and the violation of theor sovereignty. Well, boo hoo.

    So presumably you’d defend Syria’s right to strike back? Violating another state’s sovereignty is nothin to cry over. Or is that only the case when the US does it?

  102. DC –

    Yes, I defend Syria’s right to strike back. Let them come out into the open, manly battlefield and slug it out in a fair fight.

    That’s the right of Syria.

    I know what you mean by the right of Syria to defend itself – it’s the right to send through more terrorists in the dead of night to kill and maim indiscriminately.

    Now if you Leftists had a brain cell each you’d realise that Iraq is a sovereign nation with democratically convened government. The US did not initiate hostilities against Syria. It struck back itself on behalf of a sovereign nation against terrorists who have used Syrian territory without hindrance from Damascus.

    Now, before you drool any more of your unthinking Leftist drivel across the thread, go and look at the table I linked to. Don’t print it out, you’ll only colour it in. Look at it closely.

  103. Yes, I defend Syria’s right to strike back. Let them come out into the open, manly battlefield and slug it out in a fair fight.

    Ah that manly battlefield again, the one in which brave young men drop bombs from the sky onto defenseless people.

    As I said earlier on this thread I hope Syria responds in whatever way is feasible. The US needs to feel pain for this act of aggression.

  104. Yes Pinky, one of the reasons Ireland is free today is the scarifice of American and (it pains you I know) British troops. Ironic isn’t it? Same goes for Norway and Australia, where the populations are a tad more grateful, realistic and had the decency to lend a hand.

    If you want to live in a Celtic Fairyland that pretends otherwise, enjoy yourself.

  105. Yes Pinky, one of the reasons Ireland is free today is the scarifice of American and (it pains you I know) British troops. Ironic isn’t it? Same goes for Norway and Australia, where the populations are a tad more grateful, realistic and had the decency to lend a hand.

    The mind boggles!

  106. It only boggles if plain truths are hard to comprehend.

    Nazi Germany and the USSR were ultimately as much a threat to Ireland as they were to the rest of western Europe. The new threats and problems, ditto.

  107. No Phantom, it’s just wrong on so many levels one wonders where to begin! lol

  108. Stop revisiting your comments and editing them please.

  109. The new threats and problems

    Well, we disagree on them. The "terrorist threat" is a fuckin joke. But you cool aid kids buy it without question.

  110. Sorry, it comes with the territory. I will continue to do it.

    If I spot an error I will fix it immediately and note it, including typos

    If I can add to the thought I will do so

    I don’t retroactively address subsequent comments or at least try never to do that.

    The ability to edit is a really great feature here and I will continue to use it. You should too.

  111. Drunken – I understand why your mind would boogle, but perhaps if it would google instead you might learn a little history.

  112. I’m sure you’re delighted with that one, Mahons. But I prefer books and have a far greater knowledge and understanding of history than will ever will.

  113. DC, Seamus, etc.

    Do you think it was right that Ireland was neutral in WW2?

    Don’t need a lecture on England’s misdeeds in Ireland – I could give that lecture myself, and will quite likely agree with anything you might say there.

    But do you think it was the moral thing to remain neutral?

  114. one of the reasons Ireland is free today is the scarifice of American

    We saved you so let us romp around the world ‘kicking ass’?

    Getting kind of boring.

  115. But do you think it was the moral thing to remain neutral?

    No but it was understandable that they took the position they did at that time. Also, bear in mind that in many ways Ireland was neutral only in name.

  116. Drunken – I agree you may have a greater knowledge of history than someone named Will. Will Smith, Will Ferrell, maybe even William Tell.

    Phantom – I don’t think Ireland had a choice then, and they did lean the way of the Allies. But I don’t mind reminding the DC’s of the world who has protected them all these years when they spout off.

  117. Mahons,

    You’re a joke.

  118. But do you think it was the moral thing to remain neutral?

    Didnt seem to phase the USA until they had little choice.

  119. Daytripper – so long as we protected and continue to protect you, you will have to get used to the boring part. I don’t think that the protected have to agree with everything we do, I don’t myself, but exaggerated claims will be dealt with.

  120. >>one of the reasons Ireland is free today is the scarifice of American and (it pains you I know) British troops. Ironic isn’t it? Same goes for Norway and Australia, where the populations are a tad more grateful, realistic and had the decency to lend a hand.<<

    Not true, mahons.
    The US didn’t join the war until it was attacked at the end of 1941, long after the Battle of Britain – when perhaps Ireland was in danger of a German invasion – and when the German armies were already retreating before the Russians and certainly in no position, and no mood, to attack some island in the Atlantic.

    >>ame goes for Norway and Australia, where the populations are a tad more grateful, realistic and had the decency to lend a hand.<<

    Wishful thinking, I’m afraid. Norway had a total of 40 soldiers in Iraq, which is probably also the number of Norwegians who supported that war.
    Basically, all that coalition of nobodies was merely a figleaf to conceal the embarrassing lack of international sanction that the US sought for starting the war.

    You confuse involvement with loyalty. Norway is in NATO because it realises – from past experience – that it’s an attractive target and defenceless without the alliance. It naturally has to fulfil its NATO obligations – in Afghanistan – or it is out. This does not mean it believes in these conflicts or feels any loyalty or even gratitude to the US for WWII. NATO membership was basically a reaction to the Russian threat, and Russia can be said to have liberated Norway from the Nazis just as much as the US did.

    The people of Norway undoubtedly feel the same way about the US and Bush as the Irish do. In fact, I’d say there is much more pro-American sentiment in Ireland than among our Nordic friends. The difference is that Ireland is a neutral country and does not have to make the correct political sounds when the war drums start a’rolling.

  121. Mahons I dont think anyone was doubting the positive impact of the US in WWII (or if they were they were drooling imbeciles) its just your previous comment seemed to indcate the war in Iraq was somewhere linked to freedom for Ireland, Norway etc.

    Knowing your position on the war in Iraq, I obviously find that doubtful, but thats how i read the comment. (you used the present tense etc)

    Also
    I love the idea of "a fair fight"… as if the US didnt indulge in covert action, use airpower/ pilotless drones etc Hilarious in fact.

  122. >>Do you think it was right that Ireland was neutral in WW2?<<

    Interesting question, Phantom, and strange as I was just thinking of it last night.
    My conclusion (ahem) is that it was not right, and Ireland should have joined the war on the side of Britain, at the latest when our old friend France was attacked (as should the US).

    There are some things bigger than the accursed border or Britain’s recognition of our constitution.

  123. mahons can speak for himself, but I don’t think that he feels that participation in Iraq was in any way a litmus test for loyalty as an ally

    And I agree with the statement that Ireland and Norway are among the most pro US countries anywhere ( with the exception of the usual suspects in both places who don’t need to be named ) The current situation with Bush and Iraq is atypical.

    Noel

    Couldn’t agree more with your 8:53. An overt participation by Ireland would have been the right thing to do, and may even have helped somewhat with the north. Churchill hinted at that (*). I wish De Valera had called him on it.

    (*) Churchill sent a telegram to De Valera, and included in it the phrase " A Nation Once Again "

  124. Noel – you misunderstand me, I am not just talking World War II, I am talking World War Two up until this very moment. Ireland has been protected not just from the Germans, but from the Russians by US and British forces.

    My allusion to Norway dealt with their particiapation in NATO, and my allusion to Austalia with their active participation in the defense of democracy. It was not aimed at Iraq.

    Andy – I was not implying Ireland’s freedom was somehow wrapped up in the Iraq mess. Hell I don’t believe American freedom is. I referred to the continuing world threats that have existed for more than fifty years and exists to this day.

    There is a part of the world that is free. It is imperfect, but it truly exists in counterpoint to the part of the world that is not. I am against the idea of the Gitmo jails and the Iraq war because I think it undermines the credibility of the free world. But I don’t see those failings as underming the actual superiority of the ideas of the free world.

  125. Drunken Cyclist – I find those such as yourself who boast of their own knowledge and in the same sentence use the phrase "than will ever will" to be scholars of limited ability. So I will presume in kindness that you meant to write "You joke", to which I reply "No."

  126. Tell me they haven’t resorted to the "You’d all be speaking german if it wasn’t for us !"
    line???????

  127. RS

    Go to bed

  128. >>I find those such as yourself who boast of their own knowledge and in the same sentence use the phrase "than will ever will" to be scholars of limited ability.<<<

    Oh come on, mahons. What about your own lovely "Stria reaps what it sews." on the first page of this very thread!
    DC only slipped up on one word!

  129. "Nazi Germany and the USSR were ultimately as much a threat to Ireland as they were to the rest of western Europe. The new threats and problems, ditto."

    Only one country has ever invaded this country and that was the British Empire. Why should we ally ourselves with the country that has been the biggest threat to Ireland?

    "Do you think it was right that Ireland was neutral in WW2?"

    Hindsight is a wonderful thing. In 1939 Adolf Hitler was righting the wrongs of the past. Up until the invasion of Norway in 1940 the Germans had not fought or intimidated any country that did not have a significant German population and where that poopulation residing in a place that had previously been part of either the German or Austrian Empires. Only the annexation of Bohemia and Moravia was unjustified.

    Rhineland – Was German Territory
    Austria – Voted for Unification
    Sudetenland – Was German and previously part of the Austrian Habsburg Empire, the successor to the German Holy Roman Empire
    Posen, West Prussia and Danzig – Had all been part of the German Empire until Versailles and had a significant, and in some sources majority, German population
    Northern Schleswig – Had been part of the German Empire

    Only Bohemia and Moravia was an Imperialistic move. Compared to the many aggressive military campaigns in history of the British and the French, and the Russians and even the United States, what Hitler was doing wasn’t all that bad. No one knew at the time the horrors that Hitler would bestow upon the world.

    Also, too many Irishmen in history had been killed by Britain for Ireland to officially share a Battlefield with them. You forget that the majority of the Irish Political Establishment in 1939 were made up of people who had fought the British in the War of Independence.

    In hindsight, if at the start of the war the horrors that would become the Holocaust were known to the Irish people then I feel that we should have entered the war. In terms of the facts, as we knew them, neutrality was morally the right thing to do. Let the Imperial Powers fight their Imperial Wars as they had done two decades before. At the time it did not appear to be the simple battle between good and evil.

  130. Go to bed??????? Well I suppose one does tire of your constant ignorance and inaccuracies Phantom.

    But its only 21:30 here, and im a big boy now !

  131. RS

    Your failure to comprehend does not make the rest of us bad teachers.

  132. My failure to comprehend eh?

    Sure Phantom. But hey you know what they say

    "Those who can’t do…."

  133. Noel – You failed to recognize the ancient Greek spelling of Syria? Look, I have typos and mispellings like the next man, but I get a kick out of those who have them in the same sentence as their self-professed genuis. It is his wild factual errors, obnoxious comments and juvenile pandering that i find more troubling.

    Seamus -We’ll leave the Vikings out of it. Neutrality was Ireland’s only real choice in the war given its lack of defenses. I can’t fault the neutrality then. But I do fault a failure to move on now, the British aren’t the enemies of modern Ireland.

  134. Mahons, the Vikings were more a race than a nation. They raided Ireland on many occassions and built a few settlements, but they never attempted to subjugate the Irish people. The British are the only nation who have.

    Secondly, even if Ireland had the military ability to fight in the Second World War, it would still have been the right decision giving the facts at the time.

    Thirdly, it is difficult to move on considering the terrible tradgedy that the British have brought to this country. You forget Mahons that British involvement and prescence in Ireland has caused the deaths of over a million Irishmen. Why should we forget this?

  135. Seamus –

    You insult us by saying only the British ever invaded Ireland.

    We English invaded you good and proper long before Britain existed.

  136. Pete, Britain inherited the customs, style of Government and systems of England. Only natural that she inherited England’s crimes as well.

  137. Mahons,

    I find those such as yourself who boast of their own knowledge and in the same sentence use the phrase "than will ever will" to be scholars of limited ability

    "Stria reaps what it sews"

    And I’ll just point out that there was no boasting going on. I merely said that my knowledge and understanding of history is superior to your own. That doesn’t exactly cover me in glory.

  138. Good to see the US military act upon G.W. Bush’s promise that "we will make no distinction between the terrorists themselves and those who harbour them".

  139. And like "the terrorists" they don’t much care whether or not it’s civilians they’re slaughtering.

    Mr Muallem, however, insisted that the attack on an unfinished building in al-Sukkariyeh had killed only civilians, among them a father and his three sons, as well as a security guard, his wife and a fisherman who was plying his trade nearby

    Shame on them.

  140. Ah, well, Mr Muallem insisted. So that clinches it then.

    Cyclist, can I ask you something? did you follow the MSM news reports of the Lebanon conflict in 2006? And did you read the numerous blogs and websites where the MSM’s tactics (photoshopping of pictures, fake "rocket attack" on ambulance where it was shown that the implosion could not possibly have been caused by a missile, fake "Grieving woman" seen in numerous photos, clearly posed/stage-managed, etc etc)? Did you read up on any of that? And if so…you still trust and quote from the mainstream media? When its bias, and the lengths of distortion it will go to in order to further that bias, has already been so clearly exposed and demonstrated?

    Well, Mr Tyler also insists. You don’t know Mr Muallem, and you don’t know me. -Well, alright, you probably know that I am very pro-USA and pro-Israel in my overall outlook, which makes me biased. But who is to say that Mr Muallem is not equally biased in the other direction? Or that he even exists, come to think of it.

  141. Well done on managing not to call me a "Jew-hater" in that comment. Still though, take your meds Tom.

  142. But who is to say that Mr Muallem is not equally biased in the other direction? Or that he even exists, come to think of it.

    He’s the Syrian foreign minister. But I take your point, maybe David Miliband doesn’t exist either.

  143. What a wonderful thought! I rather hope that David Miliband doesn’t exist, or that at least he is just a failed experimental android. It’s the glazed, empty stare, like he’s done too many E’s. The android technicians really need to work on that.

  144. …But back to the point: Well done, AmeriKKKKKKKKKKKKKa! Long may Bush-hitler-halliburton-chimp-thingumy-whatever continue to stick it to the terrrrrists. They don’t like it up ’em, Captain Mannering!

  145. >>Well done, AmeriKKKKKKKKKKKKKa! Long may<<

    Tom, whould you have fired a missile that you knew would kill seven innocent people, including children, and one terrorist?

    And please, none of that crap about terrorists hiding behind civilians, etc. The person who shoots and kills civilians is responsible for their deaths.

  146. The person who shoots and kills civilians is responsible for their deaths.

    And would be themselves branded a terrorist if done up Oxford street or 5th Ave.

  147. would you have fired a missile that you knew would kill seven innocent people, including children, and one terrorist?

    My point exactly. America simply doesn’t do that. Therefore the MSM reports about the victims being simple, innocent farmers is horse-s**t. Even if the USA military was such a malevolent, heartless beast as it is portrayed, it would not waste its missiles on such a pointless target. What would be the point? No, the US knew exactly who and what they were targeting, and the MSM automatically leaps to portray the targets as mere innocent civilian victims. Bull-crap of the highest order.

    The person who shoots and kills civilians is responsible for their deaths
    No, the terrorist who deliberately hides and embeds himself amongst a "human wall" of civilians is responsible for their deaths, because the US military will not shirk from targetting and destroying terrorists, and the terrorists know this full well. Which is why they choose their despicable tactic of embedding themselves behind a wall of civilians. They are nothing but measly cowards, afraid to bare themselves and fight man-to-man. Instead, they hide behind a wall of women and children. And then they have the gall to claim that the USA is the "terrorist".

  148. Drunken – Lets just agree that you are covered in something.

  149. >>Instead, they hide behind a wall of women and children. <<

    Please explain, Tom: are you saying the army didn’t know there were women and children present…

    >>My point exactly. America simply doesn’t do that. <<

    …or that there were actualy no women and children present?

  150. Ahh the zionist sock puppet returns. Any more blatant lies you wanna peddle Tom? I suppose the first nations were paid by the white man for all the land that was taken of them as well eh?

  151. Ahh, Shalom, dear Gentile friend. No, I’m sorry but I have no more blatant lies to peddle tonight, as it’s Tuesday, and I make it a personal rule not to tell blatant lies on Tuesdays, but to merely limit myself to peddling subtle Zionist deceptions, half-truths and sheer ignorant rantings.
    Tell you what, why not ask me again tomorrow, as I always tell the most outrageous Zionist lies on Wednesdays. You’ll love it, it’ll be a gas!

    PS, re that white man you mentioned, the one who pays good money for land…you wouldn’t happen to have his phone number, would you? It’s just that I’ve got this plot of polluted wasteland undeveloped prime land, and I’d be interested in striking a deal for it. All genuine offers will be considered. As long as I make a profit.

  152. Tom, are you saying that there were actualy no women and children killed in this attack or that the army didn’t know or suspect that there were any present?

  153. Noel, as I wasn’t there, I can merely speculate, not "say" for sure. But in general, I would guess that the US military probably did not know.
    In a battlefield situation, things can happen very fast and haphazardly, and neither side can always be certain about such things. All I am saying is that, in general, I reckon that the US military does its best to avoid civilian deaths/casualties, while at the same time not shirking from attacking a target. I contrast that with the likes of, say, certain Palestinian suicide-bombers, who deliberately target civilians in their attacks.
    I hope that is (at least the starting point of) an answer to your question.

  154. >>In a battlefield situation, things can happen very fast and haphazardly,<<

    Certainly, but this wasn’t one; this was a planned attack. And if they got the man they were looking for – a top terrorist, remember, who obviously knew would be a target and did not sing about his presence – they must have had very good intelligence. It is just not credible that they did not know or suspect that others would also be in the house.

    >>But in general, I would guess that the US military probably did not know. <<

    With all respect, Tom, you’re bluffing and actually contradicting yourself all over the place.
    You said in a previouis comment that terrorists hide behind civilians.
    You also said the "US knew exactly who and what they were targeting"
    and that "the US military will not shirk from targetting and destroying terrorists,", i.e. will go ahead and kill them wherever they find them.
    Now your opinion is that the US didn’t know civilians would also be present.

  155. Well at least your honest about your dis-honesty double T.

  156. There’s no contradiction, Noel. At least, not necessarily.
    I think it is reasonable to claim in broad terms that the US military (a) knows exactly who and what they were targeting, (b) will not shirk from targetting and destroying terrorists, and yet at the same time, it cannot be absolutely sure that the target will not be embedded amongst civilian shields at the precise moment of impact. That is quite a different scenario from deliberately targetting civilians.
    Yes, I admit that I am biased, but I’m not bluffing in the sense of deliberately excusing the US miltary’s actions "no matter what". I’m only saying "in general". Take, for example, the infamous photos of certain US military personnel abusing Iraqi POWs – utterly disgusting. I won’t stick up for that sort of thing.