U.S. Aided Iraq in War Despite Use of Gas
-
I found the article to be terribly misleading. They use this quote: "Iraq's use of gas in that conflict is repeatedly cited by President Bush and, this week, by his national security adviser, Condoleezza Rice, as justification for "regime change" in Iraq." to make the US administration look like hypocrites. What the article completely hides is the fact that Iraq's use of chemical weapons against Kurdish and Shiite villages is far more horrible than chemical weapons against enemy soldiers. I'm sure chemical weapons against enemy soldiers is a crime, but WHO you use it against is more important. If you don't believe me, then consider this: Is it bad to use bullets to kill thousands of enemy soldiers? Now ask yourself, is it bad to use bullets to kill thousands of your own country's civilians? Completely different. When Bush talks about regime change because of Iraq's use of chemical weapons, I read that as meaning "using chemical weapons against civilians". The article misleadingly ignores any distinction between the two. I think it's worded misleadingly to slam the Bush administration -- but then it is the NY Times, so I'm not terribly surprised. (I'm not a big fan of Bush, but I hate when people write misleading stories for political purposes rather than giving the whole truth.) On an aside, when Iraq attacked the Kurds with chemical weapons, they began by firing artillery into the villages. When you are under artillery fire, the safest thing to do is get into the basement. Then, the Iraqis started firing chemical weapons into the villages. But the thing about chemical weapons is that they are heavier than air. As a result, they get concentrated in basements, so the basement is the worst possible place to be during a chemical attack. By firing regualar artillery first, the Iraqis manipulated the Kurds into getting into their basements, which made the chemical attacks even more devistating against the Kurds. How horrible is that? ------------------------------------------ When I was a kid, I used to pray every night for a new bicycle. Then I realized that the Lord, in his wisdom, didn't work that way. So I just stole one and asked him to forgive me. - Emo Phillips
Brit wrote: What the article completely hides is the fact that Iraq's use of chemical weapons against Kurdish and Shiite villages is far more horrible than chemical weapons against enemy soldiers. You seem to be suggesting that the use of chemical weapons against civilians is a recent development, subsequent to the US support of Iraq in the Iraq-Iran war. The following is taken from a Salon.com article by David Talbot, Salon's editor in chief (I can't give a link because you need to be a subscriber). The Iraq doomsday arsenal that inflames Washington hawks today was built with U.S. and Western assistance during the Reagan-Bush years, when Saddam was viewed as a bludgeon against our enemy, the Ayatollah Khomeini's regime. A U.S. company, American Type Culture Collection, shipped Baghdad strains of toxins and bacteria while Washington looked the other way. Saddam found other companies in the U.S., Britain, Germany, France and elsewhere willing to help supply his nuclear bomb program. "In all of this, we were just taking advantage of the West's 'don't ask, just sell' attitude toward Iraq," writes Khidir Hamza, the exiled Iraqi nuclear scientist whose memoir "Saddam's Bombmaker" is a deeply disturbing account of life inside the Saddam death culture." During his war with Iran, Saddam began using his grotesque biochemical devices on his own people. According to Hamza, who calls this "one of the most grisly episodes of these awful weapons in history," Saddam began not with the Kurds, but with the Shiites -- the majority population he suspected of being fifth columnists during the war. He injected Shiites as they were released from prison with an anthrax-like toxin and then began experimenting with chemical agents on Shiite prisoners at a German-built "pesticide" factory. He then turned his infamous cousin, known as Ali Chemical, on the Kurds, whom Saddam also accused of being "back-stabbers" during the war. He began by dumping typhoid spores into Kurdish villagers' water supplies. Then, in late 1987, he targeted villages in the Balasan Valley for gas attacks. By March 1988, Ali Chemical was ready for his most dramatic massacre, a nerve-agent assault on the village of Halabjah, a name that Hamza notes "would join Guernica, My Lai and Srbrenica in the pantheon of history's infamous war crimes." John Carson
-
This isn't directed at you, Martin, or anyone else in particular, but I'm wondering: why are people so surprised that the Middle East has decided to become involved in the US (Sept 11), when the US has been involved in the Middle East for years? I'm picturing a whiny child screaming, "Mommy! He hit me baaaack!" Sept 11 was horrible, but how do you expect people to react when you start killing them? :confused: _____________________ "Quand tu sèmes ta haine tu récoltes la Kalachnikov Love" "When you sow your hate You harvest the Kalachnikov Love" -[Kalachnikov Love](http://www.chez.com/polux/lirics/ab jerusalem.htm#5- KALACHNIKOV), Alpha Blondy
What do you mean by saying "involved? do you mean the 2G$ which US give each year to egypt? or 700m$ which jordan get from the US? or the protection which US give to Kuwait,and saudi arabia? one must say it loud,the ARAB world is hypocrite. i can't imagine life without the US i considered the US as the only moral voice in this world sure,they have interests like any other country but what is wrong in spreading democracy? ALL arab leaders,including the great english speaker,king of jordan are cruel dictators,they will do what ever they need to do in order to hold their power,including use of chemical weapons one must understand that US is both allay and a threat to the arab leaders too much US influence can bring too much democracy that's why arab leaders incite and encourage hate against the US!,it is amazing that 50% of the ARAB youth want to move to US and UK!!!!!! tomer Israel
-
Daniel Ferguson wrote: Sept 11 was horrible, but how do you expect people to react when you start killing them? The Islamic peoples have been slaughtering one another whole sale for centuries. Europeans powers have slaughtered them off and on during their long, sad, history of world conquest, Empire building and holy wars. So, sure, Daniel, it only makes sense that our relatively benign involvement would *really* piss them off. Yeah, sure, thats the answer. Gee, are you a smart guy er whut? Any time you Canadians have the guts to step up and manage world affairs just let us know. That ought to be good for a few laughs. I'm not a real reverend, I just play one on CP.
Relatively benign ? X| Would you like to meet my teddy bear ?
-
Martin, yet again you have raised a subject that would otherwise not be discussed. Perhaps if we admitted the in many cases international involvement (and I include the UK in this, even if not so much in the past few decades) has messed things up then perhaps we can begin to move forwards ? Rather than politics being interested in short term goals if it looked more towards the longer term then stability in the region would be improved. That would also save billions on weapons which could be better spent elsewhere by everyone. Elaine (fluffy tigress emoticon) Would you like to meet my teddy bear ?
-
Relatively benign ? X| Would you like to meet my teddy bear ?
That is what's known as a euphemism. _____________________ "They'd dearly make us pay For laughing in their faces And making it our way" -Love My Way, Psychedelic Furs
-
This isn't directed at you, Martin, or anyone else in particular, but I'm wondering: why are people so surprised that the Middle East has decided to become involved in the US (Sept 11), when the US has been involved in the Middle East for years? I'm picturing a whiny child screaming, "Mommy! He hit me baaaack!" Define "Involved". The US has had both good and bad effects on people in the Middle East. (Although, many people quickly forget the good.) For example, the US was important in ridding the Middle East of European colonialism. In the 1950s, the Middle East actually LIKED the US because of this. How about the fact that the West hauled Milosevic into war-crimes trials -- this is the man who is accused of trying to establish a state without Muslims (i.e. by killing or driving them out). How quickly the Muslims forget the West's help there. Sept 11 was horrible, but how do you expect people to react when you start killing them? This is one of the biggest problems with the Middle East. If the US gets involved in killing anyone there it becomes a matter of Muslim vs. Non-Muslim. They never seem to see any other factors in the situation. Nevermind the fact that there are a huge number of bad leaders there. That COULDN'T be the cause of the fighting. No, no, morality never enters the picture when you have Western "infidels" against Muslim "holy warriors", because the Muslims are always right. You should also realize that the 9/11 terrorists are not fighting for the greater Middle-Eastern good. They hate a lot of countries (have you already forgotten about the plot to kill the Pope? How about the plan to crash planes in Australia and India on 9/11?) They even hate the Turkish government because it is a state with a majority of Muslims, but is committed to a secular statehood. (Which has been very good for the people of Turkey, but which stirs of the hatred of Islamists who think all Muslims should live under sharia -- like Afghanistan was.) ------------------------------------------ When I was a kid, I used to pray every night for a new bicycle. Then I realized that the Lord, in his wisdom, didn't work that way. So I just stole one and asked him to forgive me. - Emo Phillips
By "involved" I meant messing where they were invited. Sure the US has helped someone, somewhere in the Middle East, but just like lots of medication -- they have a long list of side-effects that are worse than the disease they treat. Brit wrote: This is one of the biggest problems with the Middle East. The biggest problem in the Middle East is the people living there. They seem to have a powerful, childish urge to kill each other. Perhaps we're all better off without them. Brit wrote: Have you already forgotten about the plot to kill the Pope? I never heard about that. I don't have a lot of respect for the pope though. I don't think he should be killed, but I wouldn't cry. Brit wrote: They even hate the Turkish government because it is a state with a majority of Muslims, but is committed to a secular statehood. Why are so many people against anything that proves their religion wrong? Isn't their faith stronger than their insecurity? _____________________ "They'd dearly make us pay For laughing in their faces And making it our way" -Love My Way, Psychedelic Furs
-
What do you mean by saying "involved? do you mean the 2G$ which US give each year to egypt? or 700m$ which jordan get from the US? or the protection which US give to Kuwait,and saudi arabia? one must say it loud,the ARAB world is hypocrite. i can't imagine life without the US i considered the US as the only moral voice in this world sure,they have interests like any other country but what is wrong in spreading democracy? ALL arab leaders,including the great english speaker,king of jordan are cruel dictators,they will do what ever they need to do in order to hold their power,including use of chemical weapons one must understand that US is both allay and a threat to the arab leaders too much US influence can bring too much democracy that's why arab leaders incite and encourage hate against the US!,it is amazing that 50% of the ARAB youth want to move to US and UK!!!!!! tomer Israel
tomer dror wrote: do you mean the 2G$ which US give each year to egypt? or 700m$ which jordan get from the US? I suppose there are no strings attached. :rolleyes: How much Amuricun money goes into Isreal? More than that, I suspect. tomer dror wrote: ALL arab leaders,including the great english speaker,king of jordan are cruel dictators,they will do what ever they need to do in order to hold their power And the MOSSAD does not have a problem with using fake Canadian passports to travel around with? No doubt they only have the best intentions. tomer dror wrote: it is amazing that 50% of the ARAB youth want to move to US and UK!!!!!! Not really. If I were there, I would want to leave too. I'm not willing to fight and die for the stupidity of my ancestors. The Middle East seems to be full of men insecure about the size of their dicks who are trying their best to prove that they are well endowed. It's only natural for the US to get involved too. _____________________ "They'd dearly make us pay For laughing in their faces And making it our way" -Love My Way, Psychedelic Furs
-
Relatively benign ? X| Would you like to meet my teddy bear ?
Trollslayer wrote: Relatively benign ? Yes. Relative to how they have treated one another historically and relative to how other powers have treated them historically our involvement has obviously been benign. Can you give me an example of how our involvement in the Middle East has been worse than the region has experienced historically? I'm not a real reverend, I just play one on CP.
-
Reverend Stan wrote: Any time you Canadians have the guts to step up and manage world affairs just let us know. One country should not manage the affairs of the entire world. Reverend Stan wrote: The Islamic peoples have been slaughtering one another whole sale for centuries. So why get in the middle? _____________________ "They'd dearly make us pay For laughing in their faces And making it our way" -Love My Way, Psychedelic Furs
And if we were not getting involved, if we were not attempting to use our hegemony to manage world affairs, if we were just standing back letting people destory one another we would be getting even worse criticism. And it would still be coming from you, Daniel. The U.S. is, in fact, managing the affairs of the world better than they have ever been managed at any time in history. I wish we didn't have to. I wish it were you guys, but its not. We are the only game in town. Whether we like it or not (and I don't) the mantle of Empire has been thrust upon us. We have no choice but to stand up and fulfil our historic obligation to the world. And if that means bitch slapping a few Islamic dictators, why should you care? Our biggest problem is that a certain significant percentage of our population actually cares about what the rest of the world thinks about how we go about doing it. I'm not a real reverend, I just play one on CP.
-
tomer dror wrote: do you mean the 2G$ which US give each year to egypt? or 700m$ which jordan get from the US? I suppose there are no strings attached. :rolleyes: How much Amuricun money goes into Isreal? More than that, I suspect. tomer dror wrote: ALL arab leaders,including the great english speaker,king of jordan are cruel dictators,they will do what ever they need to do in order to hold their power And the MOSSAD does not have a problem with using fake Canadian passports to travel around with? No doubt they only have the best intentions. tomer dror wrote: it is amazing that 50% of the ARAB youth want to move to US and UK!!!!!! Not really. If I were there, I would want to leave too. I'm not willing to fight and die for the stupidity of my ancestors. The Middle East seems to be full of men insecure about the size of their dicks who are trying their best to prove that they are well endowed. It's only natural for the US to get involved too. _____________________ "They'd dearly make us pay For laughing in their faces And making it our way" -Love My Way, Psychedelic Furs
Daniel Ferguson wrote: I suppose there are no strings attached. How much Amuricun money goes into Israel? More than that, I suspect. it's irrelevant,we do get 3g$,but this what make us the best friends of the US in this region,what should bother you that only US backing us,a western democracy which is in a state of war with more than 20 countries Daniel Ferguson wrote: And the MOSSAD does not have a problem with using fake Canadian passports to travel around with? No doubt they only have the best intentions. ha?! how does it is relate to ARAB dictators,excpet the fact that some time we use those passports in order to topple the dictators? Daniel Ferguson wrote: Not really. If I were there, I would want to leave too. I'm not willing to fight and die for the stupidity of my ancestors. yes that's true,but we always hear in CNN that arabs hate the US!!! Daniel Ferguson wrote: The Middle East seems to be full of men insecure about the size of their dicks who are trying their best to prove that they are well endowed. It's only natural for the US to get involved too. we just want to live,like you,i want to open the radio and to hear in the top news, that "codetools" won some awards.... Daniel,we live in different worlds,you don't know what is the feeling to live in a country which is under a daily threat for it's is own existence Tomer Israel
-
And if we were not getting involved, if we were not attempting to use our hegemony to manage world affairs, if we were just standing back letting people destory one another we would be getting even worse criticism. And it would still be coming from you, Daniel. The U.S. is, in fact, managing the affairs of the world better than they have ever been managed at any time in history. I wish we didn't have to. I wish it were you guys, but its not. We are the only game in town. Whether we like it or not (and I don't) the mantle of Empire has been thrust upon us. We have no choice but to stand up and fulfil our historic obligation to the world. And if that means bitch slapping a few Islamic dictators, why should you care? Our biggest problem is that a certain significant percentage of our population actually cares about what the rest of the world thinks about how we go about doing it. I'm not a real reverend, I just play one on CP.
"The U.S. is, in fact, managing the affairs of the world better than they have ever been managed at any time in history." You need to get out more - or have your rose-tinted glasses seen to. Recent America policy has ensured that every US citizen is a target. Old Simon HB9DRV
-
"The U.S. is, in fact, managing the affairs of the world better than they have ever been managed at any time in history." You need to get out more - or have your rose-tinted glasses seen to. Recent America policy has ensured that every US citizen is a target. Old Simon HB9DRV
Simon Brown wrote: You need to get out more - or have your rose-tinted glasses seen to. Recent America policy has ensured that every US citizen is a target Which policies would that be? If you are referring to our policies towards Israel, are you naive enough to believe that if we turned our backs on Israel the Islamic fundamentalists would quit attacking us? Do you really believe thats what this is all about? That bin Ladin, et al, gives a rats ass about the Palistinians? (Hell, if Israel were not killing Palistinians, bin Ladin would be.) That the people responsible for 9/11 cared about the plight of the Palistinians? Are you actually that stupid? I'm not a real reverend, I just play one on CP.
-
Brit wrote: What the article completely hides is the fact that Iraq's use of chemical weapons against Kurdish and Shiite villages is far more horrible than chemical weapons against enemy soldiers. You seem to be suggesting that the use of chemical weapons against civilians is a recent development, subsequent to the US support of Iraq in the Iraq-Iran war. The following is taken from a Salon.com article by David Talbot, Salon's editor in chief (I can't give a link because you need to be a subscriber). The Iraq doomsday arsenal that inflames Washington hawks today was built with U.S. and Western assistance during the Reagan-Bush years, when Saddam was viewed as a bludgeon against our enemy, the Ayatollah Khomeini's regime. A U.S. company, American Type Culture Collection, shipped Baghdad strains of toxins and bacteria while Washington looked the other way. Saddam found other companies in the U.S., Britain, Germany, France and elsewhere willing to help supply his nuclear bomb program. "In all of this, we were just taking advantage of the West's 'don't ask, just sell' attitude toward Iraq," writes Khidir Hamza, the exiled Iraqi nuclear scientist whose memoir "Saddam's Bombmaker" is a deeply disturbing account of life inside the Saddam death culture." During his war with Iran, Saddam began using his grotesque biochemical devices on his own people. According to Hamza, who calls this "one of the most grisly episodes of these awful weapons in history," Saddam began not with the Kurds, but with the Shiites -- the majority population he suspected of being fifth columnists during the war. He injected Shiites as they were released from prison with an anthrax-like toxin and then began experimenting with chemical agents on Shiite prisoners at a German-built "pesticide" factory. He then turned his infamous cousin, known as Ali Chemical, on the Kurds, whom Saddam also accused of being "back-stabbers" during the war. He began by dumping typhoid spores into Kurdish villagers' water supplies. Then, in late 1987, he targeted villages in the Balasan Valley for gas attacks. By March 1988, Ali Chemical was ready for his most dramatic massacre, a nerve-agent assault on the village of Halabjah, a name that Hamza notes "would join Guernica, My Lai and Srbrenica in the pantheon of history's infamous war crimes." John Carson
You seem to be suggesting that the use of chemical weapons against civilians is a recent development, subsequent to the US support of Iraq in the Iraq-Iran war. The chemical attacks that I am aware of are from 1988-1989. You point out the same thing with this quote: Then, in late 1987, he targeted villages in the Balasan Valley for gas attacks. By March 1988, Ali Chemical was ready for his most dramatic massacre, a nerve-agent assault on the village of Halabjah, a name that Hamza notes "would join Guernica, My Lai and Srbrenica in the pantheon of history's infamous war crimes." Yes, I was suggesting that chemical attacks on civilians (at least the known ones) occured subsequent to the Iran-Iraq war. Here's some dates for the war: 1987 July 20: Iran accepts a UN resolution on ending the fightings. 1988: Peace is achieved between the two countries, even if fightings ceased months earlier. Since you cite a "late 1987" and "March 1988" date, this would mean that those attacks really did happen after the war. ------------------------------------------ When I was a kid, I used to pray every night for a new bicycle. Then I realized that the Lord, in his wisdom, didn't work that way. So I just stole one and asked him to forgive me. - Emo Phillips
-
Daniel Ferguson wrote: I suppose there are no strings attached. How much Amuricun money goes into Israel? More than that, I suspect. it's irrelevant,we do get 3g$,but this what make us the best friends of the US in this region,what should bother you that only US backing us,a western democracy which is in a state of war with more than 20 countries Daniel Ferguson wrote: And the MOSSAD does not have a problem with using fake Canadian passports to travel around with? No doubt they only have the best intentions. ha?! how does it is relate to ARAB dictators,excpet the fact that some time we use those passports in order to topple the dictators? Daniel Ferguson wrote: Not really. If I were there, I would want to leave too. I'm not willing to fight and die for the stupidity of my ancestors. yes that's true,but we always hear in CNN that arabs hate the US!!! Daniel Ferguson wrote: The Middle East seems to be full of men insecure about the size of their dicks who are trying their best to prove that they are well endowed. It's only natural for the US to get involved too. we just want to live,like you,i want to open the radio and to hear in the top news, that "codetools" won some awards.... Daniel,we live in different worlds,you don't know what is the feeling to live in a country which is under a daily threat for it's is own existence Tomer Israel
tomer dror wrote: how does it is relate to ARAB dictators You said they use any means, right or wrong, I'm saying: Isreal doesn't? tomer dror wrote: we just want to live,like you Too bad the peope with guns are making the big decisions. _____________________ "They'd dearly make us pay For laughing in their faces And making it our way" -Love My Way, Psychedelic Furs
-
And if we were not getting involved, if we were not attempting to use our hegemony to manage world affairs, if we were just standing back letting people destory one another we would be getting even worse criticism. And it would still be coming from you, Daniel. The U.S. is, in fact, managing the affairs of the world better than they have ever been managed at any time in history. I wish we didn't have to. I wish it were you guys, but its not. We are the only game in town. Whether we like it or not (and I don't) the mantle of Empire has been thrust upon us. We have no choice but to stand up and fulfil our historic obligation to the world. And if that means bitch slapping a few Islamic dictators, why should you care? Our biggest problem is that a certain significant percentage of our population actually cares about what the rest of the world thinks about how we go about doing it. I'm not a real reverend, I just play one on CP.
Reverend Stan wrote: I wish it were you guys It should be an impartial committee of nations. Reverend Stan wrote: Our biggest problem is that a certain significant percentage of our population actually cares about what the rest of the world thinks about how we go about doing it. That is because the US is not trying to solve the problems in the Middle East. Ostensibly they are there to help, but everyone knows they are just furthering their own interests. _____________________ "They'd dearly make us pay For laughing in their faces And making it our way" -Love My Way, Psychedelic Furs
-
You seem to be suggesting that the use of chemical weapons against civilians is a recent development, subsequent to the US support of Iraq in the Iraq-Iran war. The chemical attacks that I am aware of are from 1988-1989. You point out the same thing with this quote: Then, in late 1987, he targeted villages in the Balasan Valley for gas attacks. By March 1988, Ali Chemical was ready for his most dramatic massacre, a nerve-agent assault on the village of Halabjah, a name that Hamza notes "would join Guernica, My Lai and Srbrenica in the pantheon of history's infamous war crimes." Yes, I was suggesting that chemical attacks on civilians (at least the known ones) occured subsequent to the Iran-Iraq war. Here's some dates for the war: 1987 July 20: Iran accepts a UN resolution on ending the fightings. 1988: Peace is achieved between the two countries, even if fightings ceased months earlier. Since you cite a "late 1987" and "March 1988" date, this would mean that those attacks really did happen after the war. ------------------------------------------ When I was a kid, I used to pray every night for a new bicycle. Then I realized that the Lord, in his wisdom, didn't work that way. So I just stole one and asked him to forgive me. - Emo Phillips
Brit wrote: Yes, I was suggesting that chemical attacks on civilians (at least the known ones) occured subsequent to the Iran-Iraq war. Here's some dates for the war: 1987 July 20: Iran accepts a UN resolution on ending the fightings. 1988: Peace is achieved between the two countries, even if fightings ceased months earlier. Since you cite a "late 1987" and "March 1988" date, this would mean that those attacks really did happen after the war. Apparently the war ended a little earlier than I thought. All the same, the US supported what was obviously a very nasty regime and did not really turn against it until the invasion of Kuwait in August 1990. To quote again from the Salon.com article. During Bush's first year in office, writes Aburish [a biographer of Hussein], "the United States continued to supply Iraq with helicopter engines, vacuum pumps for a nuclear plant, sophisticated communications equipment, computers, bacteria strains and hundreds of tons of unrefined Sarin." John Carson
-
Brit wrote: Yes, I was suggesting that chemical attacks on civilians (at least the known ones) occured subsequent to the Iran-Iraq war. Here's some dates for the war: 1987 July 20: Iran accepts a UN resolution on ending the fightings. 1988: Peace is achieved between the two countries, even if fightings ceased months earlier. Since you cite a "late 1987" and "March 1988" date, this would mean that those attacks really did happen after the war. Apparently the war ended a little earlier than I thought. All the same, the US supported what was obviously a very nasty regime and did not really turn against it until the invasion of Kuwait in August 1990. To quote again from the Salon.com article. During Bush's first year in office, writes Aburish [a biographer of Hussein], "the United States continued to supply Iraq with helicopter engines, vacuum pumps for a nuclear plant, sophisticated communications equipment, computers, bacteria strains and hundreds of tons of unrefined Sarin." John Carson
During Bush's first year in office, writes Aburish [a biographer of Hussein], "the United States continued to supply Iraq with helicopter engines, vacuum pumps for a nuclear plant, sophisticated communications equipment, computers, bacteria strains and hundreds of tons of unrefined Sarin." So this only happened in Bush's first year (i.e. 1988)? Also, what do they mean by the "United States"? Do they mean the US Military? Or do they mean businesses in the US? (Thanks to beaurocracy, it wouldn't surprise me if it took a long time to cut off Iraq from US businesses.) I also wonder which "bacteria strains" they were talking about (there are lots of strains of bacteria which cannot be used in bio-warfare). And I also wonder about the "unrefined Sarin". It seems that Sarin gas would be easy enough for Iraq to make on it's own (afterall, the Aum Shinryko cult in Japan made it - so why couldn't an entire country?) ------------------------------------------ When I was a kid, I used to pray every night for a new bicycle. Then I realized that the Lord, in his wisdom, didn't work that way. So I just stole one and asked him to forgive me. - Emo Phillips
-
During Bush's first year in office, writes Aburish [a biographer of Hussein], "the United States continued to supply Iraq with helicopter engines, vacuum pumps for a nuclear plant, sophisticated communications equipment, computers, bacteria strains and hundreds of tons of unrefined Sarin." So this only happened in Bush's first year (i.e. 1988)? Also, what do they mean by the "United States"? Do they mean the US Military? Or do they mean businesses in the US? (Thanks to beaurocracy, it wouldn't surprise me if it took a long time to cut off Iraq from US businesses.) I also wonder which "bacteria strains" they were talking about (there are lots of strains of bacteria which cannot be used in bio-warfare). And I also wonder about the "unrefined Sarin". It seems that Sarin gas would be easy enough for Iraq to make on it's own (afterall, the Aum Shinryko cult in Japan made it - so why couldn't an entire country?) ------------------------------------------ When I was a kid, I used to pray every night for a new bicycle. Then I realized that the Lord, in his wisdom, didn't work that way. So I just stole one and asked him to forgive me. - Emo Phillips
Brit wrote: So this only happened in Bush's first year (i.e. 1988)? Also, what do they mean by the "United States"? Do they mean the US Military? Or do they mean businesses in the US? (Thanks to beaurocracy, it wouldn't surprise me if it took a long time to cut off Iraq from US businesses.) I also wonder which "bacteria strains" they were talking about (there are lots of strains of bacteria which cannot be used in bio-warfare). And I also wonder about the "unrefined Sarin". It seems that Sarin gas would be easy enough for Iraq to make on it's own (afterall, the Aum Shinryko cult in Japan made it - so why couldn't an entire country?) Bush's first year was 1989 (he was elected in November 1988 and inaugurated in January 1989). I presume that the bacteria strains were from US business rather than the military. As for whether Iraq could have made Sarin gas itself, it could probably have made a whole lot of things itself that it in fact chose to import, but importing was probably cheaper and easier. According to the Salon.com article, the Bush administration opposed congressional efforts to impose sanctions on Iraq, so it wasn't simply a matter of bureaucratic delays. For other sources on this, see http://journalism.berkeley.edu/faculty/MarkDanner/wnyless.html and http://nsarchive.chadwyck.com/igessayx.htm John Carson