Remind us again how Iran is not...

[Paulie]

There is no evidence we supplied them with materials to make such weapons.

No, huh?

How about this?

Or this?

You just don't WANT it to be true. 50lb bags of sand are cheap man. 3 or 4 bucks at your local Home Depot. 2 ought to be enough.

 

[Gunny]

Nearly every nation on earth with any significant military at all has weapons that destroy on a massive scale. That's what a modern military is all about. But so what? We don't go invading some country in asia because they have a C4 factory. We didn't attack the USSR, even though they had far more nuclear weapons than Iran is allegedly going to have in however many years. Constructing a massively destructive weapon is totally unremarkable, Tim McVeigh did it pretty easily. No, the existence of WMD doesn't mean anything, you have to prove that they're going to hand it off to some nut who wants to enter america.

On the other hand, we've buddied up with the military dictator of an Islamic nation, which does in fact have nukes. That would be Pakistan. Our aid to Musharif has cost him whatever support he might have had, so there's a chance he could be toppled. Then nukes really might fall into the hands of nutball Islamists.



1) Iraq fought Iran in the 1980's. [T/F]
2) The US supported Iraq in this war. [T/F]
3) The Iraqis used gas on Iranians. [T/F]
4) The gas attacks were in the mainstream press, on television, etc. [T/F]
5) The CIA is competent enough to know what was going on from inside sources, or at least turn on a television. [T/F]
6) This would seem to indicate that the gas attacks were probably known about, and not cared about, in the highest levels of US government. Assuming of course that the CIA passed the information along. [T/F]
6) The funding went on as the war dragged on, after the gas attacks were publicized in western media. [T/F]

Whether or not Reagan knew about Saddam using chemical weapons prior to his using them, and/or whether or not Reagan approved of his using them is pure conjecture.

There is no official statement from Reagan and/or his Administration that officially recognizes and supports Saddam's use of chemical weapons.

Whether or not Pakistan already has nuclear weapons is irrelvant to whether or not Iran is allowed to have them.

 

[Gunny]

Uhh...what? It's quite obvious what I'm responding to. Gunny said that there's no evidence that we supported Saddam even though he used gas attacks. I was pointing out that there's almost no way we couldn't have known about them. Granted, there is no smoking-gun memo, but I'm just going through a step-by-step exercise in logic, in order to show that it's very likely that we did know about it.

I did not say there was no evidence that we supported Saddam during the Iran-Iraq War.

I said there is no evidence that the Reagan administration officially approved of his using chemical weapons.

Again, your step-by-step logic is based on assumption, and in your own words above, you STILL do not disprove my statement as "it's very likely that we did know about it," an assumptive conclusion, does not address my statement.

 

[DeadCanDance]

There is no evidence we supplied them with materials to make such weapons.

Yes there is:

The Riegle Report

U.S. Chemical and Biological Warfare-Related Dual Use Exports to Iraq and their Possible Impact on the Health Consequences of the Gulf War

A Report of Chairman Donald W. Riegle, Jr. and Ranking Member Alfonse M. D'Amato of the Committee on Banking, Housing and Urban Affairs with Respect to Export Administration

United States Senate, 103d Congress, 2d Session
May 25, 1994

Excerpt: Records available from the supplier for the period from 1985 until the present show that during this time, pathogenic (meaning "disease producing"), toxigenic (meaning "poisonous"), and other biological research materials were exported to Iraq pursuant to application and licensing by the U.S. Department of Commerce. Records prior to 1985 were not available, according to the supplier. These exported biological materials were NOT attenuated or weakened and were capable of reproduction


U.S. Exports of Biological Materials to Iraq

The Senate Committee on Banking, Housing, and Urban Affairs has oversight responsibility for the Export Administration Act. Pursuant to the Act, Committee staff contacted the U.S. Department of Commerce and requested information on the export of biological materials during the years prior to the Gulf War. After receiving this information, we contacted a principal supplier of these materials to determine what, if any, materials were exported to Iraq which might have contributed to an offensive or defensive biological warfare program. Records available from the supplier for the period from 1985 until the present show that during this time, pathogenic (meaning "disease producing"), toxigenic (meaning "poisonous"), and other biological research materials were exported to Iraq pursuant to application and licensing by the U.S. Department of Commerce. Records prior to 1985 were not available, according to the supplier. These exported biological materials were not attenuated or weakened and were capable of reproduction. According to the Department of Defense's own Report to Congress on the Conduct of the Persian Gulf War, released in April 1992: "By the time of the invasion of Kuwait, Iraq had developed biological weapons. It's advanced and aggressive biological warfare program was the most advanced in the Arab world... The program probably began late in the 1970's and concentrated on the development of two agents, botulinum toxin and anthrax bacteria... Large scale production of these agents began in 1989 at four facilities in Baghdad. Delivery means for biological agents ranged from simple aerial bombs and artillery rockets to surface-to-surface missiles."

Included in the approved sales are the following biological materials (which have been considered by various nations for use in war), with their associated disease symptoms:

-Bacillus Anthracis: anthrax is a disease producing bacteria identified by the Department of Defense in The Conduct of the Persian Gulf War: Final Report to Contress, as being a major component in the Iraqi biological warfare program.

-Anthrax is an often fatal infectious disease due to ingestion of spores. It begins abruptly with high fever, difficulty in breathing, and chest pain. The disease eventually results in septicemia (blood poisoning), and the mortality is high. Once septicemia is advanced, antibiotic therapy may prove useless, probably because the exotoxins remain, despite the death of the bacteria.

-Clostridium Botulinum: A bacterial source of botulinum toxin, which causes vomiting, constipation, thirst, general weakness, headache, fever, dizziness, double vision, dilation of the pupils and paralysis of the muscles involving swallowing. It is often fatal.

-Histoplasma Capsulatum: causes a disease superfically resembling tuberculosis that may cause pneumonia, enlargement of the liver and spleen, anemia, an influenza like illness and an acute inflammatory skin disease marked by tender red nodules, usually on the shins. Reactivated infection usually involves the lungs, the brain, spinal membranes, heart, peritoneum, and the adrenals.

-Brucella Melitensis: a bacteria which can cause chronic fatique, loss of appetite, profuse sweating when at rest, pain in joints and muscles, insomnia, nausea, and damage to major organs.

-Clostridium Perfringens: a highly toxic bateria which causes gas gangrene. The bacteria produce toxins that move along muscle bundles in the body killing cells and producing necrotic tissue that is then favorable for further growth of the bacteria itself. Eventually, these toxins and bacteria enter the bloodstream and cause a systemic illness.

In addition, several shipments of Escherichia Coli (E. Coli) and genetic materials, as well as human and bacterial DNA, were shipped directly to the Iraq Atomic Energy Commission.


http://www.gulfweb.org/bigdoc/report/r_1_2.html

 

[Gunny]

It was on the cover of Newsweek and on television, but our government didn't know about it?

Now THAT's credible. Can we use Newsweek articles to justify invading Iran?

What's on the cover of Newsweek and what the US government officially recognizes and supports/condones are two different things.

 

[Gunny]

There is no evidence we supplied them with materials to make such weapons.

We sold Saddam a lot of dual-use stuff diring the Iran Iraq War.

Also, I read a report a few years ago where the CIA was involved in showing his Dr Frankenstein's how to refine mustard gas. I never did see however that the CIA was authroized to do such a thing, and being the CIA, who knows?

 

[Paulie]

We sold Saddam a lot of dual-use stuff diring the Iran Iraq War.

Also, I read a report a few years ago where the CIA was involved in showing his Dr Frankenstein's how to refine mustard gas. I never did see however that the CIA was authroized to do such a thing, and being the CIA, who knows?

Well, let's face it, if the CIA had 100% oversight from the US government, it wouldn't be a very effective covert operations intelligence unit, would it?

It must be obvious though that people from within use that to their advantage. Just look at the Iran-Contra mess.

What you have to ask yourself is: could someone within the CIA actually still be doing something that isn't in the best interests of the people of the US, and even something potentially treasonous? Not just this Iraq weapons issue, but ANYTHING, really.