The New Defeatism

During WWII we had to start from scratch-----we had no "war machine" per se and we had to build one. One reason we took so many needless casualties----we were going up against two countries who had marvelous war machines. We sat back and watched them build those machines. How smart was that??

In WWII we removed two manical dictators with horrendous loss of life measured in the millions( total including civilians). In Iraq we removed a dictator just as manical with loss of life measured in the hundreds instead of millions. Should we have waited like they did in WWII?????? With pre-emption we dictated the events-----when you wait and react you let the enemy dictate the events. That is not the way I want to go to war-----maybe you do?

Waited for what? We already had Saddam contained. Our planes flew at will over any given portion of the country. He could not have made any kind of move against us without being stopped in his tracks.

And you don't care that he murdered 300,000 of his own people and those policies had not changed one whit?

Too true.

He murdered those people under the auspices of his friends within the US government. If you want to try someone for those murders be sure to include all responsible.

Now here is a man whose perceptions are in concrete------I don't have any words that will penetrate concrete.

I concur Perception. That's kind of sad.

Kind of sad that you two refuse to even contemplate that a Republican could do wrong.

It's even more sad when one can't contemplate that maybe a Republican got something right.

i would submit that you use your head to break up that concrete, after all it appears to be quite a bit harder than dear old edgar's cranium

and, as usual, edgar is right.

Iraqi use of chemical weapons against Iran

OFFICERS SAY U.S. AIDED IRAQ IN WAR DESPITE USE OF GAS
http://query.nytimes.com/search/abstract?res=F20911FA38590C7B8DDDA10894DA404482

A covert American program during the Reagan administration provided Iraq with critical battle planning assistance at a time when American intelligence agencies knew that Iraqi commanders would employ chemical weapons in waging the decisive battles of the Iran-Iraq war, according to senior military officers with direct knowledge of the program.

U.S., Britain Helped Iraq Develop Chemical And Biological Weapons"
http://csf.colorado.edu/mail/psn/mar98/0002.html

Source: Reuters, February 12, 1998.

A British television news program reported last week that the United States helped Iraq develop its chemical and biological weapons programs in the 1980s, and Britain sold Baghdad the antidote to nerve gas as late as March 1992.
<snip>
Britain's Channel Four television news said it found intelligence documents
which showed 14 shipments of biological materials -- including 19 batches of anthrax bacteria and 15 batches of botulinum, the organism that causes
botulism -- were exported from the U.S. to Iraq between 1985 and 1989.
<snip>
Twenty-nine batches of material were sent after Iraq killed 5,000 people in a gas attack on the Kurdish town of Halabja in 1988, the program reported.
<snip>
A senior Pentagon official said he stopped a 1988 order from Iraq for 1.5
million doses of atropine, which is used to protect troops from nerve gas. Aclassified U.S. Defense Department document showed Iraq had bought pralidoxine an antidote to nerve gas -- from Britain in March 1992, after the Gulf War.
<snip>
Channel Four also said it had uncovered U.S. intelligence documents which
showed that both the British and U.S. government knew as early as August 1990of the existence of Agent 15, a deadly nerve gas.

U.S. companies sold Iraq the ingredients for a witch's brew
http://www.progressive.org/0901/anth0498.html

Most Americans listening to the President did not know that the United States supplied Iraq with much of the raw material for creating a chemical and biological warfare program. Nor did the media report that U.S. companies sold Iraq more than $1 billion worth of the components needed to build nuclear weapons and diverse types of missiles, including the infamous Scud.
<snip>
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. Among the biological materials, which often produce slow, agonizing death, were:
* Bacillus Anthracis, cause of anthrax.
* Clostridium Botulinum, a source of botulinum toxin.
* Histoplasma Capsulatam, cause of a disease attacking lungs, brain, spinal cord, and heart.
* Brucella Melitensis, a bacteria that can damage major organs.
* Clostridium Perfringens, a highly toxic bacteria causing systemic illness.
* Clostridium tetani, a highly toxigenic substance.
<snip>
Also on the list: Escherichia coli (E. coli), genetic materials, human and bacterial DNA, and dozens of other pathogenic biological agents. "These biological materials were not attenuated or weakened and were capable of reproduction," the Senate report stated. "It was later learned that these microorganisms exported by the United States were identical to those the United Nations inspectors found and removed from the Iraqi biological warfare program."

The report noted further that U.S. exports to Iraq included the precursors to chemical-warfare agents, plans for chemical and biological warfare production facilities, and chemical-warhead filling equipment.

The exports continued to at least November 28, 1989, despite evidence that Iraq was engaging in chemical and biological warfare against Iranians and Kurds since as early as 1984.
<snip>
The American company that provided the most biological materials to Iraq in the 1980s was American Type Culture Collection of Maryland and Virginia, which made seventy shipments of the anthrax-causing germ and other pathogenic agents, according to a 1996 Newsday story.
Other American companies also provided Iraq with the chemical or biological compounds, or the facilities and equipment used to create the compounds for chemical and biological warfare. Among these suppliers were the following:
* Alcolac International, a Baltimore chemical manufacturer already linked to the illegal shipment of chemicals to Iran, shipped large quantities of thiodiglycol (used to make mustard gas) as well as other chemical and biological ingredients, according to a 1989 story in The New York Times.
* Nu Kraft Mercantile Corp. of Brooklyn (affiliated with the United Steel and Strip Corporation) also supplied Iraq with huge amounts of thiodiglycol, the Times reported.
* Celery Corp., Charlotte, NC
* Matrix-Churchill Corp., Cleveland, OH (regarded as a front for the Iraqi government, according to Representative Henry Gonzalez, Democrat of Texas, who quoted U.S. intelligence documents to this effect in a 1992 speech on the House floor).
The following companies were also named as chemical and biological materials suppliers in the 1992 Senate hearings on "United States export policy toward Iraq prior to Iraq's invasion of Kuwait":
* Mouse Master, Lilburn, GA
* Sullaire Corp., Charlotte, NC
* Pure Aire, Charlotte, NC
* Posi Seal, Inc., N. Stonington, CT
* Union Carbide, Danbury, CT
* Evapco, Taneytown, MD
* Gorman-Rupp, Mansfield, OH
Additionally, several other companies were sued in connection with their activities providing Iraq with chemical or biological supplies: subsidiaries or branches of Fisher Controls International, Inc., St. Louis; Rhone-Poulenc, Inc., Princeton, NJ; Bechtel Group, Inc., San Francisco; and Lummus Crest, Inc., Bloomfield, NJ, which built one chemical plant in Iraq and, before the Iraqi invasion of Kuwait in August 1990, was building an ethylene facility. Ethylene is a necessary ingredient for thiodiglycol
<snip>
In 1982, the Reagan Administration took Iraq off its list of countries alleged to sponsor terrorism, making it eligible to receive high-tech items generally denied to those on the list. Conventional military sales began in December of that year. Representative Samuel Gejdenson, Democrat of Connecticut, chairman of a House subcommittee investigating "United States Exports of Sensitive Technology to Iraq," stated in 1991:

"From 1985 to 1990, the United States Government approved 771 licenses for the export to Iraq of $1.5 billion worth of biological agents and high-tech equipment with military application. [Only thirty-nine applications were rejected.]

The United States spent virtually an entire decade making sure that Saddam Hussein had almost whatever he wanted. The Administration has never acknowledged that it took this course of action, nor has it explained why it did so. In reviewing documents and press accounts, and interviewing knowledgeable sources, it becomes clear that United States export-control policy was directed by U.S. foreign policy as formulated by the State Department, and it was U.S. foreign policy to assist the regime of Saddam Hussein."


CHEMICAL WARFARE IN THE IRAQ-IRAN WAR http://projects.sipri.se/cbw/research/factsheet-1984.html
<snip>
Allegations

There have been reports of chemical warfare from the Gulf War since the early months of Iraq s invasion of Iran. In November 1980, Tehran Radio was broadcasting allegations of Iraqi chemical bombing at Susangerd. Three and a quarter years later, by which time the outside world was listening more seriously to such charges, the Iranian Foreign Minister told the Conference on Disarmament in Geneva that there had been at least 49 instances of Iraqi chemical-warfare attack in 40 border regions, and that the documented dead totalled 109 people, with hundreds more wounded.
<snip>

THE POISON GASES IDENTIFIED BY THE UN TEAM

Mustard gas
Tabun
Germ-warfare agents: Israeli intelligence sources have been cited for reports that anthrax had been found in hospitalized Iranians. Iranian sources have referred to Iraqi use of "microbic" and "bacteriological" weapons.
<snip>

Indigenous or external sources of supply?

With the exceptions, maybe, of the last two of these different categories of putative Iraqi agent, sources of supply might as well be indigenous as external to Iraq, given the technology implied. Involvement of the last three categories would, in some circles, implicate the USSR as supplier, for the reason that the USSR is said, on evidence that has yet to be solidly substantiated but which has nonetheless attracted some firm believers, to have weaponized all three of them in recent years. For its part, the USSR has expressly denied supplying Iraq with toxic weapons. Reports of Soviet supply attributed to US and other intelligence sources have nonetheless recurred. The earliest predate reports of Iraqi use of chemical weapons in the Gulf War.

Official Iranian commentaries, too, have pointed to the USSR as a supplier of the Iraqi weapons. These sources have also accused Brazil, France and, most conspicuously, Britain of supplying the weapons. No basis for any of these Iranian accusations has been disclosed. France, alongside Czechoslovakia and both Germanies, is reportedly also rumoured, among "foreign military and diplomatic sources" in Baghdad, to have supplied Iraq with chemical precursors needed for an indigenous production effort. Unofficial published sources have cited Egypt as a possible supplier of actual chemical weapons. In the mid-1960s, when Iraq was alleged to be using chemical weapons against insurgent Kurdish forces, Swiss and German sources of supply were reported in the Western press.
<snip>

The search for materials

Any need to import special chemical-process plant and associated know-how could be lessened by importing, instead, some of the chemical intermediates needed to produce chemical-warfare agents, rather than attempting to manufacture those intermediates from indigenous raw materials (of which the Iraqi mining, petroleum and related industries appear to provide the full range needed for mustard and nerve gases, with the possible expection for some of the latter of fluoride minerals). Certain intermediates can be identified which could reduce the requirements for chemical plant to processing equipments of standard off-the-shelf or easily improvised types. Iraq has not concealed the fact that it is in the market for chemicals which do indeed fall within this category. This has been most conspicuous in Iraq's search in America for supplies of methylphosphonous dichloride and dimethyl methyl-phosphonate. These two chemicals do, however, have certain civil applications. But at least in the former case they are not ones which, in the normal course of events, Iraq might obviously be expected to exploit.
<snip>
Export controls

On 30 March, the US government announced the imposition of 'foreign policy controls' on the export to the Gulf-War belligerents of five chemicals that could be used in the production of mustard and nerve gases. US officials told the press that this had been done in response to an unexpected volume of recent orders from Iraq for those chemicals. They also said that Japan, FR Germany and other unspecified European countries had been exporting the chemicals to Iraq. The British government took action similar to that of Washington on 12 April, adding three more chemicals to the control list (see table). Since then, other European governments have also announced embargoes of varying scope, and on 15 May the Foreign Ministers of the European Community agreed in principle on a common and complementary policy. There are Western press reports of suspicions in Western diplomatic circles in the Middle East that the USSR is shipping intermediates to Iraq through Jordan.

http://projects.sipri.se/cbw/research/factsheet-1984.html

Out! Out you pernicious facts! You have ruined yet another bizarre right wing wet dream fantasy.

Strange that your litany of US 'sins' omitted the fact that the U.S.S.R. was funding and equipping Iran and a cleric madman we came to know as the Ayatollah Khomeni who was threatening to destablize the entire Middle East. Keeping Iran from overrunning Iraq kept both countries occupied and out of everybody else's hair.

Kuvasz gives a link that says that US aided Iraq in war despite Iraq's use of gas.

The only problem with that link is that it says that
"Unidentified Senior US Officers" gave the information.

That means that the information is worthless.

Identified Senior US Officers would indeed mean something.

I don't think that Kuvasz has the slightest idea of the meaning of realpolitik.

Doesn't he remember that we gave thousands of planes, tanks and ships to the Soviet Union in 1944 and 1945 and then, only three years later, had to fly over the Berlin Blockade?

Doesn't he remember Churchill's speech only three years after we had been allies with the Soviets in which Churchill told the world about the Iron Curtain?

When the Republicans get something right I will admit it. That has to happen first.

Note that there was more than a single reference to such actions by the American government in my post. In fact, there were several references, from US, British and other foreign sources, along with corroborating reports released by the United States Congress.

But according to you, since the information does not conform to your preconceived notions, you call it "worthless."

Atta' boy. Still hung up with the denial of the facts when suits you. No surprise there, at all.

Note that the US government also allowed private companies to sell the Iraqis the means to kill thousands of Kurdish civilians and Iranians even while the American government knew that the Iraqi government gassed their own people with what we were giving them.



Where you get the bizarre idea that there is a direction correlation between America helping the Soviets bleed Hitler's Wehrmacht on the Eastern Front with willingly giving Saddam the means to gas his own people is beyond reason.

I am very much afraid that Kuvasz's definition of Realpolitik does not conform with the definition given by Henry Kissinger.

Kissinger defined Realpolitik as "foreign policy based on calculations of power and the national interest."

Perhaps Kuvasz does not agree that our actions vis a vis Iran were based on Realpolitik. I am quite sure that he can find very few in the Administration at the time that would agree with him.

Perhaps, I should rethink Kuvasz' referral to Senior Officers who are unidentified.

My History Professor, long dead, would roll in his grave if he knew I was giving credence to "Unidentified sources" but perhaps those Unidentified sources are like the sources that Robert Novak used to out the CIA person.

Charles Moskos, eminent Sociologist from Northwestern and an acknowledged expert in Military history holds that the giant bureaucracy at the Pentagon is filled with backbiting and double dealing and the hero of today is the malcontent of tomorrow who was perhaps passed over( pace- Gen. Zinni). Those not in the ascendancy for whatever reason are notorious for being quoted as unidentified sources.

Kuvasz is apparently struggling under the notion that only in a World War is Realpolitik applicable.
Henry Kissinger does not agree with him since in his book "Diplomacy: Kissinger shows that Realpolitik is indeed in play any time that "calculations of power and the national interest" are applicable.

I am sure that Kuvasz can supply evidence that the US was aware that he would utliize Chemicals given to him by the US to gas his own people.

I have never seen such evidence, but perhaps Kuvasz has. I would be grateful if he could reference it.

I am also very much afraid that Kuvasz has not kept up with his History of World War II. Indeed, John Keegan, a highly respected Historian, wrote in his book "The Second World War"

quote

P. 122

Between March 1941 and OCTOBER 1945**
the United States supplied the Soviet Union with 2,000 locomotives, 11,000 rail wagons, nearly 3 million tons of gasoline,540,000 tons of rails, 51,000 jeeps,375,000 trucks and 15,000,000 pair of boots. IT WAS IN AMERICAN BOOTS AND TRUCKS THAT THE RED ARMY ADVANCED TO BERLIN>"

Realpolitick demanded that we supply the Red Army although some warned of the coming Communist menace.

If it had not been for the success of the Berlin Airlift, the US might have encountered Soviet troops empowered by US materiel.

But, that was realpolitik.. As was the Korean War and the Vietnam war and Desert Storm and now the coalition's attempt to bring freedom to the Iraqis.

If the American people do not agree with the present Administration's definition, then they will replace President Bush with the peace loving Senator Kerry....but realpolitik it is despite Kuvasz' obejections.

One liberal recently claimed Bush was the worst president in U.S. history.

Liberals claim President Bush shouldn't have started this war.
They complain about his prosecution of it.

There were 39 combat related killings in Iraq during the month of January…..

In the fair city of Detroit there were 35 murders in the month of January.
That's just one American city folks, about as deadly as the entire war torn country of Iraq .

Worst president in history? Let's see….
The following appeared in the Durham, NC local paper as a letter to the editor
This will put things in perspective:

Let's clear up one point: President Bush didn't start the war on terror.
Try to remember, it was started by terrorists BEFORE 9/11.

Let's look at the "worst" president and mismanagement claims.

FDR…
led us into World War II. Germany never attacked us: Japan did.
From 1941-1945, 450,000 lives were lost, an average of 112,500 per year.

Truman… finished that war and started one in Korea, North Korea never attacked us.
From 1950-1953, 55,000 lives were lost, an average of 18,333 per year.

John F. Kennedy…
started the Vietnam conflict in 1962.
Vietnam never attacked us.

Johnson…
turned Vietnam into a quagmire.
From 1965-1975, 58,000 lives were lost, an average of 5,800 per year.

Clinton…
went to war in Bosnia without UN or French consent,
Bosnia never attacked us.
He was offered Osama bin Laden's head on a platter three times by Sudan and did nothing.
Osama has attacked us on multiple occasions.

In the two years since terrorists attacked us, President Bush has
liberated two countries, crushed the Taliban, crippled al-Qaida, put nuclear inspectors in Libya, Iran and North Korea without firing a shot, and captured a terrorist who slaughtered 300,000 of his own people.

Worst president in history? Come on!

The Democrats are complaining about how long the war is taking, but…

It took less time to take Iraq than it took Janet Reno to take the
Branch Davidian compound. That was a 51 day operation.

We've been looking for evidence of chemical weapons in Iraq for less time than it took Hillary Clinton to find the Rose Law Firm billing records.

It took less time for the 3rd Infantry Division and the Marines to destroy the Medina Republican Guard than it took Ted Kennedy to call the police after his Oldsmobile sank at Chappaquiddick.

Fedral- It is fitting at this time, to look at how Professional Historians have rated President Ronald Reagan.

According to a CSpan site-
"http://www.americanpresidents.org/survey/historians/overall.asp

Ronald Reagan was rated Eleventh

George Herbert Walker Bush was rated Twentieth

Bill Clinton was rated Twenty-first

And, with regard to the WMD's, I would suggest that Liberals review the speech given by President Bill Clinton on December 16th 1998 in which Clinton said:

"The best way to end that threat once and for all is with a new Iraqi government--a government that respects the rights of its people. Bringing change in Baghdad will TAKE TIME AND EFFORT."

and

"Without a strong inspection system. Iraq would be free to RETAIN and begin to rebuild its chemical, biological and nuclear weapons programs in months, not years".

It would appear that President Clinton felt that Saddam still had WMD's in 1998.

Therefore, he ordered a "Substantial Military Strike" after reading the "latest UN reports about noncompliance by the Iraqis..."

It would appear that Clinton launched a 'PRE-EMPTIVE strike against Iraq WITHOUT getting the approval of the Congress of the United States.

I still haven't figured out what was wrong with the old defeatism. Is it just passe?