U.S. Aided Iraq in War Despite Use of Gas
-
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