How did Iraq get its weapons? We sold them

[shiner]

I thought the US cared deeply about human rights.

And I thought you could read yet you keep ignoring the facts about where the chemical/biological agents came from. Most were from France, Russia, and Germany. Less that 4% came from the U.S. and that came from private industry who sold it for medical purposes.

 

[PistachioByAzul]

But I don't see this being refuted:

Reports by the US Senate's committee on banking, housing and urban affairs -- which oversees American exports policy -- reveal that the US, under the successive administrations of Ronald Reagan and George Bush Snr, sold materials including anthrax, VX nerve gas, West Nile fever germs and botulism to Iraq right up until March 1992, as well as germs similar to tuberculosis and pneumonia. Other bacteria sold included brucella melitensis, which damages major organs, and clostridium perfringens, which causes gas gangrene.
.
.
.
The shipments to Iraq went on even after Saddam Hussein ordered the gassing of the Kurdish town of Halabja, in which at least 5000 men, women and children died

 

[shiner]

Reports by the US Senate's committee on banking, housing and urban affairs -- which oversees American exports policy -- reveal that the US, under the successive administrations of Ronald Reagan and George Bush Snr, sold materials including anthrax, VX nerve gas, West Nile fever germs and botulism to Iraq right up until March 1992, as well as germs similar to tuberculosis and pneumonia. Other bacteria sold included brucella melitensis, which damages major organs, and clostridium perfringens, which causes gas gangrene.

Still want to ignore that the material was sold by private companies to Iraq for medical research. You have to have all that stuff to try and come up with vaccines you know. Sure it was most likely being used to develop weapons but once you sell something to someone you can't control how they use it. France, Russia, and Germany on the other hand were selling Iraq technology that could only be used to make weapons.

 

[jobert]

>>>Sure it was most likely being used to develop weapons but once you sell something to someone you can't control how they use it. <<<

Any slight chance that would be a sound reason for not selling the stuff????

 

[jobert]

>>>...the material was sold by private companies to Iraq for medical research. You have to have all that stuff to try and come up with vaccines you know. <<<<


What is this, Saturday Night Live?
I can see it now.
Sadem at head of table surrounded by his henchmen.
Closeup on Sadem. Sadem speaks...
"Guys, the heck with all this war stuff.
From now on we're doing MEDICAL RESEARCH.
Don't forget, a vaccine a day
makes the bad press go away"

 

[shiner]

Any slight chance that would be a sound reason for not selling the stuff????

Medical material like that is sold to all kinds of countries for the very purpose of medical research and vaccine development. Sometimes it may get used for other purposes by a govt bent on developing weapons out of it, but far more often it is used for legitimate purposes. Again why is this being made a big deal of when it was less than 4% of the total sale of agents to Iraq and when France, Russia, and Germany were not only selling them the bulk of the agents but also were selling them the technology to turn the agents into weapons?

 

[JellyBaby]

If you want another example of our just government in action, consider the US supplies arms to Israeli who in turn use them to kill Palestinians. Since the weapons come from us, they hate us nearly as much as Israel.

The same thing applies to Iraq and "that area over there". We meddle, things detiorate, hatred is directed back at us and innocent Arabs become alienated, often killed. Our foreign policy created the problem and continues to exacerbate it (no, kids, that word has nothing to do with peckers).

In the 50s the CIA installed the Shah of Iran. Iran was our friend. But, this lead to hatred toward America and created a hostage crisis in the 70s. It also allowed islamic fundamentalist nutballs to replace our puppet with theirs, Khoumini. So Iran now became our enemy.

So now we ally with Iraq in the 80s and aid them in the Iran-Iraq War. We assisted Saddum in his rise to power. He was a good puppet. We directly and indirectly allowed Iraq to produce weapons of mass destruction. There was full knowledge of that activity and nothing was done to stop it. Iraq was our friend, Iran the enemy.

Today Saddum is no longer a good puppet. He made another play for Kuwait (Iraq's been doing that for a while, trying to regain that territory) and lost. Now Iraq is our enemy even though supposely Saddum is an enemy of Al Queda. This all making sense to anyone because I'm lost?

Anyway I'm writing a book here. Point is: do we want our government foreign policy to remain as is? We need to look at how all this interventionism abroad is affecting us and the world. The longer we wait the more bandaids will be needed to stop the flow of blood from more and more cuts and scrapes.

 

[jobert]

For many decades the primary goal of our MidEast foreign policy
has been to keep the oil flowing, and the oil companies' cash flowing
(into both political parties).
If any of our esteemed political leaders had the gazubbies
to implement a meaningful alternative energy strategy
you'd see a BIG change in our foreign policy.

 

[rickn]

I just wonder how many scud missiles they have. I think all the estimates have been very conservative. they are good at hiding them

And of course the US supplied Iraq. The last thing we wanted was another hostile islamic regime like Iran had. That's what Iraq would probably be today had they not got outside help. The Iranians would have overrun them

 

[JellyBaby]

Originally posted by: jobert
For many decades the primary goal of our MidEast foreign policy
has been to keep the oil flowing, and the oil companies' cash flowing
(into both political parties).
If any of our esteemed political leaders had the gazubbies
to implement a meaningful alternative energy strategy
you'd see a BIG change in our foreign policy.

It's crazy. American taxpayer dollars go to support our military to ensure the oil supply. This does benefit us in that oil prices are relatively stable. However it also greatly increases profits for the oil companies and organizations both foreign and domestic. We're taxed so their profits are ensured!

Another angle: our foreign policy giveaways (aka "aid) is largely used by foreign countries to purchase military equipment from our military-industrial complex. Guess who drives the foreign policy of giving tons of aid to these countries? Yep, key corporations both domestic and abroad.

Yet another angle: our federal government provides guarantees to corporations who do business in foreign countries. These guarantees (funded by taxpayer dollars) ensure that corporations can take extreme risks abroad and not worry about failure because if they mess up Uncle Sam pays for it.

I don't believe I want to see business and government in collusion like this. This is leading us toward fascism, corruption on every front and a world united against us, not to mention costing a great deal of money.

 

[jobert]

>>>I don't believe I want to see business and government in collusion like this. This is leading us toward fascism, corruption on every front and a world united against us, not to mention costing a great deal of money. <<<

Welcome to America,
where the average citizen spends over half of his active life
working to pay taxes of one sort or another.

 

[kgraeme]

Originally posted by: syzygy

the site has an excellent article against ritter too. the dude is a quisling; he should be in guatanamo bay too :disgust:

With that statement, you show how little you know about how the world works. Many, many high level military people when they "retire" go into "consulting". And when they do this "consulting" it is often for foreign nations. And it's not just people like Ritter. I will politely opt not to discuss a particular former Secretary of Defense a friend of mine worked for.

 

[syzygy]

With that statement, you show how little you know about how the world works. Many, many high level military people when they "retire" go into "consulting". And when they do this "consulting" it is often for foreign nations. And it's not just people like Ritter. I will politely opt not to discuss a particular former Secretary of Defense a friend of mine worked for.

did you read the exchange of letters between ritter and the wisconsin project ? can i answer that for you ? thanks: NOOOO ! ! !

yeah, yeah, i may not know 'how the world works' - whatever the hell that means - but damn if you're cognizant of the finer points
of rhetoric when you let fly with inane platitudes and blithely ignore specifics, one of which, and merely one, i managed to site.
prattle on.

 

[syzygy]

Truth which counters deliberately misleading statements can hardly be called a 'cop out'. We never delivered military grade biologicals to Iraq, they were freely exportable MEDICAL research biological agents that were not restricted in any way (at that time), which Iraq could have and DID in fact received from more countries than just suppliers in the US.

resolution 661, drafted in 1990, with obvious u.s. support u.s. banned from iraq the sale by BOTH governments and private companies from any business that may further their possible development of wmd. there were two exceptions. one, food aid. two . . . medical. yes, that medical. your MEDICAL.

now, why would our government join in the obvious in 1991 and not in 1985 ? you cannot possibly be questioning the honest intentions
of the fully independent and hippocratically bound iraqi medical establishment between 1985 and 1991? ofcourse not.

the article itself states the recipients of these batches of baccilus anthraxis were biology departments at university research centers, the iraqi atomic energy commission, an 'officer's city' (military complex), and the iraqi state company for drug industries. not hospitals. you think saddam had his clan members from takrit comfily set up in these stately environs. smart, eh ?

you see, in 1985, saddam was our friend; he was not a baddie. by 1991, he had grown too hungry, overstepped his u.s. prescribed bounds of megamaniacal decency, and therefore had to be subdued.

in actuality, he was never sweet and nice. sorry.

by 1985, the lives of thousands of iranian soldiers had gone up in clouds of vx and anthrax, and the fact we were responsible for single digits percentage of his illegal arsenal does not abrogate our moral responsibility one iota. in fact, given the severity of his crimes in 1985, which dwarfed anything he did in kuwait (for, correct if i'm wrong, not a single u.s. soldier died from iraqi chemical or biological agents), that same u.n. resolve against iraq should have benefited from the same u.s. support in 1985 as it did in 1991. but political expediences evolve. saddam misbehaved.

 

[Dhruv]

Originally posted by: EngineNr9
The shipments to Iraq went on even after Saddam Hussein ordered the gassing of the Kurdish town of Halabja, in which at least 5000 men, women and children died.

I thought the US cared deeply about human rights.