WMD Found in Iraq

[White knight]

We all enjoy a good game of Chess.

Source: http://www.zmag.org/zmag/articles/ShalomIranIraq.html
“The Soviet Union was Iraq's largest weapon's supplier, while jockeying for influence in both capitals. Israel provided arms to Iran, hoping to bleed the combatants by prolonging the war. And at least ten nations sold arms to both of the warring sides.
The list of countries engaging in despicable behavior, however, would be incomplete without the United States. The U.S. objective was not profits from the arms trade, but the much more significant aim of controlling to the greatest extent possible the region's oil resources. Before turning to U.S. policy during the Iran-Iraq war, it will be useful to recall some of the history of the U.S. and oil.”

The Iran-Iraq War (also called the First Persian Gulf War, or the U.S. Imposed War in Iran
The answer I was looking for was the U.S. Imposed War
(that is what they call it)

Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iran-Iraq_War
In 1975, United States Secretary of State Henry Kissinger had sanctioned that Mohammad Reza Pahlavi, the Shah of Iran, attack Iraq over the waterway, which was under Iraqi control at the time; soon after both nations signed the Algiers Accord, in which Iraq made territorial concessions, including the waterway, in exchange for normalized relations. Iraq also had designs on the Iranian province of Khuzestan, which is one of the main oil-rich areas in Iran.
“In particular, the United States, along with its allies (among them Britain, France and Italy), provided Iraq with biological and chemical weapons and the precursors to nuclear capabilities”

Now can anyone tell me why the Iranians hated the United States prior to Saddam taking power in Iraq?

Bonus question: What type of facilities did we maintain in Iran?

 

[alien21010]

Funny how I didn't read a single sentence in your reply speaking of Saddam being responsible for hundreds of thousand of his citizens deaths. You mention the resolutions but you must have missed the part about the deaths and oppression.

The point is not that he was oppressing his people. Everyone knows that. The point was that Bush justified going into Iraq under the pretenses of there being Weapons of Mass Destruction, and that Saddam was "an iminent threat." After the invasion, it has turned out to be, that Saddam was neither a threat, nor possessed WMD.

Are the Iraqis better off now, then they were? Only time will tell. If Iraq devolves into periodic civil war, then not. If democracy really takes hold, then yes.

please post a link....dont forget France and USSR were very friendly with Saddam...and if we did give Saddam wmds how come we never gave any to the Contras or the Afghan rebels...you libs say so much shit!!!

The geopolitical status of the world in the late 70s and early 80s is far different than what it is today. Back then, Saddam was considered almost an ally, and the United States was very buddy buddy with him. Also, would it make any sense what so ever to give WMD to rebels, or fundamentalist islamists? Probably not. Why? Those weapons could easily end up in the hands of terrorists, as opposed to Saddam who gave us a stable government.

In hindsight it almost seems as though the United States began the Iran-Iraq War. With the intent to wear down both parties, allowing the US to become a major benefactor of a huge surplus of oil.

Our pseudo-alliance with Saddam was also a large factor in his decision to invade Kuwait. He seriously thought that we would not retaliate given our aid to him in the war.

 

[wade]

So if I sell you a gun, I am responsible for the fact that you go out and rob a convenience store. Typical.

How you can look at the recent history of Iraq and come up with the distorted and pathetic view you have expressed in beyond my comprehension. Apparently you're one of those pitiful creatures whose sole source of information is democrat web sites.

If you sell a gun to me, and I am a known robber of convienience stores, then yes, you are responsible.

How you can deny or ignore the FACT that the Reagan and Bush Sr. administrations fully supported WMD's for Saddam, and even continued to support this after he used them on both the Iranians and the Iraqi Kurds, is beyond my comprehension. Apparently you are one of those pitiful creatures whose sole source of information is neo-conservative web sites.

 

[wade]

...
Btw This is a clear example of why the liberal position is incosistant. You guys cant agree wither Saddam didnt have WMDs or if we gave him WMDs. It cant possibly be both. If we gave Saddam WMDs then he had WMDs and you cant claim that he didnt have any.

And lets assume we did give Saddam WMDs. Well then thats even more reason for us to take out Saddam. If we are responsible for him having the weapons, we should take responsibility for him misusing them and prevent him from misuing them.

If you dont think the Iraqis are better off now that they dont have to be afraid that their government is going to torture, rape, mutilate, and kill them or their family and friends for disagreeing with the government, then what would make their lives better?

We gave him WMD capacity, we took it away after the first Gulf war.

You are trying to make it seem moral that we gave him the weapons, and that we somehow didn't think he'd "misuse" them. This is pure BULL SHIT. We knew damn well he was going to use them if he got them, and we gave them to him.

The USA had no problem with Saddam's torturing, raping, mutilating, and murdering of Iraqi's when he was our "friend" in the 80's. We continued to supply him with weapons, and aid his capacity to produce his own.

So don't try to take some moral high road now, it's pure hypocracy.

 

[wade]

...and if we did give Saddam wmds how come we never gave any to the Contras or the Afghan rebels...you libs say so much shit!!!

Ummm... are you serious?

If we'd have given WMD's to the Afghan rebels, this would have had a multitude of negative effects.

First of all, it would have opened the door for the Soviets to use WMD's against the Afghani's. The Afghani's would have fallen or been wiped out within days.

Secondly, it would have changed the dymanic of the cold war. WMD's would have become the primary weapon in territorial skirmishes.

The Soviets would have given them to the Arabs who would then have used them against the Israeli's, and that would have probably brought on WWIII.

The Soviets would have given WMD's to NK, which would promptly have used them on SK. Again, probably WWIII.

The idea that we would supply WMD's to any nation at war/direct military conflict with the Soviets is pure idiocy. They might even have decided to first strike the USA in response.

The Reagan/Bush administration was crazy to have given WMD's to Saddam, but in their blind hatred of Iran at the time, they made a foolish mistake and did so. They thought Saddam would be a good puppet dictator and accept US dicatates. There is even pretty compelling evidence that Saddam was duped into the invasion of Kuwait to allow the US to destroy his forces when it became clear he was no longer under US control.

 

[jimnyc]

The point is not that he was oppressing his people. Everyone knows that. The point was that Bush justified going into Iraq under the pretenses of there being Weapons of Mass Destruction, and that Saddam was "an iminent threat." After the invasion, it has turned out to be, that Saddam was neither a threat, nor possessed WMD.

Bush NEVER stated that Iraq was an imminent threat, get your stories straight! The justification was the resolutions themselves, which included the oppression and many other things, not just WMD.

 

[MJDuncan1982]

Bush NEVER stated that Iraq was an imminent threat, get your stories straight! The justification was the resolutions themselves, which included the oppression and many other things, not just WMD.

That is wrong. Just plain wrong. Quotes provided later on in the day. Maybe the word "imminent" was not used by Bush, but it was used by his close advisers and he used words close to that meaning. Is he going to pull a Clinton on us with this?

You can't be serious if you believe the American people would want to go to war merely because Saddam broke some resolutions?

 

[MJDuncan1982]

"Absolutely."
• White House spokesman Ari Fleischer answering whether Iraq was an "imminent threat," 5/7/03

"This is about imminent threat."
• White House spokesman Scott McClellan, 2/10/03

"Well, of course he is.”
• White House Communications Director Dan Bartlett responding to the question “is Saddam an imminent threat to U.S. interests, either in that part of the world or to Americans right here at home?”, 1/26/03

"I would look you in the eye and I would say, go back before September 11 and ask yourself this question: Was the attack that took place on September 11 an imminent threat the month before or two months before or three months before or six months before? When did the attack on September 11 become an imminent threat? Now, transport yourself forward a year, two years or a week or a month...So the question is, when is it such an immediate threat that you must do something?"
• Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld, 11/14/02

That one was a cheap shot

"The Iraqi regime is a threat of unique urgency."
• President Bush, 10/2/02

Unique urgency? Hmm...

• "Such Iraqi actions pose a continuing unusual and extraordinary threat to the national security and foreign policy of the United States" President Bush, 7/30/02

Now using common sense, what was the message they were trying to convey to the American people?

 

[jimnyc]

That is wrong. Just plain wrong. Quotes provided later on in the day. Maybe the word "imminent" was not used by Bush, but it was used by his close advisers and he used words close to that meaning. Is he going to pull a Clinton on us with this?

You can't be serious if you believe the American people would want to go to war merely because Saddam broke some resolutions?

It ISN'T wrong. He claimed Bush made that statement, and that is 100% false. Bush clearly stated "some think we shouldn't act until the threat is imminent", and since then the liberal wackos have distorted it so much that they actually believe that now. Whether or not someone else stated that and in what context I am not debating. The hatred for Bush by these foamers finds them attributing anything they can possibly think of to him. HE NEVER MADE THAT STATEMENT. That was my point and I am 100% correct.

I believed we should have went to war and removed Saddam from power since 1991. I was proud of Clinton when he acted in 1998 and I think this whole thing was long overdue. I'm confident there are plenty of Americans who would have avoided war at all costs but I'm merely stating my opinion.

 

[jimnyc]

Now using common sense, what was the message they were trying to convey to the American people?

Now use common sense and show me where bush stated that Iraq was an imminent threat as alien stated. I believe that's what I debated. You guys should rip those who made the comments instead of blaming Bush with every desperate breath.

 

[White knight]

If you sell a gun to me, and I am a known robber of convienience stores, then yes, you are responsible.

How you can deny or ignore the FACT that the Reagan and Bush Sr. administrations fully supported WMD's for Saddam, and even continued to support this after he used them on both the Iranians and the Iraqi Kurds, is beyond my comprehension. Apparently you are one of those pitiful creatures whose sole source of information is neo-conservative web sites.

I was thinking about the same thing, Which administrations gave him the WMD?

 

[White knight]

The USA had no problem with Saddam's torturing, raping, mutilating, and murdering of Iraqi's when he was our "friend" in the 80's. We continued to supply him with weapons, and aid his capacity to produce his own.

Just like today the USA has no problem with the Janjaweed torturing, raping, mutilating, and murdering of Christians in Darfur. I’m willing to bet come thanksgiving and Christmas morning when the killing is still going on, not many Americans will even give asecond thought to the plight of these people. No we will be too concerned enjoying our fest, taking solace in our peace and prosperity.

Anyone know of any other massive human suffering taking place today? Something that is not getting much media play on our safe shores?

 

[CSM]

Just like today the USA has no problem with the Janjaweed torturing, raping, mutilating, and murdering of Christians in Darfur. I’m willing to bet come thanksgiving and Christmas morning when the killing is still going on, not many Americans will even give asecond thought to the plight of these people. No we will be too concerned enjoying our fest, taking solace in our peace and prosperity.

Anyone know of any other massive human suffering taking place today? Something that is not getting much media play in our safe shores?

Hmmm.

The President just authorized the use of Air Force planes to aid the African Union in Dafur. The US has been sending aid there for some time now. I also notice that you did not mention the UN or any other country and their apparent condoning of what is going on in Dafur. I posted the links to these stories in another thread.

 

[White knight]

Hmmm.

The President just authorized the use of Air Force planes to aid the African Union in Dafur. The US has been sending aid there for some time now. I also notice that you did not mention the UN or any other country and their apparent condoning of what is going on in Dafur. I posted the links to these stories in another thread.

Thats good news then, we are making progress.

 

[wade]

I was thinking about the same thing, Which administrations gave him the WMD?

Reagan/Bush.

 

[White knight]

It truly is funny when you think about it, a guy walking into a bar and gets everybody all stirred up and fighting each other, and then he makes off with the goods.
One of my favorite organizations the CIA (whom bush senior was director), although not as good as the Mossad, they can be very good at doing this with other countries.
Look into the history of Greece, you will find some surprising insight as to why they have a history of Anti-Americanism and a leaning toward communism.
If you wanted to apply same craft on a domestic level, just support a two party system and fund them both with reasons to not like each other and watch them go at it, in the mean time lobby both parties and no matter who wins you still win.
You can get away with allot as long as you keep everybody distracted and fighting each other.

 

[CSM]

I was thinking about the same thing, Which administrations gave him the WMD?

Well folks, I keep hearing talk about the US giving Iraq WMD. Here are a few factoids which may shed some light on the subject:

Iraqi Scientist Reports on German, Other Help for Iraq Chemical Weapons Program
Al Zaman (London)
December 1, 2003
Article by Dr Khalil Ibrahim Al Isa, a nuclear science researcher, in Paris: Fresh information on the Iraqi chemical program; Iraqi money and German brains cooperated in building chemical weapons

(FBIS Translated Text)

Historically, the Germans have been the uncontested masters in the discovery, production, and development of lethal poison gases used in warfare, such as mustard gas that is identified by the chemical compound symbol of C1Ch2-Ch2-S-Ch2-Ch2CI. This gas was discovered by German scientists and was first used in 1917. There is also the nerve gas Tabun that was discovered in 1937 by the German scientist G-Farden. Later, a similar gaseous chemical compound called the nerve gas Sarin was discovered. These two gases are highly effective in totally paralyzing muscle movement. In other words, the nervous system is totally paralyzed and this paralysis leads to involuntary bowel movements that ultimately lead to the death of the victim within minutes. German scientists also discovered cyanide acid, which is a more complex chemical compound. It contains the compound Zyklon-B that was used as a weapon of annihilation in Auschwitz. During the First World War of 1914-1918, the gases used by the Germans led to the death of one million British and French soldiers. The horrific scenes of the victims drove world public opinion to impose stringent checks on the conduct of warfare in the protocol that was issued in 1925. This was the first international document that banned warring countries from using chemical and biological weapons, which were considered to be weapons of mass destruction during wartime. Unfortunately, the protocol did not stop countries from conducting scientific research and tests in this field.

In 1930, more than 40 countries signed this protocol and Iraq was one of the signatories. It continued to be in force and by 1989, 165 countries had signed it. However, the countries of the world continued to violate the Geneva protocol by developing new and modern methods in the art of the mass murder and annihilation of humanity. In the middle of the 1930s, the Germans developed more types of toxic gases. The German scientist Gerharder discovered a new form of nerve gases, such as Soman and Sarin. He also developed the gas Tabun that paralyzes the muscles of the air ducts in the lungs resulting in instant death. After the second Gulf war, the major powers drafted a new treaty that was debated by the members of the Security Council in 1992 and ratified in 1993 by 162 countries, including the Arab countries of Algeria, Saudi Arabia, and Bahrain. This treaty prohibited the production, proliferation, and stockpiling of chemical weapons as the world saw the tragic images of the victims of the defunct regime over one decade. The treaty also imposed restrictions and surveillance of the world's commercial trade transactions in dual-use chemical products with specifications similar to those cited in the Nuclear Non-proliferation Treaty.

The effects of the Iraqi-Iranian war (subhead)

In the mid-1970s when the Ibn-al-Haytham Research and Studies Center was established, Iraq began to conduct research work to test and produce old and new poison gases. Local cadres and capabilities were devoted to this effort. International support, especially by the two parts of Germany, was crucial in activating the Iraqi chemical program. The first use by the Iraqi army of poisonous compounds appeared on the battlefield during the battles against Iran, especially during the hotly contested clashes in Hawr al-Huwazah in 1983. According to the data available to UNSCOM, there are 15 centers to produce and develop poisonous gas for military use. These are located in various regions in Iraq, especially in the areas of Samarra, Al-Fallujah, Akashat, Bayji, Al-Sharqat, and Salman Bak. Seven of these big centers have been destroyed and the rest were put under permanent surveillance.

http://fas.org/nuke/guide/iraq/cw/az120103.html

It would appear that Iraq purchased seed chemicals through a labrynth of front companies from the international community and then used German technology and support to develop their own chemical weapons.

 

[White knight]

Yes it was the Real Dr. Evil who developed the first chemical weapons.
I believe his motive was Nazi party ideology. Even though his wife was against him doing so and eventually killed her self in protest. He not only continued the work, he had a party on the eve of her death. And shortly after tested the chlorine gas effectively killing many in the battlefield.
It is this Dr. Evil that the character in Austin Powers’s movies is modeled after.
Evil people are truly brilliant; can anyone think of other brilliant people that had someone close to them take their own life?
I can think of a few today, they are truly at the top of their craft.

Thanks for the good memory.

 

[amberjohnsondc]

How do you define an "imminent threat"? Must the President wait until 3000 more Americans are brutally murdered for a threat to be considered imminent. Where is the line? Look at the big picture. Saddam was an enormous threat to the American people. The US- and the world- is an much safer place without this cruel man in power.

 

[MJDuncan1982]

How do you define an "imminent threat"? Must the President wait until 3000 more Americans are brutally murdered for a threat to be considered imminent. Where is the line? Look at the big picture. Saddam was an enormous threat to the American people. The US- and the world- is an much safer place without this cruel man in power.

Well in legal terms "imminent" means that an event can happen at any moment without delay.

Clearly Iraq did not fall into that category - even believing he had WMD. I cannot tell you where the line is precisely - that is an impossible task in much of life - but I can tell you that he wouldn't have to wait until more people died (and don't confuse the 3000 dead on 9/11 with Iraq).

I believe that in the long run we have made the world less safe by giving the muslim fanatics yet another reason to hate and kill us.