US coast guard opens fire on an Iranian fishing boat

[Oldman1]

Washingtonpost.com: Iraq Report
Exclusive: CIA Files Prove America Helped Saddam as He Gassed Iran


Iraqi Bloggers Central: Where Did Saddam Get His Chemical Weapons?

Even your own war Veteran sued several American company for providing Saddam with WMD
Anthrax for Export | The Progressive

by the way we counted about 207 European and American firms that supplied Saddam with raw material or equipment to provide chemical weapons

Okay so the only thing you could get was that the CIA provided intel. That don't mean they provided the chemical weapons.

you didn't had the right to do that as it was not your war .but we had the right to stop kuwait and UAE and Qatar break that siege . if Iraq wanted to ship its product to kuwait and then export them from there we clearly had the right to stop those ships.

Thats a targeting radar not a search radar designed to search all altitude and direction for finding target..
using that radar for finding target is like a sniper want to find its target throw the scope of his gun without any prior knowledge of were is the target and whats his distance. or a better comparison is to install a satellite dish for your TV without prior knowledge of which direction you must target the dish

Buk missile system - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

The radar fitted to each TELAR, referred to as the 'Fire Dome' by NATO, is a monopulse type radar and can begin tracking at the missile's maximum range (32 km/20 mi) and can track aircraft flying at between 15 m and 22 km (50 to 72,000 ft) altitudes. It can guide up to three missiles against a single target.

 

[Hack-Hook]

Okay so the only thing you could get was that the CIA provided intel. That don't mean they provided the chemical weapons.




Buk missile system - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

The radar fitted to each TELAR, referred to as the 'Fire Dome' by NATO, is a monopulse type radar and can begin tracking at the missile's maximum range (32 km/20 mi) and can track aircraft flying at between 15 m and 22 km (50 to 72,000 ft) altitudes. It can guide up to three missiles against a single target.

What CIA did was participating in chemical attack and nothing can point otherwise .
and If you read articles you see that even some of your firm admitted that they provided material to provide chemical weapons to Iraq with the blessing or more exactly looking other side of your government

Author Barry M. Lando says, by 1987, the U.S. military was so invested in the correct outcome, that "officers from the Pentagon's Defense Intelligence Agency dispatched to Baghdad were actually planning day-by-day strategic bombing strikes for the Iraqi Air Force."[6][19] Iraq used this data to target Iranian positions with chemical weapons, says ambassador Galbraith.[14]

The Reagan administration did not stop aiding Iraq after receiving reports affirming the use of poison gas on Kurdish civilians.[21][22]
Joost R. Hiltermann says that when the Iraqi military turned its chemical weapons on the Kurds during the war, killing approximately 5,000 people in the town of Halabja and injuring thousands more, the Reagan administration actually sought to obscure Iraqi leadership culpability by suggesting, inaccurately, that the Iranians may have carried out the attack.[23]

and let put intelligence aside its another part of WIKI article which deal with what USA exported .

On February 9, 1994, Senator Riegle delivered a report -commonly known at the Riegle Report- in which it was stated that "pathogenic (meaning 'disease producing'), toxigenic (meaning 'poisonous'), and other biological research materials were exported to Iraq pursuant to application and licensing by the U.S. Department of Commerce." It added: "These exported biological materials were not attenuated or weakened and were capable of reproduction."[29]
The report then detailed 70 shipments (including Bacillus anthracis) from the United States to Iraqi government agencies over three years, concluding "It was later learned that these microorganisms exported by the United States were identical to those the UN inspectors found and recovered from the Iraqi biological warfare program."[30]

and more information about Riegle Report

 

[applesauce]

I am sorry to disagree with you. No gulf country where American bases are will allow the US to use them, since that will be more catastrophic for those nations than for the US. It is their countries that will receive the Iranian's missile wrath not the Americans themselves apart from their military men and women manning those bases. Take for example SA or the UAE; if the Iranian Oil pipelines are hit , you can be sure that theirs too will be hit, so no Oil for the rest of the world while the US can still function on its own and the Canadian Oil. No wonder many experts have warned of a WW3, since most other nations and particularly China and India will be affected the most, alongside at least another 150 or more countries... Think about it.

disagreement is okay, thanks for saying why.

now you say countries in the area where the US has bases would not allow the US to use them. but i would point out to you that they have in the past and nothing indicates they would not in the future( see both iraq wars, afganistan, many other short-of-war actions in the area, even SA tacitly allowing israel to strike at iraq)

and you take the example of SA, SA pretty much hates iran, they would absolutely love it if the US would come and take out iran. and frankly, yes oil prices will rise, but its highly, highly doubtful that iran could completely take out the middle east's oil production against the might of the US military, not to mention the rest of the middle would pretty line up behind america if iran targets indiscriminately, the tankers/lines/plants of all those different countries.

now you mention the likes of india and china, but it would not be the US sinking chinese trade ships, or tankers heading for india, under this scenario, in fact the US would be the one trying to protect those ships while it would be iran that would try to take out those ships belonging to china or india

 

[The SC]

disagreement is okay, thanks for saying why.

now you say countries in the area where the US has bases would not allow the US to use them. but i would point out to you that they have in the past and nothing indicates they would not in the future( see both iraq wars, afganistan, many other short-of-war actions in the area, even SA tacitly allowing israel to strike at iraq)

and you take the example of SA, SA pretty much hates iran, they would absolutely love it if the US would come and take out iran. and frankly, yes oil prices will rise, but its highly, highly doubtful that iran could completely take out the middle east's oil production against the might of the US military, not to mention the rest of the middle would pretty line up behind america if iran targets indiscriminately, the tankers/lines/plants of all those different countries.

now you mention the likes of india and china, but it would not be the US sinking chinese trade ships, or tankers heading for india, under this scenario, in fact the US would be the one trying to protect those ships while it would be iran that would try to take out those ships belonging to china or india

The reasons why the middle eastern countries won't allow the US to use their lands to wage another war in the Area are based on the proven falsehood of the first reasons coming out in public from the mouths of Western leaders afterwards that allowed them to attack Iraq and Afghanistan in the first place. India an China will suffer the most if the strait o Hormuz is closed, and as you know , and the Americans knows it better, the Iranians are capable of closing it to any sort of navigation...
I frankly do not know from where you got your information about SA pretty much hates Iran, if from PDF than you should think in that context, because in the real world they enjoy normal relations.
There are no proofs what so ever of SA allowing Usrael to attack the nuclear reactor in Iraq, the Usraeli airplanes were refueled in mid air and have avoided SA skies.

 

[applesauce]

The reasons why the middle eastern countries won't allow the US to use their lands to wage another war in the Area are based on the proven falsehood of the first reasons coming out in public from the mouths of Western leaders afterwards that allowed them to attack Iraq and Afghanistan in the first place. India an China will suffer the most if the strait o Hormuz is closed, and as you know , and the Americans knows it better, the Iranians are capable of closing it to any sort of navigation...
I frankly do not know from where you got your information about SA pretty much hates Iran, if from PDF than you should think in that context, because in the real world they enjoy normal relations.
There are no proofs what so ever of SA allowing Usrael to attack the nuclear reactor in Iraq, the Usraeli airplanes were refueled in mid air and have avoided SA skies.

again, we have been shown again and again that the US was and is allow to use bases before and after the iraq war without major protest from host countries, even now Western forces may be heading to the middle east to fight isis, the US still have significant personnel in Iraq and Afghanistan. it can pretty much do what it want over iraqi airspace. not to mention smaller countries like kuwait will pretty much go along with whatever the US says.

the very fact that they US still have bases after what you call "proven falsehood of the first reasons coming out in public from the mouths of Western leaders" shows that there is no major problems.

iran could close navigation in the straits,that much is true, but i doubt it would be very long. iraq in the first iraqi war was quite strong, that war with the US didnt last very long, the second war was even quicker. Iran simply cannot compete with the US in the sea for any length of time, and on land, conventionally, they are completely over-matched. india and china of course does not want war there(i would say neither does the US), but again,if it happens, it would be the US trying to keep business going and iran targeting chinese and indian ships(and all other countries' ships), hardly a way to get those countries on its side.

if you didnt know that SA and iran didnt get along i suggest you go do some basic research, its quite widely known that SA does not like iran. not knowing this is like not knowing that china and japan doesnt exactly get along.