So they found WMD

[Saracen]

Originally posted by G4Z
Your right that other countries supplied saddam with chemicals but I am sure america did supply saddam with chemical and biological weapons.

But did they? Again, where's the evidence proving that?

Originally posted by G4Z
"A letter written in 1995 by former CDC Director David Satcher to former Senator Donald W. Riegle, Jr., points out that the U.S. Government provided nearly two dozen viral and bacterial samples to Iraqi scientists in 1985--samples that included the plague, botulism, and anthrax, among other deadly diseases. "


I found that on this page : http://www.hnn.us/articles/1283.html


I think it is fait to say that the americans did supply or at the very least aid iraqi development of these weapons and it seems like they didnt care what saddam did with them so long as the oil market remained stable.

Exactly who supplied these materials, exactly what was supplied, exactly who was it supplied to, and for what purpose?

I've checked into these allegations before, and most (if not all) these supplies came from the ATCC - The American Type Culture Collection. This is a .... oh, hell, here's a quote from their website

ATCC is a global nonprofit bioresource center that provides biological products, technical services, and educational programs to private industry, government, and academic organizations around the world. Our mission is to acquire, authenticate, preserve, develop, and distribute biological materials, information, technology, intellectual property, and standards for the advancement, validation, and application of scientific knowledge.

The website is here. These 'weapons supplies' were standard commercial supplies from a scientific research body to various Iraqi institutions, usually Universities, and were sold for nominal sums. One such supply (IIRC, and I haven't bothered to track it down again this time) was an Anthrax sample sold to the University of Baghdad for US$50.

So, why sell disease samples? Well, in the case of Anthrax, it is found in the wild in large parts of the middle east among the animal population and it is reasonable for the University of Baghdad to be doing research into anthrax for genuine, medical and vetinary reasons.

Were their reasons genuine? Probably not, but who knows. This is, however, a far cry from the US government supplying Anthrax as a biological weapon to the Iraqi government. It was a research institute (not the US government) supplying a University.

Could this have been abused? Sure it could. Was it abused? Who knows, but yeah, in all probability. Was it kind-of daft to supply such materials to Iraq? In my view, and with the benefit of 20:20 hindsight - yes, it was. But was it a deliberate US government policy to supply Saddam with biological weapons - where's the proof?

That is just one example of how is is easy to take a piece of information out of context and conclude that it was something that there on no evidence to suggest it actually was.

My point is that there are people that will take these basic facts and paint them into a picture which, while it may be true, may equally well not be.

Exactly the same argument can be made about chemical weapons, and I've already pointed out that some basic precursors, like chlorine, are not only used in chemical weapons production, but in water purification plants too. So, are the US, and the rest of the West, supposed to refuse to supply Iraq with chlorine? Because if they did, there'd be a furore over the West denying Iraq the basics for maintaining a clean, healthy water supply for their people. Do you suppose the Iraqi government labelled their orders for chlorine for delivery to "Iraqi Government Mustard Gas Factory"?

The same goes for the SuperGun that was mentioned. It was supposed to be sections of pipe for some industrial project, wasn't it? And it got rumbled, and stopped. Was there any government conspiracy to supply Iraq with a supergun? I've yet to see any convincing evidence of that. Were the manufacturers aware of the likely military use, or werethey just naive and greedy? Again, who knows, but even if they were, that is far from evidence of a government-sponsored policy.

Yes, the west, and the US in particular, was an ally of Iraq and supplied Iraq with numerous different types of military hardware and assistance, especially during the war with Iran. But bear in mind the whole environment at the time, the attitude of Iran towards the west (Teheran hostage crisis, anyone?) and Soviet ambitions in the middle east. Maybe, just maybe, the geopolitics of the time demanded allies the US would rather not have had, but which were deemed much better than the alternatives. This was before anyone (including the UN) took the reports of chemical weapons usage seriously. And after the attack on Halabja, who was it demanding UN condemnation of Iraq, and who was it that FIRST took unilateral steps to ban any supplies to Iraq of materials deemed to be for chemcial weapon production? Was it France? Germany? China? Nope, it was the USA - with a unilateral ban, which most of the rest of the world took up days later.

Are you still "sure" that the US supplied chemical and biological weapons? If so, where's the evidence?

[Saracen]

Originally posted by Blub2k
True, true, thing is though none of these countries were involved in an invasion attempt on the basis of these materials/weapons. What is your point as you are not exposing or bringing to light any hypocrisy??

My point is that supplying dual-purpose materials does not equate to supplying weapons, and that accusations do not amount to proof that it happened.

What does the invasion have to do with the guilt of countries supplying the "materials" for WMD? We rarely if ever see anybody bitching about Brazil supplying materials that could be used for chemical weapons. Or Switzerland.

Also, see the point in the post above about chlorine, and extrapolate that to many other chemicals for many other uses. The fact that a chemical was supplied, and then used for chemical weapons does not prove it was intended for chemical weapons.

[spikegifted]

I'm not trying to sound cynical nor am I trying to stir things up... However, if the US have ever supplied the Iraqis with biological or chemical agents or their precursors (and I'm not suggesting that is the case), I very much doubt we'd ever find any evidence of such activities. Such information will be deemed to 'sensitive' to ever to be allowed to be declassified. Anyway, we're talking about a country that is doing something about the 'Axis of Evil' here, not just some country with 'old Europe' attitude or a former 'Evil Empire'! This is the leading light of the civilized world, which is, in fact, holier than thou. How can such a country be capable of selling things that can potentially turn to some truly nasty and horrible to some unstable madman like Saddam?

[G4Z]

good points saracen, but If the US and the west didnt supply it, where did they get them from? maybe they didnt have any at all...

well, we know he had these weapons in 88 because he used them, so where did they come from? number 1 suspect has to be the US, dont you think?

[DaBeeeenster]

Originally posted by G4Z
good points saracen, but If the US and the west didnt supply it, where did they get them from? maybe they didnt have any at all...

well, we know he had these weapons in 88 because he used them, so where did they come from? number 1 suspect has to be the US, dont you think?

Whether it was US weapons that were used in the gas attacks in Halabja is beside the point. The point is that it could have been US weapons that were used. It is irrelevant as to whether it was or not; that does not change the fact of the matter, that the US supplied Saddam with chemical and biological ingredients.

[Big RICHARD]

Originally posted by DaBeeeenster
Whether it was US weapons that were used in the gas attacks in Halabja is beside the point. The point is that it could have been US weapons that were used. It is irrelevant as to whether it was or not; that does not change the fact of the matter, that the US supplied Saddam with chemical and biological ingredients.

The US didn't fire them though!

[spikegifted]

Originally posted by Big RICHARD
The US didn't fire them though!

This is like the pro-gun lobby in the US: "It's not the guns that kill people, but the people who've guns who kill them." And to use another quote: "Prevention is the best treatment." Now, if we add these two together, we have the following: "Pre-emptive strikes are necessary to eliminate our past mistakes."

Read it in whatever way you choose to.

[Big RICHARD]

Originally posted by spikegifted
This is like the pro-gun lobby in the US: "It's not the guns that kill people, but the people who've guns who kill them." And to use another quote: "Prevention is the best treatment." Now, if we add these two together, we have the following: "Pre-emptive strikes are necessary to eliminate our past mistakes."

Read it in whatever way you choose to.

I wouldn't be stupid enough to come up with that argument though!

[spikegifted]

Originally posted by Big RICHARD
I wouldn't be stupid enough to come up with that argument though!

Behold and observe in your latest CNN Bulletin: "Gulf War 2003, the latest patch/bug fix/security update."

[Blub2k]

ATCC - The American Type Culture Collection

that's the CIA isn't it? or are you extremely naive? The fact that there is no direct proof is surely not disturbing to yourself, or did it bother you when the case was being made against Saddam?

They certainly did not pull the weapons out of a hat( I have no proof of that).
It is fairly much a fact that specifically the chemical and nuclear weapons were supplied by the US and the UK. The US interestingly refused to condemn Saddam at the beginning when the allegations were being made about Halabja.


a


Rummy and Saddam were good friends back then it seems. Why would they not have given him weapons support? he was after all against the Iranian Islamic revolution.

Text and pic

[G4Z]

at least some1 read my link

[Saracen]

Originally posted by Blub2k
that's the CIA isn't it? or are you extremely naive? The fact that there is no direct proof is surely not disturbing to yourself, or did it bother you when the case was being made against Saddam?

What evidence is there that the ATCC is the CIA?

Maybe it is, maybe it isn't. I have made the point, several times, in this thread that with respect to who did what, and who had what intentions we simply don't know. You've made several assertions and I've repeatedly said - where's the evidence?

The fact that you claim the US supplied Iraq with WMD doesn't make it true, any more than it does when a website makes that allegation. As I've said, maybe they did intend for materials to be used for WMD, but there is no evidence that anyone has yet been able to produce that this is so.

There have been countless allegations against many countries that they have supplied Iraq with WMD or the materials to make WMD. A good proportion of these initial allegations came, during the Iran/Iraq war, and from Iran. Is it conceivable they had a vested interest?

That is not naivity - it is responsible scepticism.

I'm no enthusiat of the CIA and their dirty tricks brigades. And I'm personally of no doubt that the US backed Iraq in and during the Iraq/Iran war - and that they did so with military equipment, intelligence and logistical support. That doesn't mean they liked the regime, and it is not even evidence, let alone proof, that they supplied Iraq with WMD or even with the materials to make WMD knowing or believing that WMD was the final intention. As I've said, repeatedly, maybe they did, maybe they didn't.

You, however, have made specific claims as fact and have, as yet, to produce a shred of proof of those claims.

And as for the photo of Rumsfeld - so what? That was taken in 1983, years prior to Halabja and before ANYONE, including the UN, was taking reports of chemical weapons attacks seriously. Rumsfeld was a special envoy, and a private citizen, not a member of any government or administration. The US was supporting it's strategic interests, namely, the concern of the spreading of an extreme and very anti-US Islamic regime in Iran into other areas, and a relationship with Iraq was inthat interest. So yes, they are guilty of having a relationship with a much-less-than-desirable regime. It was no doubt viewed as more productive than sending a special envoy to the Little Snodgrass section of the Girl Guides. So Rummy shook hands with Saddam 20 years ago. Is THAT so terrible? What does it prove? The logic is much the same as the police getting informants from the ranks of criminals - it isn't very useful having police informants in the Vatican.

Saddam has always been a nasty piece of work. But the fact remains that the reality of politics is that sometimes, hopefully usually, diplomacy works better than threats or military action. What was Rumsfeld supposed to have done? Walked in, scowled and called Saddam a butchering madman.? Great diplomacy!

Do you have any idea how politicans behave in real life? Do you know just how much a smile and a handshake from a politican actually means? I've had quite a lot of exposure to politicians at a very senior level, because of my work. I've been greeted by warm smiles and handshakes you might think is the greeting of a long lost friend from a serving Prime Minister. I've had invitations to dinner at 11 Downing Street as a guest of the Chancellor. Was it because I'm his best buddy? Hell no - it was because he had something to gain from the invite and the dinner - and no, I'm not going into detail. A political smile and handshake means NOTHING in real terms.



One more thing. When debating points in this forum, kindly keep the remarks to the ISSUES, not snippy insinuations about members, and that includes me. Remarks about me being naive are not only unnecessary, they are unwelcome. Please don't make more personal remarks. Argue the issues, not personalities.

[DaBeeeenster]

Originally posted by Big RICHARD
The US didn't fire them though!

So it's OK to sell nerve agents and biological weapons starter kits to murderous dictators?

Look, the US was arguing that Saddam had WOMD, and that they included biological and chemical weapons. Well, you know, they can check the receipts from the Reagan administration cant they!

Saracen, I'd be interested in a reply to my previous post.

Whether it was US weapons that were used in the gas attacks in Halabja is beside the point. The point is that it could have been US weapons that were used. It is irrelevant as to whether it was or not; that does not change the fact of the matter, that the US supplied Saddam with chemical and biological ingredients.

Additionally, I think you will find that the US administration was supportive of the Saddam regime even after the attacks at Halabja.

This attitude of supporting murderous regimes when it suits us is still going on . Islam Karimov, the Uzbekistan president has killed thousands of political and religious prisoners. One was boiled alive. What do we do to deter Karimov? Well, if you are the US government you provide him with $US 500M in aid, $79m of which went to the police and intelligence services. Great stuff huh? All because we want to use Uzbekistan as a military base when fighting our Middle Eastern conflicts...

[spikegifted]

Originally posted by DaBeeeenster
This attitude of supporting murderous regimes when it suits us is still going on . Islam Karimov, the Uzbekistan president has killed thousands of political and religious prisoners. One was boiled alive. What do we do to deter Karimov? Well, if you are the US government you provide him with $US 500M in aid, $79m of which went to the police and intelligence services. Great stuff huh? All because we want to use Uzbekistan as a military base when fighting our Middle Eastern conflicts...

'He may be a son of a b!tch, but he's our son of a b!tch'... I begin to sound like a broken record...

'You're either with us or against us.' There's also a flip side to that statement: 'You may be a son of a b!tch, but as long as you're on our side, you ass is safe!'

[Saracen]

I don't accept that it is irrelevant if the US supplied the weapons used at Halabja or not, and for a couple of reasons. If they did actually supply chemical weapons, it would be a major issue, and if is was, and could be proven, that it was US weapons, then the case for massive hypocrisy is made.

Also, it is relevant because if the US didn't supply them then who did?

That the US (and many other countries) supplied the Iraqi regime with ingredients that were USED for chemical weapons is not in doubt. Whether they were supplied for that purpose is.

As I've said, using chlorine as an example, it is a very widely used chemical in all sorts of industrial processes, not least of which is water purification. Had the US refused to supply chlorine, the accusation (and truth of the matter) would have been that the safety standard of water supplies would have been seriously compromised. Yet chlorine is also a major component in the production of mustard gas, among other things.

The same logic goes for supplying Anthrax, for instance. Anthrax is commonplace among the animal population of the middle east and it is a not unreasonable thing for the Iraqi's to be researching.

The quantities supplied were, from the records I found, very small. It was certainly not supplied in industrial quantities, and certainly (from what I know) in quantities such that it could be used directly in weapons.

It could, however, be used as a base for experimentation and as a base for manufacturing.

So the question in my mind is .... what did the US intend when they supplied these small sample amounts?

Answer - we don't know.

That these biological samples, and pre-cursor chemicals were actually used for a WMD program seems likely. That they were intended for that is possible, yet not proven.

What I object to is that people claim the US supplied chemical, biological or even nuclear WEAPONS to Iraq, when I can find no proof that this is actually the case, and noone has been been able to produce any.

Until such proof is available, allegations that the US actually supplied WEAPONS is just that, an allegation.


As for the US supporting Iraq after Halabja, yeah, no doubt. But the US did object to it, did make representations at the UN and did impose a unilateral ban on the export of a large number of chemicals that could be used for chemical weapons production before anybody else did. Somewhere I have a document discussing this, and I've been looking for it, but so far, haven't been able to find it. So everybody else will have to make up their own mind about that assertion, and do their own research, but I know I've got it somewhere.

Maybe the judgement was that the overall situation in the middle east justified maintaining a relationship with Iraq despite Halabja, and maybe, given the overall situation with Khomeini's Iran, that was a correct judgement. I'm not enough of an expert on the middle east in the 80's, and during the Iran/Iraq war to have an opinion. If it was judged that way, it was a pretty distasteful situation, but maybe there was adequate justification. International politics is, at best, a pretty murky and unpleasant subject, after all.

[DaBeeeenster]

Originally posted by Saracen

Maybe the judgement was that the overall situation in the middle east justified maintaining a relationship with Iraq despite Halabja, and maybe, given the overall situation with Khomeini's Iran, that was a correct judgement. I'm not enough of an expert on the middle east in the 80's, and during the Iran/Iraq war to have an opinion. If it was judged that way, it was a pretty distasteful situation, but maybe there was adequate justification. International politics is, at best, a pretty murky and unpleasant subject, after all.

Are you suggesting that the Ayatollah's reign was "worse" than that of the Shah? Maybe you need to look up the human rights record of Iran under the (US instigated and heavily supported) Shah. I'll tell you now, he was the number one "evildoer" on the planet at the time. Really, go look up Amnesty or Human Rights Watch. He leads the field in Human Rights abuses, post war.

I'm pretty stunned, to be quite honest Saracen. I find the notion that you can acknowledge the use of chemical weapons in a genocidal act against the Kurds as "a correct judgement" somewhat bizarre.

I agree that the geo and religious political situation in the middle east was (and is) extremely difficult and delicate, but advocating genocide on the basis of some warped geo-political power play is way off.