History lesson: When the United States looked the other way on chemical weapons

[kpete]

* AND THE HISTORY LESSON OF THE DAY, CHEMICAL WEAPONS EDITION: Glenn Kessler provides it:

During the Iran-Iraq war of the 1980s, even as the Reagan administration knew Iraq was using chemical weapons, the U.S. was supplying materials to help manufacture them. Fair or not, this sort of legacy makes it harder to get people to accept the notion that use of them constitutes some kind of unacceptable moral red line for the U.S.

MORE:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/plum-line/wp/2013/09/04/the-morning-plum-how-white-house-hopes-to-get-congress-to-yes-on-syria/
http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/fact-checker/post/history-lesson-when-the-united-states-looked-the-other-way-on-chemical-weapons/2013/09/04/0ec828d6-1549-11e3-961c-f22d3aaf19ab_blog.html

[maxsolomon]

1. Does the signing of the CWC constitute a "moral red line"?

Or the Geneva Protocol of 1929?

The author is correct, it is not "fair" to hang Reagan's legacy around Obama's neck.

[SidDithers]

2. Obama isn't Reagan...nt

Sid

[Bluenorthwest]

23. Obama has never spoken against Reagan's Iraq actions, but he did appoint Chuck Hagel

who was a chief campaign advisor to Reagan and first served in government as a Reagan appointee. This is a Republican, a Reaganite, and Obama's Sec of Defense. This sort of thing does not exactly distance him from the various Republican administrations to make horrific mistakes in that region.;
Funny how often Obama praised Reagan and how he never brought up the chilling horror of the gassing of the Kurds and Iraqis when asked about how great Reagan was, 'transformative!' exclaimed Barack 'more so than Clinton!!!!'

[SidDithers]

24. Obama still isn't Reagan...nt

Sid

[Drale]

3. Because we ignored chemical weapons use in the past,

does that mean we should continue to ignore a Crime Against Humanity? I don't support a military strike, but I keep seeing these stupid posts, "well we didn't do anything about Iraq in the 80's" or "we used them in Vietnam". If we don't learn from our mistakes and correct them, we are worst than the people who are committing those mistakes/crimes now.

[enlightenment]

7. That applies to everything, right?

So a convicted pedophile can become a moral arbiter because they no longer rape children.
A wife-beating judge can justifiably rule on a spousal abuse case because he stopped beating his wife . . . last year.
A Wall St hedge fund manager who stole millions from clients can criticize the banks for stealing millions through derivative swaps because he learned from his mistakes after that five year less time served prison sentence.

Outside of religion, repentance has little currency - and simply saying you're "learned from your mistakes" doesn't give you the ethical authority to judge others for doing the same thing you did.

[Drale]

8. No because the pedophile and the wife-beater are the same person

the US government is a elected government so there is a turn over. Obama wasn't President during Vietnam or in the 80's, but he's President now. You can not hold him accountable for the sins of the past, but he can try and help make sure those sin's don't happen again.

[enlightenment]

9. Ah, I see.

History remakes itself every four years.

[Bluenorthwest]

25. And apparently it is all about personalities not institutions and policies.

nt

[Cali_Democrat]

11. I agree. It is stupid.

America looked the other way in 1980's so therefore America always has to look the other way when it comes to the use of chemical weapons?

Utterly ridiculous logic.

[atreides1]

26. Let's hope America doesn't look the other way in the future!

But that means America will have to spend more on military arms and equipment...at the expense of the weakest and most vulnerable in this country.

Maybe you could tell me what can $1.45 million dollars be used for in this country, because that's how much it'll cost to replace each cruise missile that gets fired!

[The Link]

4. Obama admires Reagan.

[peace13]

5. What about our use of white phosphorous in Iraq?

Does that count as a chemical? Should we bomb ourselves first before ....proceeding?

[Cali_Democrat]

10. white phosphorous is not banned under the CWC. n/t

[Downtown Hound]

16. Neither is depleted uranimum

But it continues killing and creating deformed babies long after the war ends.

[peace13]

17. Just saying we kill with reckless abandon, and have been doing it for over twelve years.

The deformed children that we created are still trying to breath through multiple noses. You get the point? Legal or not, sanctioned or not.....more killing is not the answer.

Soldier burnout, PTSD, and birth defects from military exposure to 'legal' yet poisonous chemicals are a few things that our military folks are dealing with. Who is left to fight the fight?

I stand with the children we will kill if you continue down this road to war! I stand with the soldiers who will be forced to create more atrocities!

No More War!

[Cali_Democrat]

19. I agree. No more war. n/t

[JoeyT]

30. But the Geneva Convention and other international law does ban

the use of incendiaries on civilians. Protocol III of the Convention on Certain Conventional Weapons actually bans the use of it near civilians.

[LukeFL]

6. Just because we didn't do anything

Does not mean we should let this one slide too

[sarisataka]

12. Without making a statement for or against

attacking Syria....

is DU going to advocate using Reagan as an example and to do what he did

[Eddie Haskell]

13. Remember the weaponized Anthrax attacks?

OK, technically they were biological, but considering who was targeted (Tom Daschle, Patrick Leahy) the threat was a clear attack on our government. Yet, the case has never been fully resolved. High time we launch some cruise missiles into Wyoming.

[peace13]

18. I believe they did follow the anthrax trail to US government labs.

The mystery was solved but not publicized!

[Solly Mack]

14. I believe the point is that evidence would suggest the U.S.

bases its response to chemical weapons use on what its agenda is at the time.

If it serves America's agenda to ignore the use of chemical weapons, it does so.

If it serves America's agenda to use it as a reason for military action, it does so.

No consistency to a principle, in other words, other than to the expedient. (What the U.S. government wants at a certain point in time)

The lack of holding Presidents accountable for not being consistent on international law and other laws adds to the problem, as well as being more evidence that suggest breaking laws is only an outrage if it suits America's agenda.

This doesn't mean that a country that tortured people and then protected the guilty can't take a stand for what is right. But it does mean that that country will be met with scorn and derision, as hypocrisy always is, when that country attempts to set itself up as a protector of human rights, of respecting international law, and demands the world adhere to principles & laws that said country couldn't even be bothered to adhere to itself.


But I could be wrong about the point of the article.

[Mnemosyne]

15. Fallujah. nt

[peace13]

20. Yes! Remember Fallujah!!! n/t

[Mnemosyne]

21. Never forget. It was horrific, and still continues. nt

[quinnox]

22. So, there wasn't a chemical weapons apocalypse when we didn't respond then?

Hmm. So other countries didn't see that example and the non-reaction of the USA and say, ""Yay! let's use chemical weapons too! See, we can get away with it!"

That makes the recent words of warnings about the consequences of not doing anything in Syria ring increasingly hollow.

[Harmony Blue]

27. Absolutely

but it will be thrown out there if some will buy this line of thinking.

[niyad]

28. funny how people are twisting themselves into pretzels to overlook these little inconveniences.

[Mnpaul]

29. We not only looked the other way

We were the sole no vote against condemning Saddam on the UN Security council

In March 1986, the UN Secretary General, Javier Perez de Cuellar, finally condemned Iraq by name for its use of chemical weapons against Iran. The U.S. was the sole country to vote against a Security Council statement condemning Iraqi use of mustard gas against Iran.
http://www.arcaneknowledge.org/histpoli/iraq.htm#ch6

[eridani]

31. And the US helped Saddam target Iranians

No help in targeting Kurds, AFAIK.