Whatever... my lefty BS, your head-in-sand patriotic spewing... we'll leave it there then. Obviously a classified document stating "DURING THE BRUTAL CRACKDOWN THAT FOLLOWED THE KURDISH UPRISING, IRAQI FORCES LOYAL TO PRESIDENT SADDAM ((HUSSEIN)) MAY HAVE POSSIBLY USED WHITE PHOSPHOROUS (WP) CHEMICAL WEAPONS AGAINST KURDISH REBELS AND THE POPULACE IN ERBIL" has obviously no0thing at all to do with the uprising in 1991, where the WP use took place.

If you don't want to be baited, then don't take part... It's a simple notion.

 

I did nothing of the sort. The proof is that you can't respond to my points. I'm sure a smart chap like yourself could respond to "patriotic spewing". All you do is repeat the same flawed info from the same flawed sources. You won't even post the link to some of your sources.

It's a declassified document that you have copied from a questionable source that is in no way connected to the charges against Saddam. You claim they are connected but offer no proof of that connection. Further, you fibbed and said that this was a charge against Saddam. Not good.

But don't pay attention to any of those FACTS, that's just patriotic spewing.[8D]

 

Make it easier on me and don't post such obvious bull$hit.

 

A questionable source?
This questionable source?
It is indeed upion the very same site that you yourself quote from... The declassified document was also originally from the Guardian. yes it is a 'lefty paper' but they are not prone to lying through their teeth. It is a highly respected paper, and not some rag.

So exactly which sites are credible, and which are not?

You say you have discreditted me, etc, but all you have produced is a statement to say that when used as a marker WP is not a chemical weapon, and the fact that the US did not ratify the geneva convention...

 

No, it's the bit about you claiming that Saddam is being charged with using WP. That is a fib. Not good. This is also your big complaint regarding hypocrisy that you have mentioned over and over again and it is based on nothing but your assumptions, misinformation, and of course, your fib.

But hey, that bit about the Guardian not lying though its teeth was good comedy.

 

So you will just ignore the general saying it was used as a weapon, the US military handbook stating it was "against the law of the land", the 'brutal use of WP against the Kurds', there IS a hoohar elsewhere in the world regarding this matter, the fact that WP IS a chemical weapon when used against people, the items that the US refused to ratify in the geneva convention, but no, it's all worng because you don't belive it all, and there is nothing specific re: WP even thought the quelling of the Kurds involved WP. Thats your right, and i am bored now, and off to bed.

 

That absurd summary of my posts and this discussion fits in perfectly with your absurd assertion that the "US is using chemical weapons in Iraq". I would expect nothing less from you at this point.

Keep repeating that nonsense and I think that you will automatically become a candidate for a PhD in "peace studies". They don't set the bar too high for those type of people.

Have a good night. I've said my piece. In the future, I'll do my very best to stay away.

 

What this topic needs.......is more cowbell. I need more cowbell. I gotta have more cowbell.

 

Whatever about the PHD in peace studies. Anybody who questions the government is some sort of hippy. You carry on burying your head in the sand.

 

life would be so much easier if we were all willing to stay in the dark