Iraq Issues

[Nyarlathotep]

jeesh, I sincerely hope some other people in here read some of these, but I fear that they do not. People that do not read articles and references have opinions that are uninformed, in my opinion.

Emp, please stop patrozining the other debaters. You complain about personal insults, yet you do the same towards others.

[Anathema]

but whether council members are willing to irrevocably destroy the world body's legitimacy by failing to follow the U.S. lead, senior U.S. and diplomatic sources said.

In other words, if the US doesn't get everything the way they want it is the other countries that are at fault.

Gob, I don't have time to read all that. I did read the It's about Oil, you stupid article.

Maybe it's because the Germans know what weapons of mass destruction that Saddam actually has. Quite probably, because it was the Germans who sold them most of the stuff they needed to build them.

What the...excuse me? Where does this guy get his info from? Components for MDW could be used for a million other things, so it woudl be stupid to blame Germany for Sadams limited MDW capabilities. The US on the other hand, gave Sadam chemical weapons ready for use.

Germany admits it is pacifist, but that isn't the reason it opposes war with Iraq. Germany supported the 1991 Gulf War with troops and materiel.

The Gulf War in 1991 was an agression from Iraq, not the US.

It's oil. As of October 2002, Iraq reportedly had signed several multi-billion dollar deals with foreign oil companies mainly from Russia, France and China.

So, Iraq has oil. Nothing new. The US can't get along with Sadam, so they would have oil interests in disposing of the regime.

Is it just me, or are you only posting pro war articles Gob?

[emprworm]

jeesh, I sincerely hope some other people in here read some of these, but I fear that they do not. People that do not read articles and references have opinions that are uninformed, in my opinion.

Emp, please stop patrozining the other debaters. You complain about personal insults, yet you do the same towards others.

i believe that people that ignore sources for information are not informed. how could someone be informed that ignores information sources?

i stand by that opinion

[Anathema]

US sold chemical weapons to Iraq

[emprworm]

huh? ther's nothing there.

[emprworm]

oh but wait, let me guess, its some stupid article by Neil Mackay and Felicity Arbuthnot right? LOL, I'm gonna LMAO if it turns out to be written by them. Cant wait to see....

[Nyarlathotep]

i believe that people that ignore sources for information are not informed. how could someone be informed that ignores information sources?

i stand by that opinion

But you can't tell if people read it or not, you can't view what they are doing.

Though if you can, I appologize.

[emprworm]

i believe that people that ignore sources for information are not informed. how could someone be informed that ignores information sources?

i stand by that opinion

But you can't tell if people read it or not, you can't view what they are doing.

Though if you can, I appologize.

but i didn't say that people weren't reading them. read my post please, before you comment.

[Anathema]

I don't know what went wrong last time I posted it. Here it is again.

article

[Nyarlathotep]

but i didn't say that people weren't reading them. read my post please, before you comment.

I did read your post, hence why I comment. Then why the insult in the first place (at least I read it as such) ?

You may reply to this and I will drop the subject as I don't want to start another "personal" discussion here.

[Gobalopper]

"Everybody was wrong in their assessment of Saddam," said Joe Wilson, Glaspie's former deputy at the U.S. embassy in Baghdad, and the last U.S. official to meet with Hussein. "Everybody in the Arab world told us that the best way to deal with Saddam was to develop a set of economic and commercial relationships that would have the effect of moderating his behavior. History will demonstrate that this was a miscalculation."

Probably the most important paragraph from that article.

Some new articles from today that I've noticed:

Britain's Blair Attacks French-German Iraq Plan

U.S. Warns France in Struggle Over Iraq

And Earthnuker these are just articles that I've read in the news, I usually post whatever I read. There aren't going to be many old news reports, more daily stuff.

[Anathema]

So, theoreticly, providing a dictator with chemical weaponry is a good way of moderating him?

Btw, I like this one ;D

"President Bush is an intelligent man," the ambassador told Hussein, referring to the father of the current president

[Gobalopper]

Well the article doesn't say that the US gave Iraq chemical weapons just that they looked the other way and provided cluster bombs to Iraq once it looked like Iran was going to possibly capture a large portion of the country.

[Anathema]

The story of U.S. involvement with Saddam Hussein in the years before his 1990 attack on Kuwait -- which included large-scale intelligence sharing, supply of cluster bombs through a Chilean front company, and facilitating Iraq's acquisition of chemical and biological precursors -- is a topical example of the underside of U.S. foreign policy.

The administrations of Ronald Reagan and George H.W. Bush authorized the sale to Iraq of numerous items that had both military and civilian applications, including poisonous chemicals and deadly biological viruses, such as anthrax and bubonic plague.

[emprworm]

The story of U.S. involvement with Saddam Hussein in the years before his 1990 attack on Kuwait -- which included large-scale intelligence sharing, supply of cluster bombs through a Chilean front company, and facilitating Iraq's acquisition of chemical and biological precursors -- is a topical example of the underside of U.S. foreign policy.

The administrations of Ronald Reagan and George H.W. Bush authorized the sale to Iraq of numerous items that had both military and civilian applications, including poisonous chemicals and deadly biological viruses, such as anthrax and bubonic plague.

you see, i already know this history. this is a twisted distortion of the truth. I want you to know the difference in something before I proceed:

1. The US giving chemical agents to Hussein is not the same as the Bush giving them to Hussein.

Did you know that many funds for terrorism against the US on 9/11 came from WITHIN the US? Yea, that is our 'great' country. We have a greater variety of peoples, religions, nationalites than anywhere on earth. Your country of the Netherlands isn't even 1% as diverse as the US. We have radical muslims here...people of every creed, race, religion. Some people hate us, some love us. I wish we would be more strict on who we let in, but then guys like Zamboe get mad when the US clamps down on immigration, so what is the inevitable? People come here and then, of their own volition, they funnel monies/items to outside sources....some of them violent.

Saddam Hussein aquired anthrax from a US company called "Dow Chemical" that sold them the agents. Saddam told them it was for "educational research". And like a typical leftist company (and similar to many war protesters) they said "Oh, we TRUST saddam...he wouldn't lie to us" and sold him the agents (called Dual-Use chemicals) There were other companies as well.

THIS DOES NOT EQUATE TO BUSH SELLING THEM

ok, I just wanted to make that clear. So none of this Bush's fault. Now I want you to read this paragraph and notice the misleading parts:

"According to a 1994 Senate report, private American suppliers, licensed by the U.S. Department of Commerce, exported a witch's brew of biological and chemical materials to Iraq from 1985 through 1989."

This paragraph is TRUE! But it is also deceptive. I will reword it to remove the deception:

"According to a 1994 Senate report, private American companies legally licensed to business in the US under the U.S. Department of Commerce (standard for all companies)...decided to make a little extra "capitalist cash" on the side, exported a witch's brew of biological and chemical materials to Iraq from 1985 through 1989."

THis happened as late as 1998 when Dow Chemical was publicly exposed for selling Anthrax to Iraq.

Blaming Bush for this is just not accurate. what does BUsh have to do with this? And besides, all those agents exported were "dual-use" agents meaning that they had civillian uses. sure it was pretty stupid that they were exported back in 1985, but then again, Hussein was not the man he is today either. Lots have changed. And how is Bush to blame again?

[emprworm]

the full senate report, by the way is here

http://www.gulflink.osd.mil/medsearch/FocusAreas/riegle_report/riegle_report_main.html

don't just read leftist interpretations of it, read the actual report for yourselves!!! :)

[Anathema]

1. The US giving chemical agents to Hussein is not the same as the Bush giving them to Hussein.

1. I don't recall mentioning Bush specificly

2. Fact is, that both the Reagan administration and the Bush senior administration allowed Sadam Hussein to purchase chemical weapons from companies within the US because at that time Sadam was the US' great friend.

Of course the US government wouldn't put a label on a box ful of chemicals "with the complements of pres Reagan". I don't even think Reagan was stupid enough to do such a thing. Both administrations allowed Sadam to purchase materials of wich they knew were going to be used for military purposes. Now don't say that Reagan and Bush senior were convinced that Sadam would never do such a thing, while at the same time condemning Chirac for providing him with a nuclear reactor (wich I condemn. At least I'm consistent)

And I don't see where you're going with that insult you're throwing the left way. Selling weapons isn't exactly commonly approved by leftist persons, and the Reagan and Bush senior administration weren't leftist either.

EDIT btw Emp, in that post you quoted from me you put my color in it, but I didn't do that in my original post.

[emprworm]

1. friend.

Of course the US government wouldn't put a label on a box ful of chemicals "with the complements of pres Reagan". I don't even think Reagan was stupid enough to do such a thing. Both administrations allowed Sadam to purchase materials of wich they knew were going to be used for military purposes. Now don't say that Reagan and Bush senior were convinced that Sadam would never do such a thing, while at the same time condemning Chirac for providing him with a nuclear reactor (wich I condemn. At least I'm consistent)

fine, but I want you to realize that they were not weapons. they were called "dual-use" chemicals meaning that they all had completely valid civillian uses for them. When Hussein says "I promise to use them for such and such purpose" in 1985 guess what? WE BELIEVED HIM.

the difference between war protesters today and the US back in 1985 is that we don't believe him anymore.

EDIT btw Emp, in that post you quoted from me you put my color in it, but I didn't do that in my original post.

well i just wanted to show you what a nice guy I am!! :D

and to keep that in mind when you write your story. ;)

[Gobalopper]

Earthnuker regardless of what past presidents have done Iraq is still in violation of UN charters which is why the US is going to attack. Foreign policy is not an easy thing, gov'ts are bound to make mistakes. The US thought they could trust Saddam, they learnt a lesson.

Saddam On Exile: 'We Will Die Here'

Danish pizzeria bans French and Germans :)

[emprworm]

Earthnuker regardless of what past presidents have done Iraq is still in violation of UN charters which is why the US is going to attack. Foreign policy is not an easy thing, gov'ts are bound to make mistakes. The US thought they could trust Saddam, they learnt a lesson.

Saddam On Exile: 'We Will Die Here'

Danish pizzeria bans French and Germans :)

that is the thing....we trusted Saddam. Clinton trusted North Korea. I am hoping...truly hoping that the US stops its blind trust of dictators...FOREVER!

the sad part is that as long as leftist liberals are around, there will be trust with dictators ala Neville Chamberlain style. The US trusted Hussein, true, as I see in the report, so Earthnuker has, to his great credit, backed up his claims with evidence. I have now read most of the report. But the conclusions are a bit misleading. The agents sold to Hussein were not intended for the purpose of producing illegal weapons according to the Geneva convention, but for valid civillian use. But Hussein lied. How do you fault Bush for this?

The irony is that here are anti-war protesters who TRUST HUSSEIN citing this incident to support their cause: an incident that proves why you SHOULD NOT trust Hussein.

Is this a bit backwards??? I think so. oh well

[emprworm]

lol! dan rather interviewing Hussein.

Rather: Mr. President, do you intend to destroy the Al Samoud missiles that the United Nations prohibits? Will you destroy those missiles?

Saddam: Our commitment is to abide, to comply with the resolution and to apply it as per the will of the United Nations and on that basis we have acted and we shall act.

As you know, Iraq is allowed to manufacture land-to-land rockets as per the resolution of the United Nations.

Rather: I want to make sure you understand, Mr. President. You do not intend to destroy these missiles?

Saddam: Which missiles? What do you mean? We have no missiles outside the specifications of the United Nations and the inspection teams are here and they're looking. I believe the United States knows and the world knows that Iraq has none of what has been said at the higher political levels.

lol! Please....anyone actually believe this crap?

Blix already INSPECTED these missles. What a liar.

[Gobalopper]

The thing is Saddam knows that Blix has no real power, he is only going to listen if the Security Council actually tells him to destroy the missiles.

Some more articles from tonight:

U.S. and Saudis Agree on Cooperation

Iraq reveals bomb with potential biological use

Bush: 'I Hope We Don't Go to War'

14 years of torture and humiliation in Saddam's jail

Liberating Iraq

Al Qaeda taps Arab war fears

Driving forces in war-wary nations

World media bash U.S., study reports

What's to debate? Saddam must go

Undeclared wars

U.S. Lists Iraqis to Punish, or to Work With

The local branch of the UN and the Red Cross appeared unwilling or unable to help him. "They were polite but firm," he said. "They told me I was a released prisoner so was out of their jurisdiction."

He sits alone in his bare room, waiting, and hoping that something will happen to change things.

"I am surprised to hear of all the anti-war demonstrations in the West," he said. "I wish that the demonstrators could spend just 24 hours in the place I have come from and see the reality of Iraq.

"Fourteen lost years of my life. Nothing but bread for food — darkness, filth, beatings, torture, killings, bitterness and humiliation. I wish they could experience it for just 24 hours."

But of course he is biased because he was arrested and imprisoned for sellling someone a roll of film. ::)

[Gobalopper]

From todays news:

Voice of Iraqis

Brits Complain About the BBC's

Anti-American Slant

House of Commons Backs Blair on Iraq

Anti-war MPs to rebel against Blair

Blix: 'Iraq could do more'

Azerbaijan stands by America

Bush Firm on Warning To Iraq

Islamic States Discussed Oil 'Weapon'

France: War Now Would Be 'Illegitimate'

U.S. Positive on Iraq Vote in U.N.

Mood Swings in Baghdad; Many Resigned to U.S. War

Tea With Terrorists

Perle: U.S. also seeks regime change in Iran, Libya, Syria

Threat of war spurs Mideast shifts

CANADA Ottawa's wimpy, equivocal pronouncements have tarnished our reputation south of the border and the $17-million allocated in the recent budget for public relations there won't do the trick. Only a regime change here will.

:D

[quoudam72]

I see you have found how to look underneth the veil Gob. ;)

[nemafakei]

In case you were interested, 121 Labour MPs rebelled against Blair today in the Chris Smith 'Rebel' Amendment. There would be more, but there was a three-line whip on it (ie you lose as many priveledges as the party can afford if you vote against).

This made it the biggest rebellion under Blair, and probably the biggest since the last war.

199 MPs backed it, 393 voted against.