0
   

Blixful Amnesia

 
 
Cycloptichorn
 
  1  
Reply Fri 9 Jul, 2004 11:16 am
According to definition, the term WMD is independent of the delivery system (am I right on that one, McG? I seem to remember you telling me that).

So, slingshots would not be considered WMD. Now, the pellet INSIDE the slingshot is open to debate but still rather silly.

I think, Karzak, that if we found another country providing, say, Iran, with those 'small vials,' we would consider them to be supporting WMD research and act accordingly, don't you?

Cycloptichorn
0 Replies
 
McGentrix
 
  1  
Reply Fri 9 Jul, 2004 11:21 am
So, the fact that Germany, Russia, Japan and other countries also supplied Iraq with plans and materials for WMD's has no bearing on this?

When I give my son his first gun, I will educate him on it's use. I will train him how to clean it,how to take care of it and how to be responsible. If he shoots the neighbors dog, I will take the gun away from him. However, the responsibility still lies with him, the shooter, as he chose to ignore the training he received.
0 Replies
 
Cycloptichorn
 
  1  
Reply Fri 9 Jul, 2004 11:24 am
It just means we share the guilt for this mess on a world-wide level, not that we are all innocent.

Cycloptichorn
0 Replies
 
McGentrix
 
  1  
Reply Fri 9 Jul, 2004 11:31 am
Not according to some Cycloptichorn. They would lead everyone to beleive the the US is SOLELY responsible and ignore the facts of the case.
0 Replies
 
Cycloptichorn
 
  1  
Reply Fri 9 Jul, 2004 11:34 am
Quote:
Not according to some Cycloptichorn. They would lead everyone to beleive the the US is SOLELY responsible and ignore the facts of the case.


I totally agree with this. I think that people who claim that are as bad as those who claim that we didn't have any responsibility at all.

Cycloptichorn
0 Replies
 
Karzak
 
  1  
Reply Fri 9 Jul, 2004 12:11 pm
Cycloptichorn wrote:


I think, Karzak, that if we found another country providing, say, Iran, with those 'small vials,' we would consider them to be supporting WMD research and act accordingly, don't you?

Cycloptichorn


No.

And quit evading your lie, you were supporting this out and out lie that we sold saddam WMD, now the truth is that some US corps sold germs for research to some iraqi schools.

Typical liberal crap.

Especially when saddam was using chemical weapons, not biological, on the thousands he killed with his RUSSIAN AIDED WMD.

I get really tired of this kind of liberal dishonesty.
0 Replies
 
Cycloptichorn
 
  1  
Reply Fri 9 Jul, 2004 02:19 pm
It isn't dishonesty. It's obtuseness on YOUR part Karzak. Just becuase Iraq was using chemical weapons provided from some other source doesn't mean that we DIDN'T sell them WMD back in the 80's. The two are not mutually exclusive.

http://www.iranchamber.com/history/articles/arming_iraq.php

From the article (emphasis is mine):


Quote:

Arming Iraq: A Chronology of U.S. Involvement
By: John King, March 2003


What follows is an accurate chronology of United States involvement in the arming of Iraq during the Iraq-Iran war 1980-88. It is a powerful indictment of the president Bush administration attempt to sell war as a component of his war on terrorism. It reveals US ambitions in Iraq to be just another chapter in the attempt to regain a foothold in the Mideast following the fall of the Shah of Iran.

rming Iraq and the Path to War
A crisis always has a history, and the current crisis with Iraq is no exception. Below are some relevant dates.

September, 1980. Iraq invades Iran. The beginning of the Iraq-Iran war. [8]

February, 1982. Despite objections from congress, President Reagan removes Iraq from its list of known terrorist countries. [1]

December, 1982. Hughes Aircraft ships 60 Defender helicopters to Iraq. [9]

1982-1988. Defense Intelligence Agency provides detailed information for Iraq on Iranian deployments, tactical planning for battles, plans for air strikes and bomb damage assessments. [4]

November, 1983. A National Security Directive states that the U.S would do "whatever was necessary and legal" to prevent Iraq from losing its war with Iran. [1] & [15]

November, 1983. Banca Nazionale del Lavoro of Italy and its Branch in Atlanta begin to funnel $5 billion in unreported loans to Iraq. Iraq, with the blessing and official approval of the US government, purchased computer controlled machine tools, computers, scientific instruments, special alloy steel and aluminum, chemicals, and other industrial goods for Iraq's missile, chemical, biological and nuclear weapons programs. [14]

October, 1983. The Reagan Administration begins secretly allowing Jordan, Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, and Egypt to transfer United States weapons, including Howitzers, Huey helicopters, and bombs to Iraq. These shipments violated the Arms Export Control Act. [16]

November 1983. George Schultz, the Secretary of State, is given intelligence reports showing that Iraqi troops are daily using chemical weapons against the Iranians. [1]

December 20, 1983. Donald Rumsfeld , then a civilian and now Defense Secretary, meets with Saddam Hussein to assure him of US friendship and materials support. [1] & [15]

July, 1984. CIA begins giving Iraq intelligence necessary to calibrate its mustard gas attacks on Iranian troops. [19]

January 14, 1984. State Department memo acknowledges United States shipment of "dual-use" export hardware and technology. Dual use items are civilian items such as heavy trucks, armored ambulances and communications gear as well as industrial technology that can have a military application. [2]

March, 1986. The United States with Great Britain block all Security Council resolutions condemning Iraq's use of chemical weapons, and on March 21 the US becomes the only country refusing to sign a Security Council statement condemning Iraq's use of these weapons. [10]

May, 1986. The US Department of Commerce licenses 70 biological exports to Iraq between May of 1985 and 1989, including at least 21 batches of lethal strains of anthrax. [3]

May, 1986. US Department of Commerce approves shipment of weapons grade botulin poison to Iraq. [7]

March, 1987. President Reagan bows to the findings of the Tower Commission admitting the sale of arms to Iran in exchange for hostages. Oliver North uses the profits from the sale to fund an illegal war in Nicaragua. [17]

Late 1987. The Iraqi Air Force begins using chemical agents against Kurdish resistance forces in northern Iraq. [1]

February, 1988. Saddam Hussein begins the "Anfal" campaign against the Kurds of northern Iraq. The Iraq regime used chemical weapons against the Kurds killing over 100,000 civilians and destroying over 1,200 Kurdish villages. [8]

April, 1988. US Department of Commerce approves shipment of chemicals used in manufacture of mustard gas. [7]

August, 1988. Four major battles were fought from April to August 1988, in which the Iraqis massively and effectively used chemical weapons to defeat the Iranians. Nerve gas and blister agents such as mustard gas are used. By this time the US Defense Intelligence Agency is heavily involved with Saddam Hussein in battle plan assistance, intelligence gathering and post battle debriefing. In the last major battle with of the war, 65,000 Iranians are killed, many with poison gas. Use of chemical weapons in war is in violation of the Geneva accords of 1925. [6] & [13]

August, 1988. Iraq and Iran declare a cease fire. [8]

August, 1988. Five days after the cease fire Saddam Hussein sends his planes and helicopters to northern Iraq to begin massive chemical attacks against the Kurds. [8]

September, 1988. US Department of Commerce approves shipment of weapons grade anthrax and botulinum to Iraq. [7]

September, 1988. Richard Murphy, Assistant Secretary of State: "The US-Iraqi relationship is... important to our long-term political and economic objectives." [15]

December, 1988. Dow chemical sells $1.5 million in pesticides to Iraq despite knowledge that these would be used in chemical weapons. [1]

July 25, 1990. US Ambassador to Baghdad meets with Hussein to assure him that President Bush "wanted better and deeper relations". Many believe this visit was a trap set for Hussein. A month later Hussein invaded Kuwait thinking the US would not respond. [12]

August, 1990 Iraq invades Kuwait. The precursor to the Gulf War. [8]

July, 1991 The Financial Times of London reveals that a Florida chemical company had produced and shipped cyanide to Iraq during the 80's using a special CIA courier. Cyanide was used extensively against the Iranians. [11]

August, 1991. Christopher Droguol of Atlanta's branch of Banca Nazionale del Lavoro is arrested for his role in supplying loans to Iraq for the purchase of military supplies. He is charged with 347 counts of felony. Droguol is found guilty, but US officials plead innocent of any knowledge of his crime. [14]

June, 1992. Ted Kopple of ABC Nightline reports: "It is becoming increasingly clear that George Bush Sr., operating largely behind the scenes throughout the 1980's, initiated and supported much of the financing, intelligence, and military help that built Saddam's Iraq into [an aggressive power]." [5]

July, 1992. "The Bush administration deliberately, not inadvertently, helped to arm Iraq by allowing U.S. technology to be shipped to Iraqi military and to Iraqi defense factories... Throughout the course of the Bush administration, U.S. and foreign firms were granted export licenses to ship U.S. technology directly to Iraqi weapons facilities despite ample evidence showing that these factories were producing weapons." Representative Henry Gonzalez, Texas, testimony before the House. [18]

February, 1994. Senator Riegle from Michigan, chairman of the Senate Banking Committee, testifies before the senate revealing large US shipments of dual-use biological and chemical agents to Iraq that may have been used against US troops in the Gulf War and probably was the cause of the illness known as Gulf War Syndrome. [7]

August, 2002. "The use of gas [during the Iran-Iraq war] on the battle field by the Iraqis was not a matter of deep strategic concern... We were desperate to make sure that Iraq did not lose". Colonel Walter Lang, former senior US Defense Intelligence officer tells the New York Times. [4]

This chronology of the United States' sordid involvement in the arming of Iraq can be summarized in this way: The United States used methods both legal and illegal to help build Saddam's army into the most powerful army in the Mideast outside of Israel. The US supplied chemical and biological agents and technology to Iraq when it knew Iraq was using chemical weapons against the Iranians. The US supplied the materials and technology for these weapons of mass destruction to Iraq at a time when it was know that Saddam was using this technology to kill his Kurdish citizens. The United States supplied intelligence and battle planning information to Iraq when those battle plans included the use of cyanide, mustard gas and nerve agents. The United States blocked UN censure of Iraq's use of chemical weapons. The United States did not act alone in this effort. The Soviet Union was the largest weapons supplier, but England, France and Germany were also involved in the shipment of arms and technology.


Pull your head out of the sand. We are at least partially responsible for the WMD in Iraq.

Cycloptichorn
0 Replies
 
Karzak
 
  1  
Reply Fri 9 Jul, 2004 02:25 pm
Cycloptichorn wrote:
It isn't dishonesty. It's obtuseness on YOUR part Karzak. Just becuase Iraq was using chemical weapons provided from some other source doesn't mean that we DIDN'T sell them WMD back in the 80's.


ROTFLMAO, and that is your standard of proof!

Your links read like some kind of nutcase conspiracy theory, and they COMPLETELY LACK ANY EVIDENCE OF THE US SELLING WMD TO IRAQ!

Claiming anything different is just being completely dishonest.
0 Replies
 
Cycloptichorn
 
  1  
Reply Fri 9 Jul, 2004 02:38 pm
Jesus, did you even read my link?

Quote:
Cycloptichorn wrote:
It isn't dishonesty. It's obtuseness on YOUR part Karzak. Just becuase Iraq was using chemical weapons provided from some other source doesn't mean that we DIDN'T sell them WMD back in the 80's.


ROTFLMAO, and that is your standard of proof!

Your links read like some kind of nutcase conspiracy theory, and they COMPLETELY LACK ANY EVIDENCE OF THE US SELLING WMD TO IRAQ!

Claiming anything different is just being completely dishonest.


Um, you have not provided a SHRED of evidence for your side of the case. I do provide a nice rundown of events, and instead of countering my claims you just laugh and assume a rather condescending tone...

If this were a debate, you would have just lost. As it isn't, you just look like a fool.

I don't know how you learned to argue, but simply laughing at links isn't going to cut it on A2K man... come back with a better argument, if you can.

Here, I'll even get you started:

Quote:
September, 1988. US Department of Commerce approves shipment of weapons grade anthrax and botulinum to Iraq.


Now, let's look at the source of that - an important part of defining whether or not a source is viable in a debate.

Why, it turns out that information comes from 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.

Then, just to make sure the quote wasn't taken out of context, you look deeper and find this gem right in the introduction:

Quote:
During that hearing it was learned that U.N. inspectors identified many U.S. - manufactured items exported pursuant to licenses issued by the U.S. Department of Commerce that were used to further Iraq's chemical and nuclear weapons development and missile delivery system development programs.


Jeez, that sure looks to me like the U.S. was involved in the production of chemical weapons in Iraq, according to my source.

And, there are dozens more up there for you to choose from. Though I doubt you will even make an effort - screaming loudly like a fool is so much easier, isn't it?

Cycloptichorn
0 Replies
 
Karzak
 
  1  
Reply Fri 9 Jul, 2004 03:13 pm
Cycloptichorn wrote:
Jesus, did you even read my link?


Yes, it is a bunch of garbage.

The simple fact is that virtually anything fits these broad definitions of WMD that you use in this case, even windows 95 can be used as a component in an WMD research effort.

But what was being claimed is that the US sold Iraq WMD, what is shown here is the Iraq MAY have used some US items in its WMD programs, that is quite a different thing.

So yes, I laugh at you, cause your stance here is laughable.

You are trying to make the fertilizer manufacturer the one who blew up the murrow building, and that is dishonest, silly and laughable.

The US DID NOT sell Iraq WMD, most of the help they got was from Russia.
0 Replies
 
blueveinedthrobber
 
  1  
Reply Fri 9 Jul, 2004 03:19 pm
Karzak wrote:
Cycloptichorn wrote:
Um, noone from the admin has ever claimed that we DIDN'T sell them WMD back in the 80's Karzak. It's a pretty well-understood fact on both sides of the fence.


No it isn't, it is an out and out lie.

The US did not sell iraq WMD.


there was no holocaust either...everyone knows that right?....
0 Replies
 
Karzak
 
  1  
Reply Fri 9 Jul, 2004 03:31 pm
Bi-Polar Bear wrote:
Karzak wrote:
Cycloptichorn wrote:
Um, noone from the admin has ever claimed that we DIDN'T sell them WMD back in the 80's Karzak. It's a pretty well-understood fact on both sides of the fence.


No it isn't, it is an out and out lie.

The US did not sell iraq WMD.


there was no holocaust either...everyone knows that right?....


If you want to say the US sold or gave iraq WMD then show it. I can post horrific pictures of the holocaust, the nazis own records support 400k deaths at auschwitz, evidence is good for twice that number being closer to the truth, and that was just one concentration camp.

Your evidence for US selling WMD to Iraq are some medical research materials and some unnamed components that MAY OR MAY NOT have played some part in saddams MOSTLY RUSSIAN AISED WMD program.

So if you want to belittle the holocaust like this, go right ahead, but don't think it makes the point you were trying to make.

.
0 Replies
 
Cycloptichorn
 
  1  
Reply Fri 9 Jul, 2004 03:33 pm
You're nothing but a troll, Karzak.

I'm gonna stop feeding you now.

Cycloptichorn
0 Replies
 
Karzak
 
  1  
Reply Fri 9 Jul, 2004 03:36 pm
Cycloptichorn wrote:
You're nothing but a troll, Karzak.



Nope, saying the US sold iraq WMD is what a troll would do.

Run away when you can't prove your points, doesn't bother me a bit.
0 Replies
 
Foxfyre
 
  1  
Reply Fri 9 Jul, 2004 03:41 pm
McG writes
Quote:
Not according to some Cycloptichorn. They would lead everyone to beleive the the US is SOLELY responsible and ignore the facts of the case.


A little precision please, McG. "They would lead everyone to believe' that BUSH is solely responsible and ignore any of the plethora of facts to the contrary.
0 Replies
 
McGentrix
 
  1  
Reply Fri 9 Jul, 2004 03:55 pm
Foxfyre wrote:
McG writes
Quote:
Not according to some Cycloptichorn. They would lead everyone to beleive the the US is SOLELY responsible and ignore the facts of the case.


A little precision please, McG. "They would lead everyone to believe' that BUSH is solely responsible and ignore any of the plethora of facts to the contrary.


Hmmmm.... Good point. I will endeaver to be more accurate. :wink:
0 Replies
 
IronLionZion
 
  1  
Reply Fri 9 Jul, 2004 06:07 pm
Karzak wrote:

ROTFLMAO, you liberals have no honesty, this lie about the US selling Iraq WMD is so bogus that only a fool would still repeat it today.


Your post makes less sense than this picture:

http://mywebpage.netscape.com/NinjaRogertron/wtf.jpg
0 Replies
 
kickycan
 
  1  
Reply Fri 9 Jul, 2004 06:09 pm
Laughing
0 Replies
 
Karzak
 
  1  
Reply Fri 9 Jul, 2004 11:19 pm
IronLionZion wrote:
Karzak wrote:

ROTFLMAO, you liberals have no honesty, this lie about the US selling Iraq WMD is so bogus that only a fool would still repeat it today.


Your post makes less sense than this picture:

http://www.randholman.com/Senator_John_Kerry.jpg


No, that picture makes no sense, my post OTOH makes sense, but only if you live in reality.

If you live in liberal lala land then nothing makes sense.
0 Replies
 
IronLionZion
 
  1  
Reply Sat 10 Jul, 2004 04:01 am
Re: Blixful Amnesia
McGentrix wrote:
Thank God for Hans Blix. Whenever we become lax and forgetful about how the world changed on Sept. 11, former chief inspector Blix is there to make the case for mindless complacency. In a recent speech in Vienna he warned that one should be wary of the claim that "the risk that reckless groups and governments might acquire weapons of mass destruction is the greatest problem facing our world today." Why? Because "to hundreds of millions of people around the world, the big existential issue is hunger, and also that wherever you live on this planet, the risk of global warming and other environmental threats are existential."


Bravo.
0 Replies
 
 

Related Topics

Obama '08? - Discussion by sozobe
Let's get rid of the Electoral College - Discussion by Robert Gentel
McCain's VP: - Discussion by Cycloptichorn
Food Stamp Turkeys - Discussion by H2O MAN
The 2008 Democrat Convention - Discussion by Lash
McCain is blowing his election chances. - Discussion by McGentrix
Snowdon is a dummy - Discussion by cicerone imposter
TEA PARTY TO AMERICA: NOW WHAT?! - Discussion by farmerman
 
  1. Forums
  2. » Blixful Amnesia
  3. » Page 2
Copyright © 2024 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.03 seconds on 05/17/2024 at 11:28:23