Arms entered Iraq through Syrian Firm

[pax]

There is plenty of hypocrisy. We denied chlorine for water treatment after 91 because his well known programs and use of chemical weapons was suddenly possible against us. How much clearer can that be...

Suddenly we care about halabja while when it happened we cared shit?

There was no knee jerk use of chems in 91. None were used. They had only been used against the kurds and iranians... YEARS before...

Im not generalizing im stating the simple facts of pre and post 91... If you choose to be thick about it and ignore the simple ramifications of the behavior of politicians go right ahead...

What boggles my mind is that on one hand youll be found defending the attack by Israel in 81 as Saddam was obviously a dangerous psycho back then (an attack I agree with before you retort to that unnecessarily) who could use such weapons tho Israel had a huge deterrent. But then you justify the US helping Iraq shortly after to obtain the same weapons THEN of course understand that our 'simple innocent commerce' with him is suddenly dangerous post 91...

cmon... this line of reasoning is pretty thin in my book...

 

[pax]

Truth is this fact of history I find is scary for Israel. It shows that when US interests are at stake... it is willing to help even the worse enemies of Israel...

 

[Legion]

There is plenty of hypocrisy. We denied chlorine for water treatment after 91 because his well known programs and use of chemical weapons was suddenly possible against us. How much clearer can that be...

How is this hypocrtical? Are you suggesting we ought to automatically assume any of the chemicals we sent him could be used to make weapons because they are "dual use"? The supposition is obtuse. Even many the final products are "dual use"! The fears of "dual use" chemicals are created by the ignorance of people who know little of these chemicals purposes.

Secondly Iraq's chem research was not well known during the years in which the alledged transactions took place (85-89).

IF the information was so well known at the time what does that say of French/Iraq policies? What does that say about French collusion in building a nuclear reactor?

Suddenly we care about halabja while when it happened we cared shit?

No shit! We finally became aware that chemical weapons were used in Halabja.

There was no knee jerk use of chems in 91.

Read what i said Pax. I said the banning was kneejerk.

Im not generalizing im stating the simple facts of pre and post 91... If you choose to be thick about it and ignore the simple ramifications of the behavior of politicians go right ahead...

No you are reflecting on pre/post 91 "facts" from your memory which has been tainted post hoc by findings released and inspections conducted after 91.

What boggles my mind is that on one hand youll be found defending the attack by Israel in 81 as Saddam was obviously a dangerous psycho back then (an attack I agree with before you retort to that unnecessarily) who could use such weapons tho Israel had a huge deterrent.

http://www.fas.org/nuke/guide/iraq/facility/osiraq.htm

http://freeman.io.com/m_online/jun97/beres1.htm

The attack raised a number of questions of interpretation regarding international legal concepts. Those who approved of the raid argued that the Israelis had engaged in an act of legitimate self-defense justifiable under international law and under Article 51 of the charter of the United Nations (UN).

Building of Nuclear "research" facility by a government hardly equates their production of chemical weapons pax. Should we automatically assume that NK is developing chemical and biological weapons too pax without any evidence?

Aside from these facts can you show me where i defended the bombing of the Osirak reactor?

But then you justify the US helping Iraq shortly after to obtain the same weapons THEN of course understand that our 'simple innocent commerce' with him is suddenly dangerous post 91...

When did the US help Iraq develop nuclear weapons?! What on Earth are you talking about? It was the French you provided them with the Osirak reactor! It was also them who were negotiating the rebuilding of the reactor as well as building a second reactor.

Your argument i defended the US aiding the Iraqis to develope nuclear arms is bullshit. I haven't even discussed nuclear arms.

If you are trying to a rather ridiculous argument by lumping Nuclear arms into the category of WMD all the while trying to assert the US aided Iraq in the creation of WMD i'd have to say you're being deliberately idiotic. You still haven't presented a shread of evidence the US aided Iraq to develope anything!

 

[Legion]

Truth is this fact of history I find is scary for Israel. It shows that when US interests are at stake... it is willing to help even the worse enemies of Israel...

I'll take this as a childish means of provoking me into arguing with you and reducing this thread into an Israel rant.

Perhaps the evidence actually shows that France is willing to provide nuclear weapons to rogue nations? You must certianly thank those coalition troops Pax, otherwise France may have engineered the middle easts' NK.

 

[RussSchultz]

More proof???I though this was common knowledge! I just need to you if you guys are actuall being serious with that questioning.

Apparently if you say it enough, it becomes "common knowledge".

All the articles you quote say the exact same thing: "The us is responsible for arming Iraq", then go on to "prove" nothing beyond what I've discussed: private American companies sold dual use products, which does not support their contention. Its also obvious these three articles come from the exact same source, by mention of the "veritable witches brew".

Please don't waste my time--read the articles before you post.

 

[Legion]

Russ , sometimes i wonder about all this bias. France helps Iraq make a nuclear facility, plans to repair it after its destructions, and plans to build another yet the US is singled out as the country that helped Iraq make wmd.... France of course was just trying to help those poor starving iraqi's receive power....

 

[bloodbob]

Im not sure we can make the statement that end products can be reduced again...

Yes we can. You don't seem to undersand how easy it is to make mustard gas or other nerve gasses (very effective ones) Pax. Just grab a bucket poor in some common household bleach and any other chemical containing chlorine. That should be enough to produce Chlorine gas, a highly toxic nerve gas.

certainly not in all cases tho we would need a chemist to clear that up.

Check it out youself. Its not anywhere as hard as you think to produce deadly chemicals such as Mustard and Serin gas.

I dont think we can argue that the US helped the iraqi regime in the 80's.

Pax come now. Correlation does not equal causation. If this is your basis for believing the US government sold Iraq chemicals for the purpose of creating weapons then i'd suggest you find something with more substance to it. Plenty of nations have helped the Iraqi regime should we assume all of them have bene apart of some elaborate weapons conspiracy?

Certainly did all it could tho congress did step in a bit. But of course no one would want chlorine banned as it is used for cleaning water... but then again it WAS banned after 91...

was it banned for valid reasoning i would be a major question. if handled properly it should be harmless.

Good enough for us but not the hundreds of thousands who were murdered while the us blocked un resolutions to condemn the mass murders...

How exactly did the US block resolutions to condemn mass murders pax?

Chlorine isn't a nerve gas it is toxic compared to carbon monoxide but not really all that toxic. Sarin nerve gas isn't that hard to produce but to get the precusours they are a fair pain in the ass atleast for the average joe. I can't remeber synthesis mustard gas.

Next there needs to be made some distiction between WMD used in war and used by terrorists.

Anthrax is a biological weapon that a country might use in warfare but something like ebola is something terrorists wouldn't mind using even though it could spread out of control and kill their own people.

VX nerve gas is something a country might use but terrorists might also use TCDD (more toxic then VX and has a halflife of about 12 years).

 

[Legion]

Chlorine isn't a nerve gas it is toxic compared to carbon monoxide but not really all that toxic.

I'll chalk this one up to my chem III prof who described it as such...

Sarin nerve gas isn't that hard to produce but to get the precusours they are a fair pain in the ass atleast for the average joe. I can't remeber synthesis mustard gas.

Not for Saddam nor many of the leaders of the rest of the arab world. Admitedly, Saddam had the most advanced chem/bio engineering facilities in the mid east since the 70s. I wouldn't doubt his capacity to acquired and manipulate precussors to get the at what he needs.

Next there needs to be made some distiction between WMD used in war and used by terrorists.

Anthrax is a biological weapon that a country might use in warfare but something like ebola is something terrorists wouldn't mind using even though it could spread out of control and kill their own people.

The risks of transporting ebola i'd imagine may be just to high. It usage would bring rather uncontrolled results.

VX nerve gas is something a country might use but terrorists might also use TCDD (more toxic then VX and has a halflife of about 12 years).

That does make sense. Being that both have a more controllable result of use then Ebola.

 

[pax]

Cutting through the chase through the noise here legion you agree with post 91 sanctions or not?

Though I dont know why I should even ask this... theres already a contradiction in your thinking that Iraq's nuke reactor was a threat (which Ill repeat again as you obviously didnt get it last time or mistakenly thought I was being sarcastic) which I think it definitely was. But our following commerce with him in various dual use products was innocent.

Its such a glaring contradiction in thinking I dont see much else or reason to argue with you. We've known about saddams programs for over 20 years and yet took no measure to limit proliferation in his case. UNTIL 91.

 

[pax]

Oh and regarding this...

How exactly did the US block resolutions to condemn mass murders pax?

Youll quickly find no resolution brought to the UN condemning the widely reported mass slaughters by saddam during the 80s by the US or anyone in the west in fact. Bush said a little thing about "if you're not for us you're against us"... Ill hold the reaganites (whether under reagan or bush or junior) to those same standards thank you.

 

[Legion]

Youll quickly find no resolution brought to the UN condemning the widely reported mass slaughters by saddam during the 80s by the US or anyone in the west in fact.

So how do you come ot the conclusion the US was "blocking" resolutions? If what you are saying is true shouldn't you rephrase what you are saying to the West was blocking resolutions?

 

[Legion]

Cutting through the chase through the noise here legion you agree with post 91 sanctions or not?

No, not really. I feel we should have removed Saddam from power instead of playing the diplomatic game.

Though I dont know why I should even ask this... theres already a contradiction in your thinking that Iraq's nuke reactor was a threat

Lol hardly. There isn't even the hint of contradiction in my words. You are simply selectively reading my posts and misrepresenting what i have said as evident in one of your early responses refering to banning of dual usage chemicals.

(which Ill repeat again as you obviously didnt get it last time or mistakenly thought I was being sarcastic) which I think it definitely was.

Sure thing pax. It probably came across to me as a matter of you being uninformed. I suppose you can admit you aren't very observant yourself as you obviously lack recognition that what i said concerning the Osirak reactor was partially sarcasm.

But our following commerce with him in various dual use products was innocent.

Pax you have yet to present any evidence to support your assertion that any transactions with Saddam weren't innocent. Do you believe the more you repeat this the more likely it is to be true?

Its such a glaring contradiction in thinking I dont see much else or reason to argue with you.

lol. Although you seem to lack the capacity to explain how it is a contradiction. Please stop your sanctimony and postering Pax. You never had a shread of evidence to support anything you have stated and now you're just spining your wheels. Rather inane don't you think?

We've known about saddams programs for over 20 years and yet took no measure to limit proliferation in his case. UNTIL 91.

Pax, have you not bothered to read a word i have posted? We didn't confirm such material until around '94. Most of the alledged transactions took place in 85 - 89. Yes there were measures taken to limit what was transacted with Iraq all those far less transactions refused then those that were passed. How does this compare with any other country and their transactions? Again, a question i have asked which hasn't been answered by anyone in this thread along with a list of many others.

 

[London Geezer]

*NOT GONNA GET INTO THIS ONE..... NOT GOING TO...... NOPE..... NNNNNNNNNNO!* :|

 

[RussSchultz]

We've known about saddams programs for over 20 years and yet took no measure to limit proliferation in his case. UNTIL 91.

It takes more than one country to embargo.

But regardless, how does this somehow villify the US and support the contention that the US SUPPORTED Saddam in his pursuit?

If the US did, then so did the Germans, the French, the Dutch, the Japanese, etc. etc. etc.

 

[London Geezer]

If the US did, then so did the Germans, the French, the Dutch, the Japanese, etc. etc. etc.

Exactly, and that's the saddest part isn't it... Personally i don't know about the Germans and Japanese, but at least we know the French had something to do with Iraq's "plans", even if indirectly.

 

[pax]

I didnt vilify the us in particular russ I vilified the west. Legion you remove one contradiction by agreeing post 91 sanctions shouldnt have happened but you still agree with support of Iraq in the 80's post 81 israel attack on their nuke reactor. Yeah by any measure its a contradiction in thinking...

So nukes were obviously a danger to israel but not bio chems? Dont you guys find it odd that not only were there no attempts at the UN by the US or any western country or in any other fashion to start sanctions\embargo against Iraq's wmd programs well pre 91?

Legion you def need to readup. We knew about saddams bio chem programs for over 20 years. I remember reading about them in the 80's war against Iran. How can you say we only knew in 94???

This is mass media reporting yet it takes the us admin 10 years to catch up? Plenty of evidence has already been given here legion you just choose to ignore them. "agricultural credits" my ass...

So saddam couldve distilled his germs from vaccines? Now whose being inane? Almost every western country traded with iraq in the 80's. Again Ill repeat no clean hands here.

 

[Legion]

So nukes were obviously a danger to israel but not bio chems? Dont you guys find it odd that not only were there no attempts at the UN by the US or any western country or in any other fashion to start sanctions\embargo against Iraq's wmd programs well pre 91?

No, as i explained before we didn't confirm Iraq's bio weapons research until around '94. This hardly constitutes anything but perhaps apathy.

No pax its not contradicting thinking, you are extrapolating.

Legion you def need to readup. We knew about saddams bio chem programs for over 20 years.

Again i highly doubt your suggestions as you haven't provided any evidence to back up what you are saying.

I remember reading about them in the 80's war against Iran. How can you say we only knew in 94???

I said it was confirmed in '94 or around that time. So we couldn't have known for a fact the rumors/allegations were true.

This is mass media reporting yet it takes the us admin 10 years to catch up?

Pax the media doesn't always report facts. They report a great deal of heresay.

Plenty of evidence has already been given here legion you just choose to ignore them. "agricultural credits" my ass...

Right pax. Much like the allegations bio weapons were used in Hallabja....

So saddam couldve distilled his germs from vaccines?

Or acquired them from many other places.

Now whose being inane? Almost every western country traded with iraq in the 80's. Again Ill repeat no clean hands here.

Lol ergo we are all apart of a massive bio weapons conspiracy. Excellant logic pax.

 

[pax]

20 years doesnt take us to 94. You mean 84??... I read about his bio\chem weapons programs in the early 80's...

 

[Legion]

20 years doesnt take us to 94. You mean 84??... I read about his bio\chem weapons programs in the early 80's...

Pax, i am more than certain your read speculations. I have yet to see any solid evidence the US or many other Western nations knew for a fact this was happening.

There are many factors you are still ignoring. Not a single person in this thread has provided for the quantity of chemical and bio agents sent to Iraq or for that matter the quantity of final product. I should both to be very important information in this matter. I should like to see very much confirmation of which chemicals and biological samples were actually used by Saddam to produce weapons if any at all.

Let us also not forget many western nations have been trading the same chemical and biological agents with many other nations. Iraq isn't unique.

 

[Natoma]

Just skimming. One quick note that I found that isn't true. Legion, in 1985-1989, it was well known that Iraq had an extensive array of chemical weapons and a very advanced weapons program.

What do you think they lobbed at Iran during the Iran/Iraq war? Chili Powder?