DescentBB

Sorry all you in the anti-war crowd, who crow endlessly on how the Iraq war should not have happened, but further news is in as to why it was emminately just in a global context. While the typical dung beatle like liberal cannot see much beyond their cheese and wine, the following from the Washington Times sheds light on how nuclearised the world would have become if Uncle Saddie was not taken down. The Libyan by product of Bush's preemptive strategy may be the proverbial golden egged goose. Perhaps because of this, these self same " Give peace a chance" mantra by rote chanters will still be able to nose their little treasures around 50 years from now.


"Whoever was responsible, the warhead design appears now to have been a sought-after prize of the network of nuclear middlemen and parts producers that American officials say is being broken up, from Germany to Malaysia, and from Dubai to the Netherlands.

"Ever since the Libya revelations last month, there have been a lot of detentions, and some arrests," one American official said Tuesday."

http://www.nytimes.com/2004/02/04/polit ... &position=

I loved the movie Dr. Strangelove!

Your comments don't seem to jive with the article you posted. here's a quote:

<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Arial">quote:</font><HR><font face="Arial" size="3"><b> "Mr. Albright and his associate, Corey Hinderstein, have reviewed documents found at the farm of Hussein Kamel, Saddam Hussein's son in law, after he defected from Iraq in 1995. Mr. Kamel told the C.I.A. that many of Mr. Hussein's weapons had been destroyed â?? a statement that appears to be correct, in light of the findings of David A. Kay, the former chief American weapons inspector in Iraq.

A memorandum found among Mr. Kamel's papers, dated June 10, 1990, appeared to be a proposal from an unidentified middleman referring to offers "from the Pakistani scientist Dr. Abd-el-Qadeer Khard regarding the possibility of helping Iraq establish a project to enrich Uranium and manufacture a nuclear weapon."

The I.A.E.A. later concluded that the Iraqis never took up the offer. Iraq already had sophisticated enrichment technology, and it suspected a sting operation or a scam."</b></font><HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

The article indicates Iraq neither acquired nor proliferated the nuke plans. The article implies Iraq had a weapons program for uranium enrichment but indicates that Iraq destroyed many of its weapons. This would hardly indicate they were an imminent threat.

All of this is besides the point though, because i think you go off track from your first sentence. I have never heard a single person on this board crow initially that the war "shouldn't have happened", much less "endlessly". I know that I have said more than once that I despise tyranny and I'm glad Hussein was ousted.

The only problems this BB'er had with war are:

1) the justification used for the war, WMD, was spurious. bush was saying there were "TONS" of WMD. Turned out there was none...oops. They sold us a "product" that wasn't what they said it was.

2) total lack of diplomatic aptitude at getting our allies on board for the attack. the need for good relations with our allies outweighed the urgency to attack iraq.

3) Bush is a fu<g>cking dumb<g>ass. I'm sorry, but in order to be my president you need to at least be able to hold your own with me in conversation. Most high school students have better verbal skills. It is a huge problem that our president is a dumbass. Tony Blair...not a dumbass. Bill Clinton, Richard Nixon, FDR, Kennedy, Bush, Sr., etc...not dumb<g>asses. Each of those presidents I've named could be criticized for this or that reason, but Bush fails the dumb<g>ass test from the get go.

You know what happens in government when the leader of the state is moron with no strength of personality? people behind the scenes take power into their own hands. In other words, i suspect the government is really run by Cheney or Rumsfeld or some combination thereof.

I do not understand this vitriolic post against a liberal ogre that doesn't even exist. And I challenge you to find a "liberal" on this board who is sorry Saddam is gone from power. More realistically, I challene you to even find someone who is opposed in princpal to a war against Iraq presented with half a shred of sense instead of what we got. Everyone wanted Saddam gone.

Short and quick for now Palzon, read my post a little closer. I never mentioned antone here was sorry Saddie was gone...I said some were against the war and yes they do repeat themselves.

name one

Birdseye:

"The root of my argument against the war in Iraq is based more on the result of our actions rather than the necessity for justice or disarming."

I think this is when Birdy was held in thrall by the great Naom Chomsky. Want me to locate more?

Paly, what do you have against me?!?

<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Arial">quote:</font><HR><font face="Arial" size="3">Originally posted by Palzon:
<b> The only problems this BB'er had with war are:

1) the justification used for the war, WMD, was spurious. bush was saying there were "TONS" of WMD. Turned out there was none...oops. They sold us a "product" that wasn't what they said it was. </b></font><HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

No doubt you are aware, as someone with whom the President could not sustain a conversation due to your admittedly overwhelming intellectual horsepower, that Hussein did possess WMD, and in fact used them on his own population in Halabja. You must also be aware, that Hussein was under sanctions from the United Nations for failing to account for those weapons.

Now, allowing for the possibility that David Kaye is correct in his conclusion that WMD will not be found in Iraq, let's explore that. We know he had them. We know he's used them. We know the world community believed he had them, and demanded he account for them or their destruction. We know the world community imposed sanctions against Iraq for its failure to so account. Do you think that maybe just maybe, they are still in the country somewhere. Is it plausible that during the 15 month buildup to the war, Hussein a) hid them; shipped them to a neighboring country; c) destroyed them?

Or was it just a lie, told by Bush, told by Cheney, told by the CIA, told by Chirac, told by the United Nations. A clever ruse to trick ole Palzon and like-minded citizens.

<b> <BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Arial">quote:</font><HR><font face="Arial" size="3">
2) total lack of diplomatic aptitude at getting our allies on board for the attack. the need for good relations with our allies outweighed the urgency to attack iraq. </b></font><HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Ah, yes. Whatever will we do without a "permission slip" from the U.N. That "need for good relations", how again have we been harmed by its purported loss? Please be specific. The last time I checked, Britain, Australia, Japan, South Korea, the Philippines, Thailand, Italy, Spain, Poland, Denmark, Hungary, Bulgaria, Ukraine, Romania, the Netherlands, Norway, El Salvador, and 17 other countries committed troops to Iraq.

But France and Germany are upset with us. How truly devastating.

<b> <BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Arial">quote:</font><HR><font face="Arial" size="3">
3) Bush is a fu<g>cking dumb<g>ass. I'm sorry, but in order to be my president you need to at least be able to hold your own with me in conversation. Most high school students have better verbal skills. It is a huge problem that our president is a dumbass. Tony Blair...not a dumbass. Bill Clinton, Richard Nixon, FDR, Kennedy, Bush, Sr., etc...not dumb<g>asses. Each of those presidents I've named could be criticized for this or that reason, but Bush fails the dumb<g>ass test from the get go. </b></font><HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Ahh, truly critical thinking at its best. Oh, the President must cower from people like you, with your rapier-like wit.
Conclusory, unsupported, mean-spirited -- Hey! You must be a democrat? Am I right?

Keeping You Honest,

BD

Does anyone ever wonder where he got the "WMD" in the first place? He wouldn't have had them had our country not been nice and giving them to him. My two cents.

Z, I know Index.html has responded several times in the past to this sort of idiot claim with evidence (to you specifically, IIRC) that America had almost nothing to do with supplying Iraq with its past WMD arsenal. So, Z, knowing that your unsupported claim has already been shut down as patently false, why do you persist in repeating it?

May, 1986. The US Department of Commerce licenses 70 biological exports to Iraq between May of 1985 and 1989, including at least 21 batches of lethal strains of anthrax. [3]

May, 1986. US Department of Commerce approves shipment of weapons grade botulin poison to Iraq. [7]

March, 1987. President Reagan bows to the findings of the Tower Commission admitting the sale of arms to Iran in exchange for hostages. Oliver North uses the profits from the sale to fund an illegal war in Nicaragua. [17]

Late 1987. The Iraqi Air Force begins using chemical agents against Kurdish resistance forces in northern Iraq. [1]

February, 1988. Saddam Hussein begins the "Anfal" campaign against the Kurds of northern Iraq. The Iraq regime used chemical weapons against the Kurds killing over 100,000 civilians and destroying over 1,200 Kurdish villages. [8]

April, 1988. US Department of Commerce approves shipment of chemicals used in manufacture of mustard gas. [7]

August, 1988. Four major battles were fought from April to August 1988, in which the Iraqis massively and effectively used chemical weapons to defeat the Iranians. Nerve gas and blister agents such as mustard gas are used. By this time the US Defense Intelligence Agency is heavily involved with Saddam Hussein in battle plan assistance, intelligence gathering and post battle debriefing. In the last major battle with of the war, 65,000 Iranians are killed, many with poison gas. Use of chemical weapons in war is in violation of the Geneva accords of 1925. [6] & [13]

August, 1988. Iraq and Iran declare a cease fire. [8]

August, 1988. Five days after the cease fire Saddam Hussein sends his planes and helicopters to northern Iraq to begin massive chemical attacks against the Kurds. [8]

September, 1988. US Department of Commerce approves shipment of weapons grade anthrax and botulinum to Iraq. [7]

September, 1988. Richard Murphy, Assistant Secretary of State: "The US-Iraqi relationship is... important to our long-term political and economic objectives." [15]

December, 1988. Dow chemical sells $1.5 million in pesticides to Iraq despite knowledge that these would be used in chemical weapons. [1]


Unsupported, I can find more if you need "non-biased" sites of course.

http://www.iranchamber.com/history/arti ... g_iraq.php

You're quoting Iranian sources? Heh. I applaud the research effort, Z, but come on, this is a government that calls us The Great Satan and we refer to it as part of the Axis of Evil. Do you really put much stock in Iran suddenly adhering to factual reporting on it's avowed enemies? If it wouldn't be too much trouble, a legit news source would bolster your case substantially.

http://www.hartford-hwp.com/archives/51/220.html


Hopefully a past article from the New York times is good enough..I don't know...

<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Arial">quote:</font><HR><font face="Arial" size="3">Originally posted by Zuruck:
<b> http://www.hartford-hwp.com/archives/51/220.html


Hopefully a past article from the New York times is good enough..I don't know...</b></font><HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Ahh, a riveting, unsubstantiated article, drawn from "anonymous sources", denied by senior officials, and written by a leftist employed by those marvelous folks who brought us Jayson Blair.

Maybe you should read this article first, before posting. I'm missing the part where it says the United States supplied chemical and biological agents to Iraq, per your assertion.



Adoringly Yours,

BD

Z, I agree with BD, that article says nothing about the US supplying chemical weapon components to Iraq. It speaks only of providing military planning advice to Iraq during its war with Iran (a country that at around that time had held a good many Americans hostage for more than a year so I wouldn't exactly describe Iran as an innocent victim that didn't deserve a little payback for its terrorist antics anyway). And, as BD points out, no one goes on record with the allegation and the authorities involved refute it. But, hey, that didn't stop that pillar of neutrality and objectivity, The New York Times, from printing it. Once. Where's the follow-up articles? Heh, more accurately, where's the retraction? Keep looking, Z, I know there must be at least some nugget of hard evidence to your claim from a reliable news source where people with names will actually go on record with more than heresay, innuendo or conspiratorial paranoia. But I'm serious when I say I'm impressed that you're doing the legwork to try to substantiate your claim. Most liberals just run away in a flurry of invectives (see Kufyit's last post) when pressed to back up their ravings.

Not sure of the affliation of this site but it does seem to list various govt. agency and what they approved to send to iraq back in the 80's. Nowhere do I see any license to export toxic agents to Iraq:

http://www.politrix.org/foia/iraq/gov-sponsored.shtml

This seems to be the source list of entities that sold/approved questionable or dual-use materials to Iraq during the years running up to when Hussein took over Kuwait.

http://www.laweekly.com/ink/03/23/news-crogan.php#top1 Somehow I doubt that LAWEEKLY is a friend of the Bush administration but still it seems well-researched and on the surface, credible. I'd have to believe any compnay on that list that was misidentified would have contacted LAWEEKLY and threatened to sue to get off the list if it weren't true.

A quick glance agrees somewhat with Z in that there has been American companies and government agencies providing materials that could be used to manufacturer various aspects of WMD systems, but nothing complete, and definitely no smoking gun.

However, it's just a laundry list with no follow-up as to what specifically some of these things were used for. Interestingly, there's also alot of other countries on the list besides the US. Tiny Belgium has a whopping 7 firms; Germany: 18; France: 9; Great Britain: 24; and Russia: 6. Damn, no New Zealand companies. Well, there you have it, Z, make what you will with the list. Personally it looks more like international corporate greed than US government involvement.

The US govt stuff is mostly medical and agricultural exports that could contribute to biological or chemical weapon programs but primarily they have other uses, sorta like fertilizer bombs. A farmer says he wants to buy fertilizer because he says he's going to fertilize. So you sell him some fertilizer. But if he lied and makes it into a bomb, is that entirely the farm supply store's fault? Partially, yes, I'll agree that things were rather sloppy as far as who was selling what to Hussein, but I'd stop short of saying it was our fault he turned out to be a homocidal maniac that sent his own army after his own citizens.

No where did I state AMerica was the sole provider...I just think ti's an interesting observation that American policy shifted so much in two weeks. In that first site I posted, you have Rumsfeld shaking hands with the same man a year ago he was lambasting. You all dont find that interesting?

Do you people not believe that American was involved in the Iran/Iraq conflict at all? If you do, then at what level do you think our knowledge stopped? Simple battle strategies, satellite intel, proper use of chemical weapons...it all lines up. Not really that hard to see...and this isn't a Bush bashing, more of an entire government bashing...so hardcore down the line never think twice conservatives...relax.

<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Arial">quote:</font><HR><font face="Arial" size="3">Originally posted by Zuruck:
No where did I state AMerica was the sole provider... </font><HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

This would mean something if you had provided some authority, any authority, for the proposition *you* spouted earlier, that America was any kind of provider. Trying to re-characterize your argument at this stage is slithery, my man -- not intellectually honest.

As far as your straw man argument, I don't think anyone would argue there was not some American interest and involvement in the Iran / Iraq war.

Yer Buddy,

BD

Z, American policy turns on a dime if it's in our interest. In the case of Iraq in the early 80s, the enemy of my enemy is my friend and there was definitely alot of ill-will toward Iran at the time for the hostage crisis. I remember folks calling for war against Iran. Unfortunately, Carter did the typical Dem thing and sent in too small a force and the helicopters ended up colliding in the desert before they got to the staging area and that anemic effort sort of put a stop to talk about using force to rescue our people. After that incident, the hostages were dispersed to discourage rescue attempts. I don't think many people had much faith that Carter could prosecute a war, anyway.