• Our software update is now concluded. You will need to reset your password to log in. In order to do this, you will have to click "Log in" in the top right corner and then "Forgot your password?".
  • Welcome to PokéCommunity! Register now and join one of the best fan communities on the 'net to talk Pokémon and more! We are not affiliated with The Pokémon Company or Nintendo.

CIA files reveal U.S. helped Saddam Hussein gas Iranis in '88

14,092
Posts
14
Years
Bit of a long read, but I think it's important to know.
Spoiler:
Spoiler:

Source


Given that we are almost totally certain that we have chemical & biological weapon use in Syria by Assad, how does this make the United States look, if we were to intervene there? Are you surprised that our foreign policy in the '80s involves being very friendly with our enemies in the 2000's? Should there be any kind of repercussions for the people involved in the Reagan-Bush Sr. Administration?

*Also making a Syria thread, so let's keep this one to the story above please, talk about Syria in its own thread.
 

TRIFORCE89

Guide of Darkness
8,123
Posts
19
Years
Are you surprised that our foreign policy in the '80s involves being very friendly with our enemies in the 2000's?
No, not surprised. The US has always had strange bedfellows. They do things to, apparently, serve the interests of that country not other countries.

Should there be any kind of repercussions for the people involved in the Reagan-Bush Sr. Administration?
No. From what I read, they only sat on information.
 
5,983
Posts
15
Years
Are you surprised that our foreign policy in the '80s involves being very friendly with our enemies in the 2000's?

Same thing happened for the Taliban too, right? I think Saddam actually used the Cold War animosity as much as he could back in the day, courting both the American and Soviets. A legacy of that as well is the American friendship with Pakistan, just because India was more Soviet-oriented. If they were anti-communist, they were allies.

Should there be any kind of repercussions for the people involved in the Reagan-Bush Sr. Administration?

Should there be? Maybe by divine intervention or karma. But in the machine of policy-making, no one person is responsible. And it's really hard to determine who could be. It's not one solid mass, but a web of responsibility and authority that results in the decisions being made. It's a part of bureaucracy that the people involved become faceless.
 
14,092
Posts
14
Years
Same thing happened for the Taliban too, right? I think Saddam actually used the Cold War animosity as much as he could back in the day, courting both the American and Soviets. A legacy of that as well is the American friendship with Pakistan, just because India was more Soviet-oriented. If they were anti-communist, they were allies.

Well, we aided the Mujahadeen and worked very closely with the Saudis and the Pakistani ISI back in the 80's because they were all helping tribal Afghani forces in resisting the Soviets. The catch was that everybody had thier own secret agendas, and the relationships were shaky at best. The Reagan Administration pumped billions and billions into the CIA's black budget to help them, and due to a literal myriad of conditions, Bin Laden, the rise of militant fundamentalist Islam, religious ferver, etc, it basically blew back in our faces in the early 2000's.
 

J

good morning
420
Posts
17
Years
  • Seen Jun 21, 2016
This is fairly moderate by CIA standards.
Let us recall, for example, the Nicaraguan Contras, and the Somoza dynasty in that same country; Noriega in Panama, the butchers in El Salvador, Suharto in Indonesia, Pinochet in Chile and the Shah in Iran...

Anyone who still thinks that "the Agency" is an instrument of world peace and the US a crusader for democracy and human rights ought to be dragged to the back of the room and given ten lashes of the whip!
 
Last edited:
5,285
Posts
14
Years
  • Age 29
  • Seen yesterday
Wow...this completely slipped under my radar (The article, not the chemical attacks in the 80s xD), I guess because I went from reading about how the CIA overthrew Iran's government in the 1950s (Shocker, wouldn't be surprised if they kicked off Syria tbh) to celebrating the UK not intervening in Syria.
But basically the US supported the use of WMD's? Damn right there should be consequences for everyone who knew and had the power to do anything - even if it was just telling people about it. If it wasn't that other countries are probably just as bad (Sadly our government probably knew about it - the "Special relationship" is basically where the UK is given info on a need-to-know basis and told not to oppose the US), I'd suggest they should be kicked off their permanent seat in the UN Security Council.
 
14,092
Posts
14
Years
This is fairly moderate by CIA standards.
Let us recall, for example, the Nicaraguan Contras, and the Somoza dynasty in that same country; Noriega in Panama, the butchers in El Salvador, Suharto in Indonesia, Pinochet in Chile and the Shah in Iran...

Anyone who still thinks that "the Agency" is an instrument of world peace and the US a crusader for democracy and human rights ought to be dragged to the back of the room and given ten lashes of the whip!

Oh, Reagan and the Contras. Good times.


I'd suggest they should be kicked off their permanent seat in the UN Security Council.

That would be a very bad idea.
 
Back
Top