Iraqs Weapons Of Mass Destruction

[Ming]

Originally posted by SpencerH
When you make such outlandish statements perhaps you could provide evidence that the US or other western country sold biochem weapons to Iraq.

Hmmm... I thought he had provided that proof in another thread already

[OneFootInTheGrave]

Originally posted by Ming


Hmmm... I thought he had provided that proof in another thread already

Thank you Ming,

And I posted the link above.

[SpencerH]

Originally posted by Ming


Hmmm... I thought he had provided that proof in another thread already

Missed that link . The point is they werent sent there as biochem weapons but as transfers from the CDC for biomedical research. It doesnt change the stupidity of it though.

[Ming]

Originally posted by OneFootInTheGrave
Thank you Ming,

NP
While we may be on different sides of some "discussions"...

Fair is fair...

Plus, I would rather "discuss" things here with people who at least provide support for their claims... unlike "some" people

[Dauphin]

Originally posted by SlowwHand
Do you really think Bush and Blair are so adamant about Iraq with no reason?

There are reasons for being adamant, but I question whether the WOMD reason is a core one. Its played up as if it were, but I can see a whole host of other reasons (some justified, others not) why Bush et al are pushing for action.

[Boris Godunov]

Originally posted by walruskkkch
So much for Muslim solidarity. Or am I assuming wrong that Saddam's muslim feelings are purely for show?

Uhm, is there any doubt on this? One of the reasons I find the assertion he was somehow helping Al-Queda silly is that Al-Queda hates Saddam and has wanted him overthrown in favor of an Islamic theocracy. Saddam is a secular, military dictator, not a Muslim cleric. On top of that, there is his own slaughtering of fellow Muslims in Iraq itself.

[SpencerH]

Further reading of the link provides

The congressional testimony from 1994 cites an American Type shipment in 1985 to the Iraq Ministry of Higher Education of a substance that resembles tuberculosis and influenza and causes enlargement of the liver and spleen. It can also infect the brain, lungs, heart and spinal column. The substance is called histoplasma capsulatum.

American Type also provided clones used in the development of germs that would kill plants. The material went to the Iraq Atomic Energy Commission, which the U.S. government says is a front for Saddam's military.

An organization called the State Company for Drug Industries received a pneumonia virus, and E. coli, salmonella and staphylcoccus in August 1987 under U.S. license, according to the Senate testimony. The country's Ministry of Trade got 33 batches of deadly germs, including anthrax and botulism in 1988.

Ten months after the first President Bush was inaugurated in 1988, an unnamed U.S. firm sent eight substances, including the germ that causes strep throat, to Iraq's University of Basrah.

An unnamed office in Basrah, Iraq, got "West Nile Fever Virus" from an unnamed U.S. company in 1985, the Senate testimony shows.

While there is no proof that the recent outbreak of West Nile virus in the United States stemmed from anything Iraq did, Riegle said, "You have to ask yourself, might there be a connection?"

While it may seem foolish in retrospect to have sent anything. All of these bugs with the exception of the H. capsulatum (which is a fungus) could have easily been isolated from patients with the diseases in Iraq.

Oh my god we sent strep to Iraq

[OneFootInTheGrave]

Originally posted by SlowwHand
One Foot ought to put the other foot in, and just cover up completely, as his head is evidently already in the sand, too.

People like him amaze me.
Do you really think Bush and Blair are so adamant about Iraq with no reason?
Do you really think you have the information they have at their disposal?

I mean, come on, buddy. Use your head for something besides a place to put your hat.

On question #1. Surely they have excellent reasons, but these are not the ones that they are telling you or me.

Do you really think that they feel so threathened. UK we are on the other side of Europe for his reach, but hey US - well you are on the other side of the world and Saddam surely has no Intercontinental missiles.

#2. Of course not, I agree with you completly but I think I know enough to prove my answer #1 to be correct.

And number 3 - their actions now are more likely to bring more harm to you and me than the threat of Saddams missiles.

[SpencerH]

Originally posted by Sagacious Dolphin

There are reasons for being adamant, but I question whether the WOMD reason is a core one. Its played up as if it were, but I can see a whole host of other reasons (some justified, others not) why Bush et al are pushing for action.

There may be some doubts about Bush's sincerity, but Blair? AFAIK, he's not winning any popularity contests in the UK by supporting this.

[Ned]

Originally posted by Guardian
The British government is hardly impartial in this matter, but I have no doubt that there is much truth in what they say.

The question remains, though: Is going to war a good way to handle these problems?

Reasonable question. What is the alternative?

[OneFootInTheGrave]

And I will copy another two points from the linked thread - by Congressman Ron Paul

23. How can our declared goal of bringing democracy to Iraq be believable when we prop up
dictators throughout the Middle East and support military tyrants like Musharaf in Pakistan, who
overthrew a democratically-elected president?

24. Are you familiar with the 1994 Senate Hearings that revealed the U.S. knowingly supplied chemical and biological materials to Iraq during the Iran-Iraq war and as late as 1992- including after the alleged Iraqi gas attack on a Kurdish village?

Read the 35 questions again, and ask yourself are you getting the truth channeled down to you trough CNN and the like. At least someone in the know had guts to ask them.

[SlowwHand]

Another thing I get tired of is "The USA did this and that and used to be friendly with so-and-so".
Big damned deal.

I'd be willing to bet that there's not 1 person here that has had an individual friendship in the past, and helped that past friend out, only to later not be friends, and perhaps even regret the favor.

[OneFootInTheGrave]

Originally posted by Ned


Reasonable question. What is the alternative?

First of all

Noone asks what is the alternative for Pakistan having nuclear capability, in the hands of a dictator ("albeit friendly one" - hey Saddam was our friend 15 years ago )

And what do we know about US and western undercover capabilities.

One thing I know is that little Israel streched out and destroyed Saddams nuclear facility early on in the eighties at the time when US wouldn't bother to lift a finger so they had to do it themselves, a true militaty feat. But if they could do it , surely there are other ways with all the espionage/ satelite tech that US/Europe has - to find out where the bases are and to destory them without an out right war, if the threat is so real.

And do you really think that Bush Sr, could not take Saddam down last time, if he really wanted to, no they wanted him in power still, but he probably doesn't want to play their game so he is a good first target. As public really see him as a monster and are most likely to support the action againt him first.

And if the war is againt terrorism, why aren't you fighting them on their ground, but insted creating more of them. Not to mention true humanitarian help, organisation of educations, and the like... a lot of good can be done for 100 billion USD that will be spent on the war, in US only.

Furthermore - it is obvious that some other EU countries who are closer geographically to Irak do not have anything to gain (fear) from Iraq to prompt an invasion.

For Kuvait they all agreed, obviously the reasons are different now.

[SlowwHand]

The United Nations made a request of Bush, Sr., OneFoot.
Being the nice guy he is/was...
Too bad for Iraq that his son isn't eaten up with the same Nice Guy complex.

another source.

http://www.msnbc.com/news/812146.asp?pne=msn

[OneFootInTheGrave]

Originally posted by SlowwHand
Another thing I get tired of is "The USA did this and that and used to be friendly with so-and-so".
Big damned deal.

I'd be willing to bet that there's not 1 person here that has had an individual friendship in the past, and helped that past friend out, only to later not be friends, and perhaps even regret the favor.

While this is true... this is about governmental policy and not friendship. There is no real friends there there is interest.

And US gov interest , and the UK on should be its citizens - and they know it. And they pretend that they are. They tell you that they are - obviously. And they want to make you think that what they want to do - for some other reasons -is what you want to do.

They pick the reason that the public is most likely to accept and than they serve it to us.

And at the end you think they are doing it for you. Well that is the nature of SPIN ... corporational, governmental... any...

What I would like to know is what is the real reason first, and than - what are the real risks.

And how that everyone is so tuned in on treating terrorism with guns, shooting , and creating more of the same, and not asking themselves what is the cause of the whole thing. Not even asking publicly. Just some minor outsiders dare to ask that question as if it not in the national interest.

Not to mention that Iraq war doesn't have to do anything with terrorism at all, it is WOMD threat. While Afganistan is getting worse, and anyway most of Al Quaeda in in Pakistan now. - Pakistan with nukes don't forget - and a secret service which created Taliban.

Noone mentiones that on CNN lately.