Bush senior responsible for Saddam obtaining WMD in the 80's???

lander · Dec 23, 2003

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/3754726/

Important ally
But throughout 1980s, while Iraq was fighting a prolonged war with Iran, the United States saw Hussein's government as an important ally and bulwark against the militant Shiite extremism seen in the 1979 revolution in Iran. Washington worried that the Iranian example threatened to destabilize friendly monarchies in Kuwait, Saudi Arabia and Jordan.

Publicly, the United States maintained neutrality during the eight-year Iran-Iraq war, which began in 1980.

Privately, however, the administrations of Reagan and George H.W. Bush sold military goods to Iraq, including poisonous chemicals and deadly biological agents, worked to stop the flow of weapons to Iran, and undertook discreet diplomatic initiatives, such as the two Rumsfeld trips to Baghdad, to improve relations with Hussein.

lander · Dec 23, 2003

Does this fall under "aiding and abetting terrorism"?

I think Reagan and Bush Sr. should be detained indefinately in Guantanamo without any charges being pressed or having an attorney available to assist them.

lander · Dec 24, 2003

Kman,
Since you're interested in playing former presidental detective, do you have any comments on Dumbya's Daddy selling chemical weapons to Saddam? Surely they weren't just for his mantle.

Well, at least we know where Dumbya got his genocidial tendencies from

GrandSlam+ · Dec 24, 2003

I love the articles that tell only half the story...funny how Lander always digs those up.
A couple of points to make:

1) Iran specifically named France and the Soviet Union as Iraq's supplier of chemical weapons in the early 1980s. Iraq also used Tabun, a gas developed by IG Farben for use in concentration camps in WW2 (and patented by Farben after the war). East Germany was also heavily involved in the research end (specifically the Leipzig Institue for Poisonous Chemicals) of the chemical weapons program.

2) From 1973 to 1990, the USSR supplied 57% of the military supplies for Iraq. France supplied 13%. China 12%, Czechoslovakia 7%, Poland 4%, Brazil 2%, with Egypt, Romania, Denmark,Libya, and the United States 1%. I wonder why the left doesn't talk about this?

Here's an excerpt regarding the French role in arming Saddaam:

"Contrary to popular conspiracy theory, however, most of Iraq’s military assistance was not coming from the United States at all. Instead, throughout the war with Iran and right up to the 1991 Gulf War, the bulk of ordinary weapons, and WMD material, was coming from Europe – specifically France and Germany.

In October 1990 West German company Josef Kuhn was outed for supplying Iraq with biological weapons, two mykotoxins whose effects included skin irritation, blisters, dizziness, nausea, diarrhoea and eventually death.

West German companies were also involved in building three chemical weapons plants codenamed Ieas, Meda and Ghasi, whose task was to produce a chemical agent that could penetrate gas masks and NBC (nuclear/bio/chem) protection suits. They were successful, by all reports. A quantity the size of a sugar cube is sufficient to kill 2,500 people."

lander · Dec 24, 2003

Grand Slam,
I suggest you forward your issues with the factual article to the authors. As much as I'd like to be I'm really not MSNBC, MS or NBC

As for France giving all the weapons I think you're, well, a little out of the loop. The information about Reagan and Bush Sr. came via the Information Act - ie US government documents that were later declassified. I'm sure you think that France broke into the Pentagon and planted them (while simultaneous helping Saddam hide invisible WMD), but I suspect otherwise.

GrandSlam+ · Dec 25, 2003

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote">quote:<HR>Originally posted by lander:
Grand Slam,
I suggest you forward your issues with the factual article to the authors. As much as I'd like to be I'm really not MSNBC, MS or NBC

As for France giving all the weapons I think you're, well, a little out of the loop. The information about Reagan and Bush Sr. came via the Information Act - ie US government documents that were later declassified. I'm sure you think that France broke into the Pentagon and planted them (while simultaneous helping Saddam hide invisible WMD), but I suspect otherwise.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Lander, you posted the story...I thought you might be interested in knowing where the article was in error. Am I mistaken in that assumption?

I've read the memos/information regarding Rumsfeld visit to Iraq, as well as US policy towards Hussein during the period of time after the US discovered Iran was behind the Beirut bombings in 1983. You obviously haven't, or you would understand nothing I posted above has been contradicted by the memos. It might be wise on your part to do a bit of your own research on subjects rather than blindly following a story posted on the internet.

The US sold a small quantity of military good to Iraq (heavy trucks and 60 non-offensive helicopters). They did not knowingly sell chemicals to Iraq that were to be used in making chemical weapons. When the US discovered Iraq using chemical weapons, they imposed strict export controls on what could be sold to Iraq and what couldn't (as the declassified memos clearly show). One memo details 22,000 pounds of potassium choloride being stopped at JFK because the 'pesticide' purchase may be used to manufacture chemical weapons. Another memo shows assurances from Bell insisting that their helicopters could not be modified to offensive military use.

I'd advise you to actually read the memos before informing me what they say Lander.

lander · Dec 25, 2003

Your post had nothing, zero, nada to do with the US. Basically you said, "but the French did it"

I suggest you take a sip of YOUR own tea and actually READ the article at hand

UncleMoneybags · Dec 25, 2003

Lander,

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote">quote:<HR> 2) From 1973 to 1990, the USSR supplied 57% of the military supplies for Iraq. France supplied 13%. China 12%, Czechoslovakia 7%, Poland 4%, Brazil 2%, with Egypt, Romania, Denmark,Libya, and the United States 1%.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

The U.S. did act as a merchant to Iraq. However, by those percentages you should be more pissed at the Soviets than the U.S. or any of the others listed. I don't think anyone is denying that.

I, for one, am glad that Russia was their main supplier as the tanks they were selling were quite antiquated and thus no match for ours.

lander · Dec 25, 2003

Perhaps Uncle, but isn't your theory a bit like saying Dohmer ate 10 people so it's ok if I eat just one?

Why is it that you partisians constantly spin EVERYTHING? Or president's daddy sells WMD to Saddam (to use, obviously) and you say - "fuking Russians". Sure, fuking Russians, fuking French - FUKING everyone but Republican GEORGE BUSH.

The politicians in this country take little responsibility for their actions in large part to this blind partisan loyalty.

At times, I'm not sure which is the bigger evil in America.

UncleMoneybags · Dec 25, 2003

UncleMoneybags · Dec 25, 2003

I hate both the Republicans and Democrats. If someone labels himself a Communist yet agrees with my opinions then I'll go to the mat for that person. It's unlikely but possible. I try to go on what they do as opposed to what they say. It's especially hard when everytime you turn around the party-line accusations start flying.

Based on the numbers, if anyone was culpable then I would say it would be Reagan and not Bush Sr. simply based on the fact that the war between Iran and Iraq ended in '88 and he was Reagan's subordinate.

I don't know the veracity of Grand Slam's claims but trucks and helicopters aren't quite the same as tanks and scud missiles. I don't really care if they bought those or not as they have a right to defend themselves but when they intend to take over Kuwait, Saudi Arabia and wherever else using those weapons it becomes a problem.

Can you at least admit that after '91 the U.S. didn't provide him with much to advance his little setup? If I answered I would say yes. I couldn't make the same decision with respect to France or Russia.

UncleMoneybags · Dec 25, 2003

By the way

Merry Christmas and good luck on your weekend action unless you have the Chiefs.

GrandSlam+ · Dec 25, 2003

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote">quote:<HR>Originally posted by lander:
Why is it that you partisians constantly spin EVERYTHING? Or president's daddy sells WMD to Saddam (to use, obviously) and you say - "fuking Russians". Sure, fuking Russians, fuking French - FUKING everyone but Republican GEORGE BUSH.

The politicians in this country take little responsibility for their actions in large part to this blind partisan loyalty.

At times, I'm not sure which is the bigger evil in America.

<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Lander, you spout off garbage that Bush Sr knowingly supplied WMD to Iraq, then scream "partisanship" when someone refutes that lie.

How about getting some actual facts to back up your arguments?

lander · Dec 25, 2003

"Refutes that lie"?

Yeah, I'm sure that your uninformed opinion is much more accurate than declassified US documents

I'm not sure what more fact you want that government documents inditing themselves. An unintended confession, if you will.

Nice try Johnie Cohran, but no sale

GrandSlam+ · Dec 25, 2003

:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote">quote:<HR>Originally posted by lander:
"Refutes that lie"?

Yeah, I'm sure that your uninformed opinion is much more accurate than declassified US documents

I'm not sure what more fact you want that government documents inditing themselves. An unintended confession, if you will.

Nice try Johnie Cohran, but no sale

<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Lander, I have read the declassified documents...they are readily available on the internet. Nowhere does it say that Bush or Reagan sold WMD to Iraq.

At least make a token effort to tell the truth. Your lies are too easy to counter.

lander · Dec 25, 2003

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote">quote:<HR>Originally posted by Grand Slam:
Lander, I have read the declassified documents...they are readily available on the internet. Nowhere does it say that Bush or Reagan sold WMD to Iraq.

At least make a token effort to tell the truth. Your lies are too easy to counter.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

This has to be one of the dumbest things you've said yet (and that's no small feat) for a few reasons.

1. The CIA was asked how difficult it would be to plant WMD. They replied that it would be VERY simple to plant them since their weapons are US weapons, but that would be improbable because you would be hard pressed to keep something of that magnitude a secret.

That establishes that they have US weapons, no?
You and your infinite imaginary wisdom just said that you're (happy) they have inferior Soviet weapons - meaning the Soviets aren't aquiring/reselling US arms. Now, where do you suppose they got those chemical weapons?

2. You're falsely saying that this is a lie, and compounding with ignorance. First, there is little reason to doubt the accuracy of this article, and furthermore is by some odd-occurance MSNBC pulled a FOX-news stunt and did, indeed, fabricate the story then it would be their lie, not mine.

It's such a simple conslusion, yet you fumble around like a 12 year-old trying to make sense of yourself ... it makes me question you self-acclaimed mastery on this issue.

I suspect the only lies in this thread are those involving your assertions on your knowledge of the relevant issue.

UncleMoneybags · Dec 26, 2003

Lander,

I was the person that was overjoyed that they had Soviet weapons as opposed to something better, not Grand Slam. I said that because as we all know scuds are not very accurate and their tanks were antiquated, not even in the same hemisphere as our tanks. Those two components were an integral part of their arsenal. If they armed a missile with biological weapons, most likely it would be a scud.

Can I assume that the CIA quote you listed is from that report? Can you provide a link, please?

Thanks

GrandSlam+ · Dec 26, 2003

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote">quote:<HR>Originally posted by lander:

1. The CIA was asked how difficult it would be to plant WMD. They replied that it would be VERY simple to plant them since their weapons are US weapons, but that would be improbable because you would be hard pressed to keep something of that magnitude a secret.

That establishes that they have US weapons, no?
You and your infinite imaginary wisdom just said that you're (happy) they have inferior Soviet weapons - meaning the Soviets aren't aquiring/reselling US arms. Now, where do you suppose they got those chemical weapons?

2. You're falsely saying that this is a lie, and compounding with ignorance. First, there is little reason to doubt the accuracy of this article, and furthermore is by some odd-occurance MSNBC pulled a FOX-news stunt and did, indeed, fabricate the story then it would be their lie, not mine.

It's such a simple conslusion, yet you fumble around like a 12 year-old trying to make sense of yourself ... it makes me question you self-acclaimed mastery on this issue.

I suspect the only lies in this thread are those involving your assertions on your knowledge of the relevant issue.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Lander, your comment about the CIA planting WMD is not in the article you quoted. How about giving a source, as well as a source for these other wacked comments:

"Or president's daddy sells WMD to Saddam (to use, obviously) and you say - "fuking Russians". Sure, fuking Russians, fuking French - FUKING everyone but Republican GEORGE BUSH."

"Kman,
Since you're interested in playing former presidental detective, do you have any comments on Dumbya's Daddy selling chemical weapons to Saddam? Surely they weren't just for his mantle."

That is bullshit; you either know it or you have told the lie so often that you believe it to be true. The woman who requested the declassified documents under the FOI herself says that Reagan/Bush administrations didn't sell chemical weapons to Iraq. So what is your source?

lander · Dec 26, 2003

I just posted an article with the reference in tact and you call me a liar. Meanwhile, you ramble on and on about knowing verbatum what's in those declassified documents - withOUT once citing a source. What do they say - moronic neo-cons in glass trailors ... or something like that??

"Lander, your comment about the CIA planting WMD is not in the article you quoted. How about giving a source, as well as a source for these other wacked comments:"
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/3158376/
... "'n a dozen interviews by MSNBC.com with former and current intelligence professionals, none felt that McGovern’s fears are warranted. But they agree that planting such evidence would not be too difficult from an evidentiary standpoint.

For one thing, most of Iraq’s supply of biological weaponry actually came from the United States: ordered and delivered to the Iraqis over the course of a decade starting in 1985 by the U.S. Army’s main biological laboratory in Frederick, Md., as easily as if Saddam Hussein were merely ordering a new mattress from Sears.

Over about a decade between the mid-1980s and 1996, when this unfathomable security flaw was discovered, Iraq ordered and received 24 different strains of biological samples from the Army, including the military-grade “Fort Detrick strain” of anthrax. The vast majority of biological agents found and destroyed after the first Gulf War by U.N. inspectors were “grown” from these American seeds.

Still, Lt. Col. Ralph Peters, a retired Army intelligence officer, dismisses the idea of planting evidence out of hand — but not because of any moral qualms.

“Can’t be done,” he says. “Why? Because Americans can’t keep a secret.”'

The above refers to the same situation except with the US Army intelligence being posed in the hypothetical.

Another source - http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/3158376/

While you're NOT reading, he are some more http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/3129861/

See, the problem is that I actually read dozens of reports each day while you only claim to. You're going to make yourself appear to the ignorant fool that you surely are if you continue this nonsense.

BoratSagdiyev · Dec 26, 2003

Ok here goes, my English friend help me with this one. Lander once I again I applaud you for being knowledgeable not only in the sports world but also as far as what's really going on . People really either do not have the time or do not bother with looking into things. Another thing that bothers me is when they say that Saddam gassed his own people. Living within the geographical confines of modern day Irag does not mean that they are his own people. The Kurds have been bitter enemies with their sorrounding neighbors and have commited many attrocities of their own. Most notably the murder of many many Armenians while serving as henchmen for the Turkish army at the turn of the century. It seems like the oppressed always become the oppressors no matter what. It's only when the tide turns that you find them begging for protection from anyone who will listen. Southern Iraq is Shiite and Northern Iraq is inhabited primarilly by Kurds. The rest of the populatioin is mostly Sunni, so when they show "Iraqis" celebrating his capture it is these groups. When they show them celebrating and claim that he kills his own people it makes for great headlines but I don't like having the wool pulled over my eyes, or even the attempt to. I wonder what would happen in the US if Texas and say California decided to form thieir own country. We may not gas them because the Union has other means at it's disposal but when you're back is against the wall you resort to any means necessary. Not saying it's right mind you. It's like the people who blow themselves up, if they had apache helicopters and laser guided bombs then suicide attacks would not exist. Brb.