Exclusive: CIA Files Prove America Helped Saddam as He Gassed Iran

[Kondor3]

Is this what Kondor3 is looking for

How Did Iraq Get Its Weapons? We Sold Them
Rumsfeld 'helped Iraq get chemical weapons' | Mail Online
US Companies Sold Iraq Billions Of NBC Weapons Materials

.

If you're referring to the 1994 Riegel Report on the Gulf War, those findings have been challenged on multiple occasions and its findings dealt in possibilities and the report dwelt upon the sale of dual-purpose materials, some of which could have been tweaked or utiiized in combinations of other materials, to create biological or chemical weapons.

It's only real value has been to introduce the Possibility of Doubt into government protests over VA Health Claims for veterans of the Gulf War who have been afflicted with symptoms and ailments which might have been triggered in whole or in part by the use of such weaponry.

It said nothing about confirmation of such suspicions or whether the materials that we sent were utilized for purpose A or B or whether they were weaponized and deployed against the Iranians nor our own Coalition years later.

And, not only does the Riegel Report have holes in it big enough to drive a truck through, it is being belched-up some some of the most specious and self-serving Liberal Leftie websites, domestically and abroad, as some kind of hard or reasonable evidence in that vein.

None of what is being posted here supports Synthaholic's contention that we provided Saddam with chemical weapons such as the nerve gases deployed against the Iranians, as was his fervent contention a page or two ago on this thread...

No, this was, indeed, and apparently, NOT what Kondor was looking for, but thanks for trying...

 

[Kondor3]

"...I said that Reagan aided and abetted Saddam's use of Chemical weapons..."

That is NOT what you were saying during the course of our OWN exchange.

This is all covered quite efficiently in Post No. 42 ( http://www.usmessageboard.com/current-events/309780-exclusive-cia-files-prove-america-helped-saddam-as-he-gassed-iran-3.html#post7748795 )

Your are welcome...

 

[PrometheusBound]

The enemy of my enemy is my friend. Why should we care what he did to the Iranian scum? Reagan had a realistic and effective policy on this.

The Kurds? Why do we care about these people. Do you know that, spread out over four countries, there are more Kurds than Iraqis. If they were too backward to unite and fight against their oppressors, it's entirely their own fault they were oppressed.

 

[Synthaholic]

Is this what Kondor3 is looking for

How Did Iraq Get Its Weapons? We Sold Them
Rumsfeld 'helped Iraq get chemical weapons' | Mail Online
US Companies Sold Iraq Billions Of NBC Weapons Materials

.

If you're referring to the 1994 Riegel Report on the Gulf War, those findings have been challenged on multiple occasions and its findings dealt in possibilities and the report dwelt upon the sale of dual-purpose materials, some of which could have been tweaked or utiiized in combinations of other materials, to create biological or chemical weapons.

It's only real value has been to introduce the Possibility of Doubt into government protests over VA Health Claims for veterans of the Gulf War who have been afflicted with symptoms and ailments which might have been triggered in whole or in part by the use of such weaponry.

It said nothing about confirmation of such suspicions or whether the materials that we sent were utilized for purpose A or B or whether they were weaponized and deployed against the Iranians nor our own Coalition years later.

And, not only does the Riegel Report have holes in it big enough to drive a truck through, it is being belched-up some some of the most specious and self-serving Liberal Leftie websites, domestically and abroad, as some kind of hard or reasonable evidence in that vein.

None of what is being posted here supports Synthaholic's contention that we provided Saddam with chemical weapons such as the nerve gases deployed against the Iranians, as was his fervent contention a page or two ago on this thread...

No, this was, indeed, and apparently, NOT what Kondor was looking for, but thanks for trying...

My fervent contention was that Reagan aided and abetted chemical weapon use by Saddam Hussein against Iranian troops. That's the OP.

I've said it multiple times, but you cannot seem to address this OP without deflecting.

 

[Synthaholic]

The enemy of my enemy is my friend. Why should we care what he did to the Iranian scum? Reagan had a realistic and effective policy on this.

The Kurds? Why do we care about these people. Do you know that, spread out over four countries, there are more Kurds than Iraqis. If they were too backward to unite and fight against their oppressors, it's entirely their own fault they were oppressed.

Because we led the fight to make chemical weapons illegal.

 

[Kondor3]

"...My fervent contention was that Reagan aided and abetted chemical weapon use by Saddam Hussein against Iranian troops. That's the OP. I've said it multiple times, but you cannot seem to address this OP without deflecting."

Whatever in the world makes you think that I was trying to address the OP, much less 'deflecting' over it?

I was addressing your claim that Reagan sold chemical weapons to Saddam, among other things.

I was addressing the remarks that you made MID-STREAM within the thread; not the OP.

MID-STREAM.

This is all adequately addressed in Post No. 42.

http://www.usmessageboard.com/current-events/309780-exclusive-cia-files-prove-america-helped-saddam-as-he-gassed-iran-3.html#post7748795

But you've known that all along...

If there's any deflecting going on, it's a (failed) revisionist attempt to portray the differences during our exchange as pertaining to the OP, when, in truth, they pertained to remarks made mid-stream in the thread, and not the OP...

Consequently, if there is any 'deflecting' going on between the two of us, it's not on my end.

 

[Synthaholic]

"...My fervent contention was that Reagan aided and abetted chemical weapon use by Saddam Hussein against Iranian troops. That's the OP. I've said it multiple times, but you cannot seem to address this OP without deflecting."

Whatever in the world makes you think that I was trying to address the OP, much less 'deflecting' over it?

I was addressing your claim that Reagan sold chemical weapons to Saddam, among other things.

I was addressing the remarks that you made MID-STREAM within the thread; not the OP.

MID-STREAM.

This is all adequately addressed in Post No. 42.

http://www.usmessageboard.com/curre...d-saddam-as-he-gassed-iran-3.html#post7748795

But you've known that all along...

If there's any deflecting going on, it's a (failed) revisionist attempt to portray the differences during our exchange as pertaining to the OP, when, in truth, they pertained to remarks made mid-stream in the thread, and not the OP...

Consequently, if there is any 'deflecting' going on between the two of us, it's not on my end.

Your first post was #18.

What were you addressing?

 

[Kondor3]

"...Your first post was #18. What were you addressing?"

It doesn't matter what my first post was... 18, 19, 20, 500, 2300, whatever...

The only thing that DOES matter in our narrow little context is the differences between us regarding the two claims that you made mid-stream; explained in Post No. 42.

1. You did, indeed, claim that Reagan supplied Saddam with chemical weapons.

2. You did, indeed, claim (by implication: 'Read the OP, retard', in answer to such a question) that the OP contained such allegations.

When, in fact, neither is true, as explained in Post No. 42.

This isn't about the OP.

This is about the claims that you made mid-stream within the thread.

This is about your claims (1) and (2) [above] being successfully refuted.

With (1) being far more important, and easiest to discern and counterpoint.

This has already dragged-on far longer than it should, thanks to your inability to concede a minor point or two and then to move on.

Or is it simply that you failed to comprehend or recognize the basis for the differences, while still arguing them?

In this narrow context, you've lost this pointless pissing contest, as evidenced in No. 42.

Better luck next time.

I really wouldn't give a frog's fat ass who won our little exchange, and would have been happy to concede the point(s) and move on myself, if the situation warranted that, but, given your collegial labeling of me as a 'Retard' some pages back, you piqued my interest just long enough to prove that even a tiny-brained little 'Retard' like Yours Truly can have some fun playing with easy-to-refute dogmatic ideologues without breaking a sweat.

 

[Synthaholic]

"...Your first post was #18. What were you addressing?"

It doesn't matter what my first post was... 18, 19, 20, 500, 2300, whatever...

The only thing that DOES matter in our narrow little context is the differences between us regarding the two claims that you made mid-stream; explained in Post No. 42.

1. You did, indeed, claim that Reagan supplied Saddam with chemical weapons.

2. You did, indeed, claim that the OP contained such allegations.

When, in fact, neither is true, as explained in Post No. 42.

This isn't about the OP.

This is about the claims that you made mid-stream within the thread.

This is about your claims (1) and (2) [above] being successfully refuted.

This has already dragged-on far longer than it should.

In this narrow context, you've lost the pissing contest, as evidenced in No. 42.

Better luck next time.

It was addressed in post #43!


Dumbass.

 

[Synthaholic]

So, now we can get back to you defending Reagan's war crimes.

 

[Kondor3]

"...It was addressed in post #43! Dumbass.

1. That was not YOU trying to defend the point; you had to lean on somebody else.

2. No. 43 was addressed in No. 61; the Riegel Report is inadequate for such purposes.

 

[Kondor3]

So, now we can get back to you defending Reagan's war crimes.

1. I have not defended Reagan.

2. Reagan committed no War Crimes in this context, insofar as I am aware.

 

[Synthaholic]

"...It was addressed in post #43! Dumbass.

1. That was not YOU trying to defend the point; you had to lean on somebody else.

2. No. 43 was addressed in No. 61; the Riegel Report is inadequate for such purposes.

Why should I need to re-post what others have posted in this very thread?

I'm sorry, but I cannot continue to bitch-slap you all day long. I have yardwork to do.

But now that I have settled your deflection attempt once again, I look forward to you finally addressing the OP. Or getting the fuck out of the thread. Either one.

 

[Kondor3]

"...It was addressed in post #43! Dumbass.

1. That was not YOU trying to defend the point; you had to lean on somebody else.

2. No. 43 was addressed in No. 61; the Riegel Report is inadequate for such purposes.

Why should I need to re-post what others have posted in this very thread?

I'm sorry, but I cannot continue to bitch-slap you all day long. I have yardwork to do.

But now that I have settled your deflection attempt once again, I look forward to you finally addressing the OP. Or getting the fuck out of the thread. Either one.

2. No. 43 was addressed in No. 61; the Riegel Report is inadequate for such purposes.

The Riegel Report does NOT say that Reagan (Administration) provided Saddam with chemical weapons (mustard gas, sarin nerve gas, etc.).

You cannot use a Report to prove that something happened, when the report ITSELF does NOT say that something happened.

And, yes, you would be better off now, leaving for a while and tackling some yard work.

It will give you time to conjure up some other Deflection Mechanism that is also doomed to fail.

It is entirely legitimate to focus upon Sidebars and Midstream Points made during the course of a thread; especially when the thread creator himself is the one raising the Sidebars and Midstream Points.

No exit from the thread is necessary nor appropriate under such circumstances.

Although I can certainly understand why you would like to portray it as such.

I might consider such a tactic, myself, if my back was against the wall as hard as yours is, in this narrow context.

You lost our narrow little exchange.

Let it go.

 

[Synthaholic]

1. That was not YOU trying to defend the point; you had to lean on somebody else.

2. No. 43 was addressed in No. 61; the Riegel Report is inadequate for such purposes.

Why should I need to re-post what others have posted in this very thread?

I'm sorry, but I cannot continue to bitch-slap you all day long. I have yardwork to do.

But now that I have settled your deflection attempt once again, I look forward to you finally addressing the OP. Or getting the fuck out of the thread. Either one.

2. No. 43 was addressed in No. 61; the Riegel Report is inadequate for such purposes.

The Riegel Report does NOT say that Reagan (Administration) provided Saddam with chemical weapons (mustard gas, sarin nerve gas, etc.).

You cannot use a Report to prove that something happened, when the report ITSELF does NOT say that something happened.

And, yes, you would be better off now, leaving for a while and tackling some yard work.

It will give you time to conjure up some other Deflection Mechanism that is also doomed to fail.

It is entirely legitimate to focus upon Sidebars and Midstream Points made during the course of a thread; especially when the thread creator himself is the one raising the Sidebars and Midstream Points.

No exit from the thread is necessary nor appropriate under such circumstances.

Although I can certainly understand why you would like to portray it as such.

I might consider such a tactic, myself, if my back was against the wall as hard as yours is, in this narrow context.

You lost our narrow little exchange.

Let it go.

No one has referred to the 1994 Riegel Report except for you.

None of those 3 links refer to the 1994 Riegel Report.

Your deflection has been obliterated.

Now, address Reagan's aiding and abetting a war crime.

 

[Kondor3]

[

"...No one has referred to the 1994 Riegel Report except for you. None of those 3 links refer to the 1994 Riegel Report..."

The very first of those three referenced links from Post No. 43...

How Did Iraq Get Its Weapons? We Sold Them

...in its second sentence, and I quote, refers to...

"...Reports by the US Senate's committee on banking, housing and urban affairs -- which oversees American exports policy..."

...and the Riegel Report was a summary of that very same testimony before that very same committee...

...and the linked article references Senator Riegel EXPLICTLY in its paras 9 and 10, and I quote...

--------------------

"...Donald Riegle, then chairman of the committee, said: 'UN inspectors had identified many United States manufactured items that had been exported from the United States to Iraq under licenses issued by the Department of Commerce, and [established] that these items were used to further Iraq's chemical and nuclear weapons development and its missile delivery system development programs.'

Riegle added that, between January 1985 and August 1990, the 'executive branch of our government approved 771 different export licenses for sale of dual-use technology to Iraq. I think that is a devastating record'..."


--------------------

"...None of those 3 links refer to the 1994 Riegel Report..."

EPIC FAIL

==============================

"...Your deflection has been obliterated..."

Only in your own mind.

As evidenced by the above.

"...Now, address Reagan's aiding and abetting a war crime."

Ahhhhhh...

So now we've changed our tune, from Reagan COMMITTING War Crimes to Reagan AIDING AND ABETTING War Crimes?

A wise retreat indeed, comrade.

 

[Synthaholic]

[

"...No one has referred to the 1994 Riegel Report except for you. None of those 3 links refer to the 1994 Riegel Report..."

The very first of those three referenced links from Post No. 43...

How Did Iraq Get Its Weapons? We Sold Them

...in its second sentence, and I quote, refers to...

"...Reports by the US Senate's committee on banking, housing and urban affairs -- which oversees American exports policy..."

...and the Riegel Report was a summary of that very same testimony before that very same committee...

...and the linked article references Senator Riegel EXPLICTLY in its paras 9 and 10, and I quote...

--------------------

Who gives a shit what Donald Riegel says?

There were two other links in post #43.

 

[Synthaholic]

"...Now, address Reagan's aiding and abetting a war crime."

Ahhhhhh...

So now we've changed our tune, from Reagan COMMITTING War Crimes to Reagan AIDING AND ABETTING War Crimes?

A wise retreat indeed, comrade.

Show where I claimed that Reagan committed war crimes.

 

[Kondor3]

[

"...No one has referred to the 1994 Riegel Report except for you. None of those 3 links refer to the 1994 Riegel Report..."

The very first of those three referenced links from Post No. 43...

How Did Iraq Get Its Weapons? We Sold Them

...in its second sentence, and I quote, refers to...

"...Reports by the US Senate's committee on banking, housing and urban affairs -- which oversees American exports policy..."

...and the Riegel Report was a summary of that very same testimony before that very same committee...

...and the linked article references Senator Riegel EXPLICTLY in its paras 9 and 10, and I quote...

--------------------

Who gives a shit what Donald Riegel says?

There were two other links in post #43.

Dear Colleague:

You have just had your backside kicked in open adversarial conversation.

You are now encouraged to resume your yard work, as an aid to recovery.

Hard physical work is sometimes efficacious as a purgative for a clogged mind.

Enjoy your day.

Best regards,

Kondor the Retard

 

[Synthaholic]

[

The very first of those three referenced links from Post No. 43...

How Did Iraq Get Its Weapons? We Sold Them

...in its second sentence, and I quote, refers to...

"...Reports by the US Senate's committee on banking, housing and urban affairs -- which oversees American exports policy..."

...and the Riegel Report was a summary of that very same testimony before that very same committee...

...and the linked article references Senator Riegel EXPLICTLY in its paras 9 and 10, and I quote...

--------------------

Who gives a shit what Donald Riegel says?

There were two other links in post #43.

Dear Colleague:

You have just had your backside kicked in open adversarial conversation.

You are now encouraged to resume your yard work, as an aid to recovery.

Hard physical work is sometimes efficacious as a purgative for a clogged mind.

Enjoy your day.

Best regards,

Kondor the Retard

Well, you've cherry-picked one link, and tried to use one report to discredit all the links.

It's a massive FAIL on your part.

Plus, you've lied in this thread, so any credibility you had has vanished.

Plus, you refuse to address the OP.