As the Obama administration mulls a military response to punish Syria for allegedly using poison gas to kill hundreds of people in a rebel stronghold, Foreign Policy reports that the U.S. didn't always play the role of the good guy when it came to the use of chemical weapons.
Near the end of Iraq's war with Iran 25 years ago, the U.S., using satellite imagery, warned Iraq that Iranian troops were moving to exploit a hole in its defenses, according to Foreign Policy, citing recently declassified Central Intelligence Agency documents and interviews with former intelligence officials. U.S. officials shared the information with Iraq even though they knew that Saddam Hussein's military was likely to respond by attacking with the lethal nerve agent sarin and other chemical weapons — and he did, killing thousands.
The documents show that then-CIA Director William J. Casey, a close friend of then-President Ronald Reagan, had been told about Saddam's push to make enough mustard gas to keep up with demand on the front lines. "If the Iraqis produce or acquire large new supplies of mustard agent, they almost certainly would use it against Iranian troops and towns near the border," the CIA said in one top secret document.
The new evidence suggests that the Reagan administration decided it was better to let Iraq continue with its attacks — and even point out potential targets — than let the war tip in favor of Iran's mullahs, who at the time were seen as the greater threat. The latest revelations "are tantamount to an official American admission of complicity in some of the most gruesome chemical weapons attacks ever launched," say Shane Harris and Matthew M. Aid at Foreign Policy.
The report fills in some important blanks about the U.S. role in the Iran-Iraq war, but Foreign Policy isn't the first to uncover evidence that Washington had a pretty good idea what Saddam's forces were up to. Here's Max Fisher at The Washington Post:
It's worth noting that academic studies, not to mention U.S. government documents released in 2003, had long ago revealed that the U.S. knew that Iraq was deploying chemical weapons against Iran and still provided Saddam Hussein with intelligence assistance. The CIA documents released this week add important new documentation to that, but the timing of their release — as the U.S. considers whether or how to respond to Syrian chemical weapons use — and their portrayal as revelatory has generated significant controversy in U.S. foreign policy circles. [Washington Post]
However, it does somewhat undercut the Obama administration's claim to higher ground. Conor Friedersorf at The Atlantic:
When humans find themselves greatly empowered, and able to act in secret, they often do morally monstrous things, sometimes with the best of intentions. Part of our job as citizens is to never trust our leaders with that sort of unchecked power, for their sake, for ours, and for the sake of the world. That's easy to see when looking back at the bad behavior of leadership a couple decades ago. But those men were no more or less moral than the people leading us today. [The Atlantic]


http://theweek.com/article/index/248...s-against-iran

Yeah, the US has really created a sh!tshow for themselves from our absolutely horrid foriegn policy over the last 50 years...

Originally Posted by brinktk

Yeah, the US has really created a sh!tshow for themselves from our absolutely horrid foriegn policy over the last 50 years...

I think you can go back further than 50 years to be honest, the USA has employed "Gunboat Diplomacy" as its foreign policy since the opening of Japan in 1853 which it adopted from the Europeans however unlike the Europeans it has persisted with it.

There have been variations on it but in the end it always comes back to the Big Stick mantra and it has worked perfectly well when the economy was growing, the world had the USSR to fear and the cash was flowing in however it now starts to become a hindrance as the threats to the world have diminished.

The sad thing is that in the case of Syria we may actually have a case for intervention but because we have been fed the lies of WMD threats every time you guys want to start a war in the last 25 years we are now somewhat jaded on the terms used and as such it will be almost impossible to get any agreement on a course of action so this will be another one you and the British will have to fight and fund for the next 10 years assuming you have to put boots on the ground.

What lies? Saddam had them and used them. The question was "what happened to them?" Looks like the rumors of going to Syria were right.

Originally Posted by George

What lies? Saddam had them and used them. The question was "what happened to them?" Looks like the rumors of going to Syria were right.

Looks like that's still not why we went in there in the first place.

Gosh Darn Saddam, boogie man with gosh darn WMDs.

Look, other nations have committed homicide against others and their own populations, gendercide as in China, and outright mass genocide all around the world in the last 150 years alone.

Where is Captain America?

Point is, Morals make the Sheeple feel good, it's easy to coral the populace by feeding them all this garbage about values when just like Iraq, it's plan as day. The American Government wants something out of Syria, in this case it's strategic positioning on the geopolitical chessboard. As well as opening avenues for the justification Washington seems to be foaming out the muzzle for a war with Iran. America wants STUFF. Lots of STUFF and vast open trade routes to get it to America to be fed to the 390 million bred mass consumer's who live here. To accomplish this the U.S. needs hundreds of check boxes filled to keep large quantities of goods being ran all up and down our interstates 24/7 to retailers all over the country. Mainly cheap fossil fuels 100% tethered to a world economy tethered again to the U.S. Dollar.

You run the world's reserve currency and institutions like the IMF, then hell you don't even need gunboats, just loan out a few billion to a country, jack up the derivatives to unpayable levels and you own the politics of said Country, or just over through the government. Financial colonialism 2.0.

You really think the Department of State really gives two rats' a$$es about dying babies at the hand of Assad?

No, but complacent MSNBC viewers who don't care to know any better are bought off by sobbing stories of Assad's evil atrocities. Both real and imagined. Last time I checked anyway, the citizens of one nation never declare war on the citizens of another, governments declare war on governments.

I disagree with our foreign policies and am ashamed of the treatment of our citizenry in terms of foreign policy descions. You may call me a terrorist now.

Originally Posted by George

What lies? Saddam had them and used them. The question was "what happened to them?" Looks like the rumors of going to Syria were right.

And the answer is that Hussein got rid of them (more than likely prior to the first gulf war) yet it cost the lives of countless Iraqi civilians, thousands of American and Allied servicemen and the maiming of who knows how many civilians and servicemen and the on going destruction of a nation to prove something that that the weapons inspectors told you in 2000, 2001, 2002 and 2003.

As for Syrian chemical weapons sadly no they did not acquire them from Iraq they built their own as a counter to Israeli nuclear weapons with oddly enough European help.

Originally Posted by MontyB

The sad thing is that in the case of Syria we may actually have a case for intervention but because we have been fed the lies of WMD threats every time you guys want to start a war in the last 25 years we are now somewhat jaded on the terms used and as such it will be almost impossible to get any agreement on a course of action so this will be another one you and the British will have to fight and fund for the next 10 years assuming you have to put boots on the ground.

IMHO, we shouldn't do anything about Syria. We have enough on our hands at home and in Afghanistan to have military intervention in Syria. If they want to kill each other then let them go right ahead. I'm tired of seeing fellow soldiers go fight somebody else's war and come home wounded in some way or in a box.

Originally Posted by lolwhassup

IMHO, we shouldn't do anything about Syria. We have enough on our hands at home and in Afghanistan to have military intervention in Syria. If they want to kill each other then let them go right ahead. I'm tired of seeing fellow soldiers go fight somebody else's war and come home wounded in some way or in a box.

But it is a damned if you do and damned if you don't scenario.

You cant rattle the sabre and champion certain values and then do nothing to aid those trying to implement them but then you cant just go wading in to a mess in the hopes that your presence is going to solve the problem because it wont.

The problem in Syria is similar but greater to the problem in Libya you have a brutal dictator that sorely needs a bullet and eventually the people have risen up against him however over time that uprising has been hijacked by some very radical groups who in the end would be no better than the guy they are fighting to replace.
In my opinion the time to have intervened in Syria was at the beginning when it very much was the people verses a dictator now I think it is too late, the big loser in this is always going to be the poor bugger in the middle who doesn't really want either side.

In many respects I think the only way out of this one would be to do a deal with Assad assist him in sorting out the mess after which he goes into exile somewhere with his millions, he has to go but at the moment he is the closest thing to an organised administration in the country which isn't saying much.

We are damned if we do damned if we don't and it will be us footing the bill both in lives and in money.

Here's the facts...the US military is exhausted from 12 years of combat. The US is on the brink of economic collapse. The US people are absolutely sick of the ineptitude of their government yet are seemingly helpless to change it. How in the hell would we go into Syria?

MontyB may be onto something. Help Assad, then send him into exile. Of course that will never happen...

Originally Posted by lolwhassup

IMHO, we shouldn't do anything about Syria. We have enough on our hands at home and in Afghanistan to have military intervention in Syria. If they want to kill each other then let them go right ahead. I'm tired of seeing fellow soldiers go fight somebody else's war and come home wounded in some way or in a box.

You and me both.

What ever happened to having our military DEFENDING OUR nation?

Not running economical colonialist policies all around the world to increase our at home share prices.

Every country we ally ourselves with we economically tether to our currency, or military aide. It's more business than morals with every example of an alliance with the U.S.

Even examples of strategic alliances due to a country's location in a particular region like with this case in Syria.