Warning

 

Close

Confirm Action

Are you sure you wish to do this?

Confirm Cancel
Member Login
Site Notices
11/22/2017 10:05:29 PM
Posted: 10/12/2004 3:06:46 AM EST
I've got a liberal on a college message board being a pain in the butt, he claims its ok for Saddam to still have some leftover chem weapons, since we sold WMDs to him.

Can anyone link me to a reputable source to refute or counter his talking points?

Kharn
Link Posted: 10/12/2004 3:12:23 AM EST
[Last Edit: 10/12/2004 3:14:51 AM EST by CAMPYBOB]
Link Posted: 10/12/2004 3:15:43 AM EST
His specific argument is that since we gave Saddam some form of WMD, its ok for Saddam to have some mustard and sarin still hanging around. I've called him on that asking when we gave Saddam sarin or mustard.

Kharn
Link Posted: 10/12/2004 4:02:11 AM EST
I know that during the Iran/Iraq war we supplied conventional munitions.

I don't have the "need to know" to say definitively on CW or BW, but given our history of how we've classified these weapons, my gut says "No."
Link Posted: 10/12/2004 4:03:49 AM EST

Originally Posted By Brohawk:
I know that during the Iran/Iraq war we supplied conventional munitions.

I don't have the "need to know" to say definitively on CW or BW, but given our history of how we've classified these weapons, my gut says "No."



This is my take on it.
Link Posted: 10/12/2004 4:10:35 AM EST
Nope. We gave them the same sort of agricultural assistance we give nearly everyone, including Pakistan, Bangladesh, Syria, etc. Some of their scientists went to grad school in the US but under the same programs that allow Chinese, Indians, Pakis, etc. to go to grad school here.

The plants which made the chemical weapons precursors were largely French pesticide plants.

GunLvr
Link Posted: 10/12/2004 4:21:15 AM EST
What's his evidence that we did? Liberal lies and rumours? Oh wait...he said so...

Link Posted: 10/12/2004 4:34:57 AM EST
[Last Edit: 10/12/2004 4:45:55 AM EST by quijanos]

Originally Posted By wedge1082:

Originally Posted By Brohawk:
I know that during the Iran/Iraq war we supplied conventional munitions.

I don't have the "need to know" to say definitively on CW or BW, but given our history of how we've classified these weapons, my gut says "No."



This is my take on it.



+1

This was reported in the news and is factual of our relationship with him (Saddam), prior to it going sour.
Link Posted: 10/12/2004 4:49:36 AM EST
[Last Edit: 10/12/2004 4:50:21 AM EST by Mahatma8Rice]
Strains of various diseases have been given out to countries so that their research scientists can study them and possibly develop antigens, etc., in the event of an outbreak.

It's one of those damned if you do, damned if you don't scenarios.

If we don't share our medical/bilogical/technological expertise with other countries, we are being selfish and uncaring. If we do share and some manevolent big government type, aka, Sadam, decides to take it and develop it into "weapons grade" (whatever the hell that is) material, then we aided and abetted a dictator.

Ask your bud if the US should ban the export of anything and everything that can be used war? If he says yes, ask him why he wants us to stop exporting food, medicine, and vaccines?

You might point out to your esteemed colleague that there is a 100% correlation between big government and genocide. Civilians, in particular American civilians, can't hold a candle to the body count run up by governments killing their own citizens and/or the citizens of other nations.

You might want to point out that the Influenza Epidemic of 1918-19 killed more American civilians in a matter of just a few short months than all Americans killed in war in the 20th century.

He might then see the necessity of studying deadly diseases. However, caution him that unrestrained power in the hands of government killed well over 100 million unarmed civilians in the past century.

And finally, tell him that the simple act of registering for college is an admission that you don't know a whole lotta shit and that education is advanced when the unlearned shut the fuck up and listen to the learned.


EDITTED TO ADD: Damn! I'm good!
Link Posted: 10/12/2004 4:50:20 AM EST
Many of Saddam's weapons had "Made in USA" marked on them. Not sure about the chemical agents and things, but hey, when the Iran/Iraq war was raging, the US didn't say boo about Saddam's tactics. There was tacit support if not direct material support.
Link Posted: 10/12/2004 4:53:46 AM EST
Libertarian--

Prove your last statement. I call BULLSHIT! on this. You liberals throw out "facts" that have no basis in truth. You liberals treat the truth like a paid-for whore; you use it or abuse it whatever your proclivities are at that moment.
Link Posted: 10/12/2004 8:08:58 AM EST
Mahatma, good answer to the previous post but on that last one...not so much. Saddam was installed and supported for most of his time by the US. You can easily find info on this. Not tin-foil hat stuuf, just the usual puzzle palace pick a dictator stuff.
Link Posted: 10/12/2004 8:18:48 AM EST

Originally Posted By hound:
Mahatma, good answer to the previous post but on that last one...not so much. Saddam was installed and supported for most of his time by the US. You can easily find info on this. Not tin-foil hat stuuf, just the usual puzzle palace pick a dictator stuff.



High Bullshit quotient here too. Provide some kind of objective evidence to back up this blather.

Saddam and his Baath Party got him in power. Supported as a definite client state by the Soviets almost his entire time up till late 80's as a counter to US support of Iran, Turkey in NATO, one of their players in the effort against the US and Israel, potential route for Soviet access to PG and IO areas, possible client for strike into Arabian oilfields. He got some limited US support when he was fighting Iran, and it was all conventional weapons.

Clearly Hound you weren't around in the 70s or 80's in any kind of military activity that had any kind of Mid-East component in it's mission area were you?
Link Posted: 10/12/2004 8:23:58 AM EST
[Last Edit: 10/12/2004 8:25:03 AM EST by ThunderStick]

Originally Posted By hound:
Mahatma, good answer to the previous post but on that last one...not so much. Saddam was installed and supported for most of his time by the US. You can easily find info on this. Not tin-foil hat stuuf, just the usual puzzle palace pick a dictator stuff.



Saddam was not installed by the US. Do you know anything at all? He took power by force without US help.

Link Posted: 10/12/2004 8:33:49 AM EST
Link Posted: 10/12/2004 8:53:55 AM EST
France, Russia & China were Saddam's primary arms suppliers. France in particular provided Saddam with aircraft, helicopters, missiles, artillery, ammunition and a nuclear reactor. Not to mention training, financing, and other aid. France even removed aircraft from active duty stock in order to provide them to Iraq.

The US did provide intelligence to Saddam when in looked like Iran was about to overrun Basra during the Iran/Iraq War. Given two evils (Saddam v. Ayatollahs) we hoped that both nations would beat each other up so badly that they would fail to present a threat to their neighbors for a while. We've been been helpful to those far worse (see Uncle Joe Stalin during WWII) than Saddam.

The only material of any note that we provided Iraq with during the war were 40+ Bell 214ST helicopters (Hueys on steroids) - these were sold as civilian aircraft. I'm sure they were sold with the knowlege that they would likely be converted for military use. However, in the big scheme of things, these were hardly a significant factor given the equipment Iraq was receiving from China, Russia, and especially France.

"Air Forces Monthly," a UK aviation magazine ran a story a year or two ago detailing who was most responsible for building Saddam's war machine - they, like most who examine the subject - put the finger on France in detail.
Link Posted: 10/12/2004 9:22:40 AM EST
[Last Edit: 10/12/2004 9:41:52 AM EST by Rip_Roarin_Wacko]

Originally Posted By PaDanby:

Originally Posted By hound:
Mahatma, good answer to the previous post but on that last one...not so much. Saddam was installed and supported for most of his time by the US. You can easily find info on this. Not tin-foil hat stuuf, just the usual puzzle palace pick a dictator stuff.



High Bullshit quotient here too. Provide some kind of objective evidence to back up this blather.

Saddam and his Baath Party got him in power. Supported as a definite client state by the Soviets almost his entire time up till late 80's as a counter to US support of Iran, Turkey in NATO, one of their players in the effort against the US and Israel, potential route for Soviet access to PG and IO areas, possible client for strike into Arabian oilfields. He got some limited US support when he was fighting Iran, and it was all conventional weapons.

Clearly Hound you weren't around in the 70s or 80's in any kind of military activity that had any kind of Mid-East component in it's mission area were you?



Washington Post

U.S. Had Key Role in Iraq Buildup
Trade in Chemical Arms Allowed Despite Their Use on Iranians, Kurds
By Michael Dobbs
Washington Post Staff Writer
Monday, December 30, 2002; Page A01
High on the Bush administration's list of justifications for war against Iraq are President Saddam Hussein's use of chemical weapons, nuclear and biological programs, and his contacts with international terrorists. What U.S. officials rarely acknowledge is that these offenses date back to a period when Hussein was seen in Washington as a valued ally.

Among the people instrumental in tilting U.S. policy toward Baghdad during the 1980-88 Iran-Iraq war was Donald H. Rumsfeld, now defense secretary, whose December 1983 meeting with Hussein as a special presidential envoy paved the way for normalization of U.S.-Iraqi relations. Declassified documents show that Rumsfeld traveled to Baghdad at a time when Iraq was using chemical weapons on an "almost daily" basis in defiance of international conventions.

The story of U.S. involvement with Saddam Hussein in the years before his 1990 attack on Kuwait -- which included large-scale intelligence sharing, supply of cluster bombs through a Chilean front company, and facilitating Iraq's acquisition of chemical and biological precursors -- is a topical example of the underside of U.S. foreign policy. It is a world in which deals can be struck with dictators, human rights violations sometimes overlooked, and accommodations made with arms proliferators, all on the principle that the "enemy of my enemy is my friend."

Throughout the 1980s, Hussein's Iraq was the sworn enemy of Iran, then still in the throes of an Islamic revolution. U.S. officials saw Baghdad as a bulwark against militant Shiite extremism and the fall of pro-American states such as Kuwait, Saudi Arabia, and even Jordan -- a Middle East version of the "domino theory" in Southeast Asia. That was enough to turn Hussein into a strategic partner and for U.S. diplomats in Baghdad to routinely refer to Iraqi forces as "the good guys," in contrast to the Iranians, who were depicted as "the bad guys."

A review of thousands of declassified government documents and interviews with former policymakers shows that U.S. intelligence and logistical support played a crucial role in shoring up Iraqi defenses against the "human wave" attacks by suicidal Iranian troops. The administrations of Ronald Reagan and George H.W. Bush authorized the sale to Iraq of numerous items that had both military and civilian applications, including poisonous chemicals and deadly biological viruses, such as anthrax and bubonic plague.
Opinions differ among Middle East experts and former government officials about the pre-Iraqi tilt, and whether Washington could have done more to stop the flow to Baghdad of technology for building weapons of mass destruction.
"It was a horrible mistake then, but we have got it right now," says Kenneth M. Pollack, a former CIA military analyst and author of "The Threatening Storm," which makes the case for war with Iraq. "My fellow [CIA] analysts and I were warning at the time that Hussein was a very nasty character. We were constantly fighting the State Department."

"Fundamentally, the policy was justified," argues David Newton, a former U.S. ambassador to Baghdad, who runs an anti-Hussein radio station in Prague. "We were concerned that Iraq should not lose the war with Iran, because that would have threatened Saudi Arabia and the Gulf. Our long-term hope was that Hussein's government would become less repressive and more responsible."
What makes present-day Hussein different from the Hussein of the 1980s, say Middle East experts, is the mellowing of the Iranian revolution and the August 1990 invasion of Kuwait that transformed the Iraqi dictator, almost overnight, from awkward ally into mortal enemy. In addition, the United States itself has changed. As a result of the Sept. 11, 2001, terrorist attacks on New York and Washington, U.S. policymakers take a much more alarmist view of the threat posed by the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction.

U.S. Shifts in Iran-Iraq War

When the Iran-Iraq war began in September 1980, with an Iraqi attack across the Shatt al Arab waterway that leads to the Persian Gulf, the United States was a bystander. The United States did not have diplomatic relations with either Baghdad or Tehran. U.S. officials had almost as little sympathy for Hussein's dictatorial brand of Arab nationalism as for the Islamic fundamentalism espoused by Iran's Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini. As long as the two countries fought their way to a stalemate, nobody in Washington was disposed to intervene.
By the summer of 1982, however, the strategic picture had changed dramatically. After its initial gains, Iraq was on the defensive, and Iranian troops had advanced to within a few miles of Basra, Iraq's second largest city. U.S. intelligence information suggested the Iranians might achieve a breakthrough on the Basra front, destabilizing Kuwait, the Gulf states, and even Saudi Arabia, thereby threatening U.S. oil supplies.
"You have to understand the geostrategic context, which was very different from where we are now," said Howard Teicher, a former National Security Council official, who worked on Iraqi policy during the Reagan administration. "Realpolitik dictated that we act to prevent the situation from getting worse."
To prevent an Iraqi collapse, the Reagan administration supplied battlefield intelligence on Iranian troop buildups to the Iraqis, sometimes through third parties such as Saudi Arabia. The U.S. tilt toward Iraq was enshrined in National Security Decision Directive 114 of Nov. 26, 1983, one of the few important Reagan era foreign policy decisions that still remains classified. According to former U.S. officials, the directive stated that the United States would do "whatever was necessary and legal" to prevent Iraq from losing the war with Iran.
The presidential directive was issued amid a flurry of reports that Iraqi forces were using chemical weapons in their attempts to hold back the Iranians. In principle, Washington was strongly opposed to chemical warfare, a practice outlawed by the 1925 Geneva Protocol. In practice, U.S. condemnation of Iraqi use of chemical weapons ranked relatively low on the scale of administration priorities, particularly compared with the all-important goal of preventing an Iranian victory.

Thus, on Nov. 1, 1983, a senior State Department official, Jonathan T. Howe, told Secretary of State George P. Shultz that intelligence reports showed that Iraqi troops were resorting to "almost daily use of CW" against the Iranians. But the Reagan administration had already committed itself to a large-scale diplomatic and political overture to Baghdad, culminating in several visits by the president's recently appointed special envoy to the Middle East, Donald H. Rumsfeld.

Secret talking points prepared for the first Rumsfeld visit to Baghdad enshrined some of the language from NSDD 114, including the statement that the United States would regard "any major reversal of Iraq's fortunes as a strategic defeat for the West." When Rumsfeld finally met with Hussein on Dec. 20, he told the Iraqi leader that Washington was ready for a resumption of full diplomatic relations, according to a State Department report of the conversation. Iraqi leaders later described themselves as "extremely pleased" with the Rumsfeld visit, which had "elevated U.S.-Iraqi relations to a new level."

In a September interview with CNN, Rumsfeld said he "cautioned" Hussein about the use of chemical weapons, a claim at odds with declassified State Department notes of his 90-minute meeting with the Iraqi leader. A Pentagon spokesman, Brian Whitman, now says that Rumsfeld raised the issue not with Hussein, but with Iraqi foreign minister Tariq Aziz. The State Department notes show that he mentioned it largely in passing as one of several matters that "inhibited" U.S. efforts to assist Iraq.

Rumsfeld has also said he had "nothing to do" with helping Iraq in its war against Iran. Although former U.S. officials agree that Rumsfeld was not one of the architects of the Reagan administration's tilt toward Iraq -- he was a private citizen when he was appointed Middle East envoy -- the documents show that his visits to Baghdad led to closer U.S.-Iraqi cooperation on a wide variety of fronts. Washington was willing to resume diplomatic relations immediately, but Hussein insisted on delaying such a step until the following year.

As part of its opening to Baghdad, the Reagan administration removed Iraq from the State Department terrorism list in February 1982, despite heated objections from Congress. Without such a move, Teicher says, it would have been "impossible to take even the modest steps we were contemplating" to channel assistance to Baghdad. Iraq -- along with Syria, Libya and South Yemen -- was one of four original countries on the list, which was first drawn up in 1979.

Some former U.S. officials say that removing Iraq from the terrorism list provided an incentive to Hussein to expel the Palestinian guerrilla leader Abu Nidal from Baghdad in 1983. On the other hand, Iraq continued to play host to alleged terrorists throughout the '80s. The most notable was Abu Abbas, leader of the Palestine Liberation Front, who found refuge in Baghdad after being expelled from Tunis for masterminding the 1985 hijacking of the cruise ship Achille Lauro, which resulted in the killing of an elderly American tourist.
Iraq Lobbies for Arms

While Rumsfeld was talking to Hussein and Aziz in Baghdad, Iraqi diplomats and weapons merchants were fanning out across Western capitals for a diplomatic charm offensive-cum-arms buying spree. In Washington, the key figure was the Iraqi chargé d'affaires, Nizar Hamdoon, a fluent English speaker who impressed Reagan administration officials as one of the most skillful lobbyists in town.

"He arrived with a blue shirt and a white tie, straight out of the mafia," recalled Geoffrey Kemp, a Middle East specialist in the Reagan White House. "Within six months, he was hosting suave dinner parties at his residence, which he parlayed into a formidable lobbying effort. He was particularly effective with the American Jewish community."

One of Hamdoon's favorite props, says Kemp, was a green Islamic scarf allegedly found on the body of an Iranian soldier. The scarf was decorated with a map of the Middle East showing a series of arrows pointing toward Jerusalem. Hamdoon used to "parade the scarf" to conferences and congressional hearings as proof that an Iranian victory over Iraq would result in "Israel becoming a victim along with the Arabs."

According to a sworn court affidavit prepared by Teicher in 1995, the United States "actively supported the Iraqi war effort by supplying the Iraqis with billions of dollars of credits, by providing military intelligence and advice to the Iraqis, and by closely monitoring third country arms sales to Iraq to make sure Iraq had the military weaponry required." Teicher said in the affidavit that former CIA director William Casey used a Chilean company, Cardoen, to supply Iraq with cluster bombs that could be used to disrupt the Iranian human wave attacks. Teicher refuses to discuss the affidavit.
At the same time the Reagan administration was facilitating the supply of weapons and military components to Baghdad, it was attempting to cut off supplies to Iran under "Operation Staunch." Those efforts were largely successful, despite the glaring anomaly of the 1986 Iran-contra scandal when the White House publicly admitted trading arms for hostages, in violation of the policy that the United States was trying to impose on the rest of the world.
Although U.S. arms manufacturers were not as deeply involved as German or British companies in selling weaponry to Iraq, the Reagan administration effectively turned a blind eye to the export of "dual use" items such as chemical precursors and steel tubes that can have military and civilian applications. According to several former officials, the State and Commerce departments promoted trade in such items as a way to boost U.S. exports and acquire political leverage over Hussein.

When United Nations weapons inspectors were allowed into Iraq after the 1991 Gulf War, they compiled long lists of chemicals, missile components, and computers from American suppliers, including such household names as Union Carbide and Honeywell, which were being used for military purposes.

A 1994 investigation by the Senate Banking Committee turned up dozens of biological agents shipped to Iraq during the mid-'80s under license from the Commerce Department, including various strains of anthrax, subsequently identified by the Pentagon as a key component of the Iraqi biological warfare program. The Commerce Department also approved the export of insecticides to Iraq, despite widespread suspicions that they were being used for chemical warfare.

The fact that Iraq was using chemical weapons was hardly a secret. In February 1984, an Iraqi military spokesman effectively acknowledged their use by issuing a chilling warning to Iran. "The invaders should know that for every harmful insect, there is an insecticide capable of annihilating it . . . and Iraq possesses this annihilation insecticide."

Chemicals Kill Kurds

In late 1987, the Iraqi air force began using chemical agents against Kurdish resistance forces in northern Iraq that had formed a loose alliance with Iran, according to State Department reports. The attacks, which were part of a "scorched earth" strategy to eliminate rebel-controlled villages, provoked outrage on Capitol Hill and renewed demands for sanctions against Iraq. The State Department and White House were also outraged -- but not to the point of doing anything that might seriously damage relations with Baghdad.

"The U.S.-Iraqi relationship is . . . important to our long-term political and economic objectives," Assistant Secretary of State Richard W. Murphy wrote in a September 1988 memorandum that addressed the chemical weapons question. "We believe that economic sanctions will be useless or counterproductive to influence the Iraqis."

Bush administration spokesmen have cited Hussein's use of chemical weapons "against his own people" -- and particularly the March 1988 attack on the Kurdish village of Halabjah -- to bolster their argument that his regime presents a "grave and gathering danger" to the United States.

The Iraqis continued to use chemical weapons against the Iranians until the end of the Iran-Iraq war. A U.S. air force intelligence officer, Rick Francona, reported finding widespread use of Iraqi nerve gas when he toured the Al Faw peninsula in southern Iraq in the summer of 1988, after its recapture by the Iraqi army. The battlefield was littered with atropine injectors used by panicky Iranian troops as an antidote against Iraqi nerve gas attacks.

Far from declining, the supply of U.S. military intelligence to Iraq actually expanded in 1988, according to a 1999 book by Francona, "Ally to Adversary: an Eyewitness Account of Iraq's Fall from Grace." Informed sources said much of the battlefield intelligence was channeled to the Iraqis by the CIA office in Baghdad.
Although U.S. export controls to Iraq were tightened up in the late 1980s, there were still many loopholes. In December 1988, Dow Chemical sold $1.5 million of pesticides to Iraq, despite U.S. government concerns that they could be used as chemical warfare agents. An Export-Import Bank official reported in a memorandum that he could find "no reason" to stop the sale, despite evidence that the pesticides were "highly toxic" to humans and would cause death "from asphyxiation."

The U.S. policy of cultivating Hussein as a moderate and reasonable Arab leader continued right up until he invaded Kuwait in August 1990, documents show. When the then-U.S. ambassador to Baghdad, April Glaspie, met with Hussein on July 25, 1990, a week before the Iraqi attack on Kuwait, she assured him that Bush "wanted better and deeper relations," according to an Iraqi transcript of the conversation. "President Bush is an intelligent man," the ambassador told Hussein, referring to the father of the current president. "He is not going to declare an economic war against Iraq."
"Everybody was wrong in their assessment of Saddam," said Joe Wilson, Glaspie's former deputy at the U.S. embassy in Baghdad, and the last U.S. official to meet with Hussein. "Everybody in the Arab world told us that the best way to deal with Saddam was to develop a set of economic and commercial relationships that would have the effect of moderating his behavior. History will demonstrate that this was a miscalculation."

Link Posted: 10/12/2004 9:30:16 AM EST
It doesn't matter whether we supplied WMD to saddam or not. The U.N. resolutions were for the destruction of all WMD. It did not and does not matter where it came from.
Link Posted: 10/12/2004 9:30:56 AM EST

Originally Posted By HiramRanger:
Yeah, thos AKs, RPGs, Migs, T series tanks... lots of good ole Made in the USA hardware there.



And what wasn't Russian was French made aircraft and anti-aircraft missiles. About the only US made weapons he has, I'm sure there are some he acquired from other sources, is from his invasion of Kuwait.
Link Posted: 10/12/2004 9:35:30 AM EST
Dear Wacko,

You are aptly named if you believe what is printed in the newspapers. When I was a journalism student, we were taught that newspapers are nearly worthless as a source of correct information. The most important parts of the newspaper are:

the ads
the sports section
the obituaries
the tv schedule
the "news"

The best that a journalist can hope to do is get the names, addresses and dates right. After that, you wade into a world of ignorance, lies, deceptions, agendas, and incompetance.
Link Posted: 10/12/2004 9:36:26 AM EST

Originally Posted By Kharn:
His specific argument is that since we gave Saddam some form of WMD, its ok for Saddam to have some mustard and sarin still hanging around. I've called him on that asking when we gave Saddam sarin or mustard.

Kharn

Fuck that noise. I refer you BOTH to a review of the terms of the '91 Cease Fire that Saddam agreed to, and to the terms of the much-ballyhooed UN Sanctions - ANY AND ALL WMD WERE 'VERBOTTEN' TO SADDAM FOR THE 12 YEARS PRECEDING HIS OUSTER. Tell your LIberal Moron that they CAN'T have it both ways in the same argument - either they believe UN "law" is the ultimate, or they don't. And EITHER way, their positions are demonstrably shit.
Link Posted: 10/12/2004 9:38:41 AM EST

Originally Posted By thelibertarian:
Many of Saddam's weapons had "Made in USA" marked on them. Not sure about the chemical agents and things, but hey, when the Iran/Iraq war was raging, the US didn't say boo about Saddam's tactics. There was tacit support if not direct material support.


Your fucked up noise falsely implies that ANY substantial stocks were supplied by the USA. Saddam's arsenal (of ALL types) was almost entirely composed of CommBloc, French and German equipment.
The documentation / reports are out there. You and others should read them, instead of spouting the same tired crap.
Link Posted: 10/12/2004 9:43:15 AM EST

Originally Posted By PaDanby:

Originally Posted By hound:
Mahatma, good answer to the previous post but on that last one...not so much. Saddam was installed and supported for most of his time by the US. You can easily find info on this. Not tin-foil hat stuuf, just the usual puzzle palace pick a dictator stuff.



High Bullshit quotient here too. Provide some kind of objective evidence to back up this blather.

Saddam and his Baath Party got him in power. Supported as a definite client state by the Soviets almost his entire time up till late 80's as a counter to US support of Iran, Turkey in NATO, one of their players in the effort against the US and Israel, potential route for Soviet access to PG and IO areas, possible client for strike into Arabian oilfields. He got some limited US support when he was fighting Iran, and it was all conventional weapons.

Clearly Hound you weren't around in the 70s or 80's in any kind of military activity that had any kind of Mid-East component in it's mission area were you?

+1
Addendum - the Baath Socialist Party - one of the reasons our LLLeft has little problem supporting him.
FedGov supported and encouraged Saddam's war on Iran, which kicked off in '80 - for the historically challenged on the dipshit Left - that immediately followed our national embarassment with Carter allowing US citizens to be held hostage in Tehran for over a year.
Our support for Saddam was OVER long before his 8-yr-long reenactment of WW1 with Iran was over.
Saddam bankrupted his economy with that war. So much so that he had to trump up an excuse for war to Invade Kuwait not 3 years later, to prevent his own financial collapse.
Link Posted: 10/12/2004 10:04:25 AM EST
Whoah back up off the jock there homies. Madeline Albright didn't tell Iraq that it was ok to buttfuck Kuwait? We didn't support saddam repeatedly on fighting our other government supported dictator in the region?
I really don't care one whit about the reasons that someone is trying to wiggle out of the UN resolutions, I think GWB called this ballgame about 75% correctly. I would like to see Saudi Arabia burn, but that is another story.
I don't wish anyone to think that my calling for historical facts here as supposrt of the leftist agenda. The US has REALLY bad foriegn policy. It always has. Just don't try to gloss over the rough parts to protect the party in power. There is one good reason to be fighting in the sand box---it kills terrorist dead, over there and not here.
Link Posted: 10/12/2004 10:08:27 AM EST

Originally Posted By Mahatma8Rice:
Dear Wacko,

You are aptly named if you believe what is printed in the newspapers. When I was a journalism student, we were taught that newspapers are nearly worthless as a source of correct information. The most important parts of the newspaper are:

the ads
the sports section
the obituaries
the tv schedule
the "news"

The best that a journalist can hope to do is get the names, addresses and dates right. After that, you wade into a world of ignorance, lies, deceptions, agendas, and incompetance.



Well try this on for size. Or don't you belive anything written in the Congressional Records either?

The Riegle Report
U.S. Chemical and Biological Warfare-Related Dual Use Exports to Iraq and their Possible Impact on the Health Consequences of the Gulf War
A Report of Chairman Donald W. Riegle, Jr. and Ranking Member Alfonse M. D'Amato of the Committee on Banking, Housing and Urban Affairs with Respect to Export Administration
United States Senate, 103d Congress, 2d Session
May 25, 1994

Chapter 1, Part 2
· U.S. Exports of Biological Materials to Iraq
The Senate Committee on Banking, Housing, and Urban Affairs has oversight responsibility for the Export Administration Act. Pursuant to the Act, Committee staff contacted the U.S. Department of Commerce and requested information on the export of biological materials during the years prior to the Gulf War. After receiving this information, we contacted a principal supplier of these materials to determine what, if any, materials were exported to Iraq which might have contributed to an offensive or defensive biological warfare program. Records available from the supplier for the period from 1985 until the present show that during this time, 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. Records prior to 1985 were not available, according to the supplier. These exported biological materials were not attenuated or weakened and were capable of reproduction. According to the Department of Defense's own Report to Congress on the Conduct of the Persian Gulf War, released in April 1992: "By the time of the invasion of Kuwait, Iraq had developed biological weapons. It's advanced and aggressive biological warfare program was the most advanced in the Arab world... The program probably began late in the 1970's and concentrated on the development of two agents, botulinum toxin and anthrax bacteria... Large scale production of these agents began in 1989 at four facilities in Baghdad. Delivery means for biological agents ranged from simple aerial bombs and artillery rockets to surface-to-surface missiles."
Included in the approved sales are the following biological materials (which have been considered by various nations for use in war), with their associated disease symptoms:
Bacillus Anthracis: anthrax is a disease producing bacteria identified by the Department of Defense in The Conduct of the Persian Gulf War: Final Report to Contress, as being a major component in the Iraqi biological warfare program.
Anthrax is an often fatal infectious disease due to ingestion of spores. It begins abruptly with high fever, difficulty in breathing, and chest pain. The disease eventually results in septicemia (blood poisoning), and the mortality is high. Once septicemia is advanced, antibiotic therapy may prove useless, probably because the exotoxins remain, despite the death of the bacteria.
Clostridium Botulinum: A bacterial source of botulinum toxin, which causes vomiting, constipation, thirst, general weakness, headache, fever, dizziness, double vision, dilation of the pupils and paralysis of the muscles involving swallowing. It is often fatal.
Histoplasma Capsulatum: causes a disease superfically resembling tuberculosis that may cause pneumonia, enlargement of the liver and spleen, anemia, an influenza like illness and an acute inflammatory skin disease marked by tender red nodules, usually on the shins. Reactivated infection usually involves the lungs, the brain, spinal membranes, heart, peritoneum, and the adrenals.
Brucella Melitensis: a bacteria which can cause chronic fatique, loss of appetite, profuse sweating when at rest, pain in joints and muscles, insomnia, nausea, and damage to major organs.
Clostridium Perfringens: a highly toxic bateria which causes gas gangrene. The bacteria produce toxins that move along muscle bundles in the body killing cells and producing necrotic tissue that is then favorable for further growth of the bacteria itself. Eventually, these toxins and bacteria enter the bloodstream and cause a systemic illness.
In addition, several shipments of Escherichia Coli (E. Coli) and genetic materials, as well as human and bacterial DNA, were shipped directly to the Iraq Atomic Energy Commission.
The following is a detailed listing of biological materials, provided by the American Type Culture Collection, which were exported to agencies of the government of Iraq pursuant to the issueance of an export licensed by the U.S. Commerce Department:
Date : February 8, 1985
Sent To : Iraq Atomic Energy Agency
Materials Shipped:

Ustilago nuda (Jensen) Rostrup

Date : February 22, 1985
Sent To : Ministry of Higher Education
Materials Shipped:

Histoplasma capsulatum var. farciminosum (ATCC 32136)
Class III pathogen

Date : July 11, 1985
Sent To : Middle and Near East Regional A
Material Shipped:

Histoplasma capsulatum var. farciminosum (ATCC 32136)
Class III pathogen

Date : May 2, 1986
Sent To : Ministry of Higher Education
Materials Shipped:

1. Bacillus Anthracis Cohn (ATCC 10)
Batch # 08-20-82 (2 each)
Class III pathogen

2. Bacillus Subtilis (Ehrenberg) Cohn (ATCC 82)
Batch # 06-20-84 (2 each)

3. Clostridium botulinum Type A (ATCC 3502)
Batch # 07-07-81 (3 each)
Class III pathogen

4. Clostridium perfringens (Weillon and Zuber) Hauduroy, et al (ATCC 3624)
Batch # 10-85SV (2 each)

5. Bacillus subtilis (ATCC 6051)
Batch # 12-06-84 (2 each)

6. Francisella tularensis var. tularensis Olsufiev (ATCC 6223)
Batch # 05-14-79 (2 each)
Avirulent, suitable for preparations of diagnotic antigens

7. Clostridium tetani (ATCC 9441)
Batch # 03-84 (3 each)
Highly toxigenic

8. Clostridium botulinum Type E (ATCC 9564)
Batch # 03-02-79 (2 each)
Class III pathogen

9. Clostridium tetani (ATCC 10779)
Batch # 04-24-84S (3 each)

10. Clostridium perfringens (ATCC 12916)
Batch #08-14-80 (2 each)
Agglutinating type 2

11. Clostridium perfringens (ATCC 13124)
Batch #07-84SV (3 each)
Type A, alpha-toxigenic, produces lecithinase C.J. Appl.

12. Bacillus Anthracis (ATCC 14185)
Batch #01-14-80 (3 each)
G.G. Wright (Fort Detrick)
V770-NP1-R. Bovine Anthrax
Class III pathogen

13. Bacillus Anthracis (ATCC 14578)
Batch #01-06-78 (2 each)
Class III pathogen

14. Bacillus megaterium (ATCC 14581)
Batch #04-18-85 (2 each)

15. Bacillus megaterium (ATCC 14945)
Batch #06-21-81 (2 each)

16. Clostridium botulinum Type E (ATCC 17855)
Batch # 06-21-71
Class III pathogen

17. Bacillus megaterium (ATCC 19213)
Batch #3-84 (2 each)

18. Clostridium botulinum Type A (ATCC 19397)
Batch # 08-18-81 (2 each)
Class III pathogen

19. Brucella abortus Biotype 3 (ATCC 23450)
Batch # 08-02-84 (3 each)
Class III pathogen

20. Brucella abortus Biotype 9 (ATCC 23455)
Batch # 02-05-68 (3 each)
Class III pathogen

21. Brucella melitensis Biotype 1 (ATCC 23456)
Batch # 03-08-78 (2 each)
Class III pathogen

22. Brucella melitensis Biotype 3 (ATCC 23458)
Batch # 01-29-68 (2 each)
Class III pathogen

23. Clostribium botulinum Type A (ATCC 25763)
Batch # 8-83 (2 each)
Class III pathogen

24. Clostridium botulinum Type F (ATCC 35415)
Batch # 02-02-84 (2 each)
Class III pathogen

Date : August 31, 1987
Sent To : State Company for Drug Industries
Materials Shipped:

1. Saccharomyces cerevesiae (ATCC 2601)
Batch # 08-28-08 (1 each)

2. Salmonella choleraesuis subsp. choleraesuis Serotype typhi (ATCC 6539)
Batch # 06-86S (1 each)

3. Bacillus subtillus (ATCC 6633)
Batch # 10-85 (2 each)

4. Klebsiella pneumoniae subsp. pneumoniae (ATCC 10031)
Batch # 08-13-80 (1 each)

5. Escherichia coli (ATCC 10536)
Batch # 04-09-80 (1 each)

6. Bacillus cereus (11778)
Batch #05-85SV (2 each)

7. Staphylococcus epidermidis (ATCC 12228)
Batch # 11-86s (1 each)

8. Bacillus pumilus (ATCC 14884)
Batch # 09-08-80 (2 each)

Date : July 11, 1988
Sent To : Iraq Atomic Energy Commission
Materials Shipped

1. Escherichia coli (ATCC 11303)
Batch # 04-875
Phase host

2. Cauliflower Mosaic Caulimovirus (ATCC 45031)
Batch # 06-14-85
Plant Virus

3. Plasmid in Agrobacterium Tumefaciens (ATCC 37349)
(Ti plasmid for co-cultivation with plant integration vectors in E. Coli)
Batch # 05-28-85

Date : April 26, 1988
Sent To: : Iraq Atomic Energy Commission
Materials Shipped:

1. Hulambda4x-8, clone: human hypoxanthine phosphoribosyltransferase
(HPRT) Chromosome(s): X q26.1 (ATCC 57236) Phage vector
Suggest host: E coli

2. Hulambda14-8, clone: human hypoxanthine phosphoribosyltransferase
(HPRT) Chromosome(s): X q26.1 (ATCC 57240) Phage vector
Suggested host: E coli

3. Hulambda15, clone: human hypoxanthine phosphoribosyltransferase
(HPRT) Chromosome(s): X q26.1 (ATCC 57242) Phage vector
Suggested host: E. coli

Date : August 31, 1987
Sent To : Iraq Atomic Energy Commission
Materials Shipped:

1. Escherichia coli (ATCC 23846)
Batch # 07-29-83 (1 each)

2. Escherichia coli (ATCC 33694)
Batch # 05-87 (1 each)

Date : September 29, 1988
Sent To : Ministry of Trade
Materials Shipped:

1. Bacillus anthracis (ATCC 240)
Batch # 05-14-63 (3 each)
Class III pathogen

2. Bacillus anthracis (ATCC 938)
Batch # 1963 (3 each)
Class III pathogen

3. Clostridium perfringens (ATCC 3629)
Batch # 10-23-85 (3 each)

4. Clostridium perfringens (ATCC 8009)
Batch # 03-30-84 (3 each)

5. Bacillus anthracis (ATCC 8705)
Batch # 06-27-62 (3 each)
Class III pathogen

6. Brucella abortus (ATCC 9014)
Batch # 05-11-66 (3 each)
Class III pathogen

7. Clostridium perfringens (ATCC 10388)
Batch # 06-01-73 (3 each)

8. Bacillus anthracis (ATCC 11966)
Batch #05-05-70 (3 each)
Class III pathogen

9. Clostridium botulinum Type A
Batch # 07-86 (3 each)
Class III pathogen

10. Bacillus cereus (ATCC 33018)
Batch # 04-83 (3 each)

11. Bacillus ceres (ATCC 33019)
Batch # 03-88 (3 each)

Date : January 31, 1989
Sent To : Iraq Atomic Energy Commission
Materials Shipped:

1. PHPT31, clone: human hypoxanthine phosphoribosyltransferase (HPRT)
Chromosome(s): X q26.1 (ATCC 57057)

2. Plambda500, clone: human hypoxanthine phosphoribosyltransferase
pseudogene (HPRT) Chromosome(s): 5 p14-p13 (ATCC 57212)

Date : January 17, 1989
Sent To : Iraq Atomic Energy Commission
Materials Shipped:

1. Hulambda4x-8, clone: human hypoxanthine phosphoribosyltransferase
(HPRT) Chromosomes(s): X q26.1 (ATCC 57237) Phage vector;
Suggested host: E. coli

2. Hulambda14, clone: human hypoxanthine phosphoribosyltransferase
(HPRT) Chromosome(s): X q26.1 (ATCC 57540), Cloned from human lymphoblast, Phase vector
Suggested host: E. coli

3. Hulambda15, clone: human hypoxanthine phosphoribosyltransferase
(HPRT) Chromosome(s): X q26.1 (ATCC 57241) Phage vector;
Suggested host: E. coli

Additionally, the Centers for Disease Control has compiled a listing of biological materials shipped to Iraq prior to the Gulf War. The listing covers the period from October 1, 1984 (when the CDC began keeping records) through October 13, 1993. The following materials with biological warfare significance were shipped to Iraq during this period.
Date : November 28, 1989
Sent To : University of Basrah, College of
Science, Department of Biology
Materials Shipped:

1. Enterococcus faecalis

2. Enterococcus faecium

3. Enterococcus avium

4. Enterococcus raffinosus

5. Enteroccus gallinarium

6. Enterococcus durans

7. Enteroccus hirae

8. Streptococcus bovis
(etiologic)

Date : April 21, 1986
Sent To : Officers City Al-Muthanna,
Quartret 710, Street 13, Close 69, House 28/I,
Baghdad, Iraq
Materials Shipped:

1. 1 vial botulinum toxoid
(non-infectious)

Date : March 10, 1986
Sent To : Officers City Al-Muthanna,
Quartret 710, Street 13, Close 69 House 28/I,
Baghdad, Iraq
Materials Shipped:

1. 1 vial botulinum toxoid #A2
(non-infectious)

Date : June 25, 1985
Sent To : University of Baghdad, College of
Medicine, Department of Microbiology
Materials Shipped:

1. 3 years cultures
(etiologic)
Candida sp.

Date : May 21, 1985
Sent To : Basrah, Iraq
Materials Shipped:

1. Lyophilized arbovirus seed
(etiologic)

2. West Nile Fever Virus

Date : April 26, 1985
Sent To : Minister of Health, Ministry of
Health, Baghdad, Iraq
Materials Shipped:

1. 8 vials antigen and antisera (r. rickettsii and r. typhi) to diagnose rickettsial infections (non-infectious)

Link Posted: 10/12/2004 11:22:41 AM EST
[Last Edit: 10/12/2004 11:24:23 AM EST by raven]

Originally Posted By CAMPYBOB:
supposedly, we gave strains of anthrax to saddam. sorry...no link.

edit: google around...all kinds of info out there.

home.att.net/~vetcenter/gavebios.htm



Saddam bought anthrax from American biomed research supply firms. There are, as you know, legitimate research uses for anthrax. Many Iraqis are pastoral herders, after all. Do you think for a second the firms who sold Iraqi universities and government departments of health anthrax thought they intended to turn it into a weapon?
Link Posted: 10/12/2004 11:32:34 AM EST

Originally Posted By Kharn:
His specific argument is that since we gave Saddam some form of WMD, its ok for Saddam to have some mustard and sarin still hanging around. I've called him on that asking when we gave Saddam sarin or mustard.

Kharn



NEVER. US gave intelligence and satellite support when he started the war against Iran. That' s ALL. When CIA was thrown out from Iraq, because Saddam preferred soviet union support in 1982, CIA was the first to confirm Iran claim, in UN Assembly, that Saddam used gas against their troops.

Gas was supplied by DDR, that is USSR.

And this is a FACT. Tell it to that liberal asshole.
Link Posted: 10/12/2004 11:50:12 AM EST
Who cares where he got them from? It doesn't matter if Ronald Reagan himself went over there and crapped out a Sarin shell. The cease-fire we signed with him forbade him from having any WMDs, whether the came from the US, the USSR, or the fairy godmother.

I never figured out where this argument is supposed to lead, anyways. Even if we did give them to him, doesn't that give us even greater responsibility to make sure that they aren't used improperly? And to use force if necessary to prevent him from using them?


Originally Posted By hound:
The US has REALLY bad foriegn policy. It always has. Just don't try to gloss over the rough parts to protect the party in power.



WTH are you talking about? This could only be said by someone who never acknowledged that the Soviet Union was a threat to the US. Our entire foreign policy from the end of WWII to the fall of the Berlin Wall was aimed at defeating Communism. Yeah, we had to do a few things that weren't too pretty to do that, but it worked. The results of losing the Cold War would be much, much worse then what some tin-pot dictator could do.
Top Top