I know I am not going to regret this post, bu

[Guest shibui]

So Chretien and Chirac wanted to give Iraq more time to comply and that makes them great men of conscience? It's laughable and beneath contempt that such cynical strutting and fretting attracts admiration. The one and only reason there was any hint of compliance was the presence of the American forces on the Kuwait border, all financed at umpteen million dollars a day by the only principalled nation on the planet. If Chirac and his running dogs had one shred of dignity they would have said "Right, give Saddam as much time as he needs. We will write the checks for the 'encouraging' presence."

The French have always needed a little help in the morals department. I point you back to spring of 1940 when their interim government couldn't decide whether the French Navy would be better put to use at the service of the Allies or of the Nazis. After the Royal Navy bombarded the French fleet and killed 1200 French soldiers, it became clear to the French that, yes, it might be better to not join the Kriegsmarine and the fun of world domination. A nation with that much trouble making up it's mind has no place on the world stage - and, well, thankfully to this day it has none.

Quite right, Don, that media sets the agenda. In the near term the agenda seems to be that the war was unnecessary and immoral because there are no WMDs. People who should have longer memories may wish to recall that this war was never about WMDs, but about Iraq's failure to comply with UN Security Council resolutions. This is what people with a moral compass call "breaking the law". Failure to confront and contain entities which break the law is to encourage eventual and certain disaster. Thank God (I mean that literally) for persons with bravery and principle.

As a final note Don, please note that for many of us the correct form of reference to Margaret and Ron is "Reagan/Thatcher (Peace Be Upon Them)....

[zipped]

Thank you for the excellent post. Some can't seem to get there hatered for the Americans out fast enough.

[Guest Gino Under]

Let the media set the agenda, does it really matter?

We've seen their reporting of aircraft accidents, so I'd say their credibility is suspect on a good day. Our minds should be doing the brainwork by questionning what is reported. Questionning what is real from what is unreal. True from untrue.

IMHO, this whole 'mess' is about WMD. True, it started out in 91 with various UN sanctions but if you look back, you'll see they also included accounting for those WMD because of what the 'regime' did to the Kurds and Marsh Arabs. Mustard Gas is a WMD. Prima Facia evidence that Iraq had, and used, the gas was one of the reasons the UN sent in Inspectors in, in the first place. Saddam also threatened to use gas and biological agents against the American invaders. Also, an admission of their existence.

So, it's a moot point.

After 9/11, any unstable entity that might be, or who is capable of, another attack against the US then I'd think the US or any nation would be justified in preventing that attack from ANY source they felt was a credible threat(I know that comment will open the floodgates).

It is naieve to think that THAT regime wouldn't have provided any of the terrorist cells in that part of the world with a WMD to be used against any Western nation let alone the US. Very naieve.

To think they didn't or don't have that capability is just as naieve.

They were inspected. The quantities of WMD were documented and presented to the UN Security Council. The Iraqis, under immense pressure provided volumes of paper to account for those programs and quantities and all they had to do was take the UN Inspectors DIRECTLY to those weapons but continued to jerk them around.

Why? To buy time while those weapons were hidden, destroyed or remove from the country. It's that simple.

Should the Americans proove it? No. The Iraqis should. Like they were required to in the first place.

Basic policework?

Very basic I'd say.

[jkavafian]

You have some valid points but I am sorry to say that you are the naive in this argument. I think the fact that you may have lived in the Middle East and read some of the Koran gives you a false sense of accomplishment in thinking that you know how the Arab mind works.

Iraq would have never sold WMD to terrorist groups for the simple reason that the country was under so much scrutiny that Saddam knew of the consequences of being caught. He is not so dumb as to put himself in that situation. The true seller of weapons to terrorists is North Korea because that's their only source of foreign exchange. What is America doing about it? Hiding behind China and Russia, that's what their doing.

If Saddam had WMD why would he take them out of the coutry? Why does one have such weapons? To use them. So then if you have them, why not use them against people who invade your country? He did not use because he didn't have any. Put that in your head.

I think you eat the US propaganda too much. By the way, Britain gave Iraq's independence in 1932.

[UpperDeck]

And....if you be "life" then be that "walking shadow; a poor player who struts and frets his hour upon the stage and is heard no more."

[Guest Gino Under]

JK

Thoughtful response and thanks for keeping it civil.

I wouldn't profess for an instant that I understand the Arab mind. I would profess to understanding it more than the average Canadian and certainly much beyond the American mind.

As for being naieve. Not in the least.

Hatred in the Middle East of the Americans flows through the veins of many. I think we'd both agree to why it is so. To foster human beings the likes of Saddam and Osama with the influence they have in that region on the religious fanatics and power hungry I'd have to say I'm not as naieve as you think.

I've read 'some' of the Koran out of curiosity to qualify certain statements and beliefs these people 'seem' to have about this world, the people in it and I did not find the Koran the least bit hateful, vengeful or offensive as some might think. I found it a somewhat enriching scripture and very closely tied to the Bible.

What seems odd to me is the fact, and I mean FACT, that a pretentious leader, NO dictator, who, on occasion, presented himself as a religious man would do the things he's done to his own people. He had to be stopped, sooner or later. After all, Shiite and Sunni are Muslim in a similar sense as Protestant and Catholic are Chrisitan faiths.

Nor does a religious man (ObL) call for the killing, or the flying of airplanes into tall buildings with the sole purpose and intent of killing people. How easy is that to figure out? With or without american propaganda. This is what I question and what I am concerned about.

The Iraqi regime lead the world to 'suspect' they had WMD or their would have been no UN Inspections. The world gave them the opportunity (I'd say more than 10 years is more than patient and more than an opportunity, wouldn't you?) to proove beyond a shadow of doubt they did not have WMD and they failed to take it under threat of invasion. So, now it is pointless to debate whether the Americans should have or shouldn't have invaded. Whether or not they had strong evidence, weak evidence or none at all. The job is done.

The potential for another attack against the US seems real enough to me. It is the American Presidents duty to protect his country from an attack as it is the duty of every leader of any country and not wait until it actually happens. Quite an undertaking, eh?

For all the comotion and hatred that's festering in Iraq right now, I'd say, more than ever, it's more than incumbent on every nation who values life itself got off their collective self-righteous asses and got in there to help sort it all out rather than argue about who's going to lead and who's going to follow.

It's not about who's right! It's about what's right. That argument was settled months ago. The Iraqi people deserve and are entitled to a peaceful co-existence in this world. A very basic principle in the American mind and a principle for which the Americans are doing what they are doing.

Meanwhile, young men and women are being slaughtered by a cowardly gang of undeserving sh*tdisturbers.

...but this is only my opinion. Thanks for reading it.

[Guest JakeYYZ]

Gino U,

Your question:

“Jake

What weapons did Sad Man use that were American?

The Boeing 747s, 27s, or 37s???

Just curious.

What gas did he use on the Northern Kurds?

What weapons did he use on the Marshland Arabs in the south?

He was a dictator not a rights activist.

Get serious.”

Everybody from President Bush to Secretary of Defence Donald Rumsfeld have

said that "Saddam killed his own Kurdish population" in Halabja, using

poison gas.

Well, interestingly enough, there is a U.S. Army War College report, by Stephen

Pelletier, who headed up the analysis team on the Iran-Iraq war for the

United States. He and his co-author based their report on the information

that was being continuously gathered by the CIA and the U.S. Defense

Intelligence Agency during the Iran-Iraq war. The U.S. Army War College report concluded that the Kurds died from Iranian chemical weapons-not Iraqi chemical weapons.

Link: http://www.fas.org/man/dod-101/ops/war/docs/3203/index.html

(page 60)

“It is growing increasingly clear that there is another solution:

the application of fuel air explosives to infantry positions can

have a devastating effect.G2 The Iraqis may already be aware

of this. Some evidence suggests that this is the weapon—not

gas—that the Iraqis used with devastating effectiveness

against the Kurds (the oft-commented upon slaughter of the

“5,000”) late in the war.”

(Page 100)

“Iraqis fired large

quantities of mustard gas on the attacking Iranians at Penjwin

(Val Fajr IV) in November 1983. They followed this with a more

lethal attack in late February 1984 (Khaybar l). Here, they may

have used the nerve agent, tabun, although this is less definite.

Tabun inhibits cholinesterase, an enzyme in the nervous

system that allows successive nerve endings to connect with

each other. Once the connection is interrupted, the natural

body functions cease from lack of required external signals

from the brain.

Tabun is a crude agent; however the Iraqis are believed to

have developed satin, a more sophisticated variety that acts

like tabun. This was supposedly employed during the 1988

attack on the Al Faw peninsula, and in several of the other

operations which made up the Tawakalna Ala Allah campaign.

However, we doubt this was the case. Similarly, we find no

evidence whatsoever that the Iraqis have ever employed blood

gasses such as cyanogen chloride or hydrogen cyanide.

Blood agents were allegedly responsible for the most

infamous use of chemicals in the war—the killing of Kurds at

Halabjah. Since the Iraqis have no history of using these two

agents-and the Iranians do-we conclude that the Iranians

perpetrated this attack. It is also worth noting that lethal

concentrations of cyanogen are difficult to obtain over an area

target, thus the reports of 5,000 Kurds dead in Halabjah are

suspect.”

Next question…

[Guest Gino Under]

Jake

Thanks for taking the time to reply. I appreciate it.

So...we agree then?

I merely asked the questions to clarify what it was you were trying to point out,

for you had said, "Let's be HONEST about Hussein. Every 'evil' cited about him was enacted with American support, including the weapons that he used." Yet in these remarks you fail to bring that point out.

Q. "What weapons did Sad Man use that were American?"

A. NONE.

"The Boeing 747s, 27s, or 37s???"

There are no American warplanes in the Iraqi air force. The SCUD is Chinese. The Mirage 2000 is French. The IL-76 is Russian.

Q. "What gas did he use on the Northern Kurds?"

A. IRANIAN. Not American. (according to your evidence)

Your research suggests that - "the Kurds died from Iranian chemical weapons - not Iraqi chemical weapons".

Q. "What weapons did he use on the Marshland Arabs in the south?"

A. NO AMERICAN WEAPONS were used according to the info you've provided.

Your question, "What price will President Bush have to pay for his scam?"

I'd suggest only the one term in office.

For my dollar, I'd hope not one weapon or potential weapon that the Iraqis have or might have falls into the wrong hands and that the Americans get to them before any of these terrorist factions do. Whether these factions get along or not, they all have one thing in common, their hatred for the US and their allies.

That's us my friend.

That's us.

[DEFCON]

"If Saddam had WMD why would he take them out of the coutry?"

To hide them from and set the US up for the PR fiasco they have going on right now!

"So then if you have them, why not use them against people who invade your country? He did not use because he didn't have any. Put that in your head."

SH had WMD's, used them on several occassions, continued to claim possession of said weapons and advised the world he'd use them if he was invaded. Consider the possibility that he hid or moved the WMD's, left the country prior to the big bang, and now has a new plot that he's waiting to introduce on the world stage?

[UpperDeck]

Franly, Defcon...a disappointment. Perhaps you're at your best when "stirring the pot" or pontificating on medical and legal issues. I had expected more from someone who prides himself on the ability to exercise logic.

[DEFCON]

Frankly UD, I'm surprised by your reply. Lots of RPM but, no manifold pressure.

[Guest JakeYYZ]

GU,

Sorry for my late reply. As you may have already gathered,

this issue is more than ‘casual’ interest for me.

Q. "What weapons did Sad Man use that were American?"

A. NONE.

No, I don’t think I can agree with you.

Howard Teicher, an Iraq specialist in the Reagan White House,

testified in a 1995 affidavit that the then CIA director, William

Casey, used a Chilean firm, Cardoen, to send cluster bombs to use

against Iran's "human wave" attacks.

Following is the sworn court declaration of former NSC official Howard Teicher, dated 1/31/95, regarding 'Iraqgate.'

6. In June, 1982, President Reagan decided that the United States

could not afford to allow Iraq to lose the war to Iran. President Reagan

decided that the United States would do whatever was necessary and legal

to prevent Iraq from losing the war with Iran. President Reagan formalized

this policy by issuing a National Security Decision Directive ("NSDD") to

this effect in June, 1982. I have personal knowledge of this NSDD because

I co-authored the NSDD with another NSC Staff Member, Geoff Kemp. The

NSDD, including even its identifying number, is classified.

7. CIA Director Casey personally spearheaded the effort to ensure

that Iraq had sufficient military weapons, ammunition and vehicles to

avoid losing the Iran-Iraq war. Pursuant to the secred NSDD, the United

States actively supported the Iraqi war effort by supplying the Iraqis

with billions of dollars of credits, by providing U.S. military

intelligence and advice to the Iraqis, and by closely monitoring third

country arms sales to Iraq to make sure that Iraq had the military

weaponry required. The United States also provided strategic operational

advice to the Iraqis to better use their assets in combat. For example,

in 1986, President Reagan sent a secret message to Saddam Hussein telling

him that Iraq should step up its air war and bombing of Iran. This

message was delivered by Vice President Bush who communicated it to

Egyptian President Mubarak, who in turn passed the message to Saddam

Hussein. Similar strategic operational military advice was passed to

Saddam Hussein through various meetings with European and Middle Eastern

heads of state. I authored Bush's talking points for the 1986 meeting

with Mubarak and personally attended numerous meetings with European and

Middle East heads of state where the strategic operational advice was

communicated.

8. I personally attended meetings in which CIA Director Casey or

CIA Deputy Director Gates noted the need for Iraq to have certain weapons

such as cluster bombs and anti-armor penetrators in order to stave off the

Iranian attacks. When I joined the NSC staff in early 1982, CIA Director

Casey was adamant that cluster bombs were a perfect "force multiplier"

that would allow the Iraqis to defend against the "human waves" of Iranian

attackers. I recorded those comments in the minutes of National Security

Planning Group ("NSPG") meetings in which Casey or Gates participated.

9. The CIA, including both CIA Director Casey and Deputy Director

Gates, knew of, approved of, and assisted in the sale of non-U.S. origin

military weapons, ammunition and vehicles to Iraq. My notes, memoranda

and other documents in my NSC files show or tend to show that the CIA knew

of, approved of, and assisted in the sale of non-U.S. origin military

weapons, munitions and vehicles to Iraq.

10. The United States was anxious to have other countries supply

assistance to Iraq. For example, in 1984, the Israelis concluded that

Iran was more dangerous than Iraq to Israel's existence due to the growing

Iranian influence and presence in Lebanon. The Israelis approached the

United States in a meeting in Jerusalem that I attended with Donald

Rumsfeld. Israeli Foreign Minister Yitzhak Shamir asked Rumsfeld if the

United States would deliver a secret offer of Israeli assistance to Iraq.

The United States agreed. I travelled wtih Rumsfeld to Baghdad and was

present at the meeting in which Rumsfeld told Iraqi Foreign Minister Tariq

Aziz about Israel's offer of assistance. Aziz refused even to accept the

Israelis' letter to Hussein offering assistance, because Aziz told us that

he would be executed on the spot by Hussein if he did so.

11. One of the reasons that the United States refused to license

or sell U.S. origin weapons to Iraq was that the supply of non-U.S. origin

weapons to Iraq was sufficient to meet Iraq's needs. Under CIA Director

Casey and Deputy Director Gates, the CIA made sure that non-U.S.

manufacturers manufactured and sold to Iraq the weapons needed by Iraq.

In certain instances where a key component in a weapon was not readily

available, the highest levels of the United States government decided to

make the component available, directly or indirectly, to Iraq. I

specifically recall that the provision of anti-armor penetrators to Iraq

was a case in point. The United States made a policy decision to supply

penetrators to Iraq. My notes, memoranda and other documents in my NSC

files will contain references to the Iraqis' need for anti-armor

penetrators and the decision to provide penetrators to Iraq.

12. Most of the Iraqi's military hardware was of Soviet origin.

Regular United States or NATO ammunition and spare parts could not be used

in this Soviet weaponry.

13. The United States and the CIA maintained a program known as

the 'Bear Spares" program whereby the United States made sure that spare

parts and ammunition for Soviet or Soviet-style weaponry were available to

countries which sought to reduce their dependence on the Soviets for

defense needs. If the "Bear Spares" were manufactured outside the United

States, then the United States could arrange for the provision of these

weapons to a third country without direct involvement. Israel, for

example, had a very large stockpile of Soviet weaponry and ammunition

captured during its various wars. At the suggestion of the United States,

the Israelis would transfer the spare parts and weapons to third countries

or insurgent movements (such as the Afghan rebels and the Contras).

Similarly, Egypt manufactured weapons and spare parts from Soviet designs

and provided these weapons and ammunition to the Iraqis and other

countries. Egypt also served as a supplier for the Bear Spares program.

A 1994 congressional inquiry also found that dozens of biological

agents, including various strains of anthrax, had been shipped to Iraq by

US companies, under licence from the commerce department.

Furthermore, in 1988, the Dow Chemical company sold $1.5m-worth

(#930,000) of pesticides to Iraq despite suspicions they would be used for

chemical warfare.

U.S. Senate Committee on Banking, Housing, and Urban Affairs

Link: http://www.chronicillnet.org/PGWS/tuite/INTRO_CB.HTM

Staff Report on U.S. Chemical and Biological Warfare-Related Dual-Use Exports to Iraq and The Possible Impact on the Health Consequences of the War

The following is a summary of the findings of this report:

“2. Iraq had an offensive biological weapons program with:

multiple research/production facilities;

evidence of weaponization experimentation; and,

a history of reported but unconfirmed use.

3. The United States provided the Government of Iraq with "dual use" licensed materials which assisted in the development of Iraqi chemical, biological, and missile- system programs, including:(6)

chemical warfare agent precursors;

chemical warfare agent production facility plans and technical drawings (provided as pesticide production facility plans);

chemical warhead filling equipment;

biological warfare related materials;

missile fabrication equipment; and,

missile-system guidance equipment. “

I’ve provided you facts, not opinions. Still don’t think the American’s armed Iraq?

What is hard to find, is evidence that Iraq represented a threat to the US.

[UpperDeck]

Gino...remember my post about being "absolutist" and ignoring compelling evidence? You were graceful in your response. Now..you have to admit...Jake's detailed response is VERY impressive; in fact..damn awe-inspiring...would you so concede?

[Guest Gino Under]

Sorry for the delay in getting back to you guys. Thanks for your continued interest in this subject but I find I'm still at odds with you over it.

To break it down, let's go over JakeYYZ's comments. Most of these posts are wagging their finger at just one country. The United States.

1) It’s safe to say the Iraqi’s used cluster bombs. No news here. It is also safe to say other countries provided similar weapons to Iraq and NOT JUST THE AMERICANS as is being implied here. Cluster bombs are NOT weapons of mass destruction, which is the point I am making. Nuclear, Biological, and Chemical weapons are.

2) In June, 1982, President Reagan decided

(under the advice of his numerous policy and security advisors)

that the United States could not afford to allow Iraq to lose the war to Iran.

(nor could the surrounding Arab nations who enjoyed peace and stability and who didn’t want the ravages of Islamic fundamentalism ruining their financial situation as well as their own political influence)

President Reagan decided,

(not singularly, for the American President governs by council and committee)

that the United States would do whatever was necessary and legal

(including Ollie North’s Iran-Conta weapons for prisoners antics)

to prevent Iraq from losing the war with Iran.

(The greater concern here was the fact that Ayatollah Khomeni, the exiled Religious leader who had returned to Iran in 1979, had a religious death grip on Iran. The ‘islamic fundamentalist’ threat throughout the region (the Persian Gulf) was a serious enough threat and of great concern to the GCC, who clearly threw their support behind the Iraqi Regime in its effort to defeat the Iranians. For Centuries, the Gulf arabs feared the Persians and it is no different today.)

3) CIA Director Casey personally spearheaded the effort to ensure that Iraq had sufficient military weapons, ammunition and vehicles to avoid losing the Iran-Iraq war. Pursuant to the secret NSDD, the United States actively supported the Iraqi war effort by supplying the Iraqis with billions of dollars of credits, by providing U.S. military intelligence and advice to the Iraqis,

(they also provided the Iranians with M.I. and advice, which P’d off the Iraqi’s and ended Saddam’s relationship with the Americans whom he declared as two-faced and not to be trusted)

and by closely monitoring third country arms sales

(a great way to monitor and collect intelligence for the future, possibly to know what a potential enemy might have in it’s arsenal if they were to one day turn against you)

to Iraq to make sure that Iraq had the military weaponry required. The United States also provided strategic operational advice to the Iraqis

(and the Iranians)

to better use their assets in combat. For example, in 1986, President Reagan sent a secret message to Saddam Hussein telling him that Iraq should step up its air war and bombing of Iran. This message was delivered by Vice President Bush who communicated it to Egyptian President Mubarak, who in turn passed the message to Saddam Hussein. Similar strategic operational military advice was passed to Saddam Hussein through various meetings with European and Middle Eastern heads of state. I authored Bush's talking points for the 1986 meeting with Mubarak and personally attended numerous meetings with European and Middle East heads of state where the strategic operational advice was communicated.

(True. Unfortunately, all of these antics were in the days before Saddam decided NOT to trust the Americans any more. Don’t forget this was an 8 year war fought to a DRAW. The front moved feet over that period of time. Feet, not miles. Thousands were killed and/or taken prisoner. )

4) I personally attended meetings in which CIA Director Casey or

CIA Deputy Director Gates noted the need for Iraq to have certain weapons

such as cluster bombs and anti-armour penetrators in order to stave off the

Iranian attacks. When I joined the NSC staff in early 1982, CIA Director

Casey was adamant that cluster bombs were a perfect " force multiplier "

that would allow the Iraqis to defend against the " human waves " of Iranian

attackers. I recorded those comments in the minutes of National Security

Planning Group ( " NSPG " meetings in which Casey or Gates participated.

(I’ll say it again. These are not weapons of Mass Destruction. We're all sure that American weaponry is available on the black market in competition with weapons from many other nations. This whole debate is based on WMD. Do they? Don’t they?)

5) The CIA, including both CIA Director Casey and Deputy Director Gates, knew of, approved of, and assisted in the sale of non-U.S. origin military weapons, ammunition and vehicles to Iraq. My notes, memoranda and other documents in my NSC files show or tend to show that the CIA knew of, approved of, and assisted in the sale of non-U.S. origin military weapons, munitions and vehicles to Iraq.

(Quite possibly, but again, these are not “weapons of mass destruction”. Any time the Americans sell F-16s for example to any of these countries, the capabilities are seriously restricted so as not to pose a threat to American weapons should there be a conflict between the two nations. Eg: F-15 sales to Saudi Arabia. These are not as capable as the US version.)

6) The United States was anxious to have other countries supply assistance to Iraq. For example, in 1984, the Israelis concluded that Iran was more dangerous than Iraq to Israel's existence due to the growing Iranian influence and presence in Lebanon. The Israelis approached the United States in a meeting in Jerusalem that I attended with Donald Rumsfeld. Israeli Foreign Minister Yitzhak Shamir asked Rumsfeld if the

United States would deliver a secret offer of Israeli assistance to Iraq.

The United States agreed. I travelled wtih Rumsfeld to Baghdad and was present at the meeting in which Rumsfeld told Iraqi Foreign Minister Tariq Aziz about Israel's offer of assistance. Aziz refused even to accept the Israelis' letter to Hussein offering assistance, because Aziz told us that he would be executed on the spot by Hussein if he did so.

(I'd just like to point out that on some level, it must be in Israel’s own security and self-interests to participate in it’s own dialogue with, through or between third parties as it sees necessary. This has gone on, does go on and will continue to go on. There really are no surprises in this observation. Is there?)

7) One of the reasons that the United States refused to license or sell U.S. origin weapons to Iraq was that the supply of non-U.S. origin weapons to Iraq was sufficient to meet Iraq's needs. Under CIA Director Casey and Deputy Director Gates, the CIA made sure that non-U.S. manufacturers manufactured and sold to Iraq the weapons needed by Iraq. In certain instances where a key component in a weapon was not readily available, the highest levels of the United States government decided to make the component available, directly or indirectly, to Iraq. I specifically recall that the provision of anti-armor penetrators to Iraq was a case in point. The United States made a policy decision to supply penetrators to Iraq. My notes, memoranda and other documents in my NSC files will contain references to the Iraqis' need for anti-armor penetrators and the decision to provide penetrators to Iraq.

(AS far as I know, this is S.O.P. Nothing new here either.)

8) Most of the Iraqi's military hardware was of Soviet origin.

(NOT American, as I’ve said over and over)

Regular United States or NATO ammunition and spare parts could not be used in this Soviet weaponry

(as we’d hope and expect).

9) The United States and the CIA maintained a program known as the 'Bear Spares " program whereby the United States made sure that spare parts and ammunition for Soviet or Soviet-style weaponry were available to countries which sought to reduce their dependence on the Soviets for defense needs. If the " Bear Spares " were manufactured outside the United States, then the United States could arrange for the provision of these weapons to a third country without direct involvement. Israel, for

example, had a very large stockpile of Soviet weaponry and ammunition captured during its various wars. At the suggestion of the United States, the Israelis would transfer the spare parts and weapons to third countries or insurgent movements (such as the Afghan rebels and the Contras).

Similarly, Egypt manufactured weapons and spare parts from Soviet designs and provided these weapons and ammunition to the Iraqis and other countries. Egypt also served as a supplier for the Bear Spares program.

(Okay. Stands to reason.)

10) A 1994 congressional inquiry also found that dozens of biological agents, including various strains of anthrax, had been shipped to Iraq by US companies, under licence from the commerce department.

(A 1994 inquiry may have found this activity had taken place in the 80s during the Iran-Iraq War. A very different political environment. I believe a certain amount of this to be true from what I’ve read that the US did ship these Weapons to Iraq. This is part of the reason we can rest assured that the Americans knew about Iraq's WMD program and ‘possible’ quantities they had.)

Furthermore, in 1988, the Dow Chemical company sold $1.5m-worth (#930,000) of pesticides to Iraq despite suspicions they would be used for chemical warfare.

(Okay. This pre-dates the Gulf War and the latest invasion which is a tide-turn in political allignment.)

(Even the Americans are entitled to sort out past mistakes. Right? After all, it’s their soldiers that are getting killed. Politics on this planet change on a daily basis and even the most adept fence sitter has to be careful.)

U.S. Senate Committee on Banking, Housing, and Urban Affairs Link: http://www.chronicillnet.org/PGWS/tuite/INTRO_CB.HTM

Staff Report on U.S. Chemical and Biological Warfare-Related Dual-Use Exports to Iraq and The Possible Impact on the Health Consequences of the War

The following is a summary of the findings of this report:

Iraq had an offensive biological weapons program with:

multiple research/production facilities;

evidence of weaponization experimentation; and,

a history of reported but unconfirmed use.

(Really? I’m inclined to think the Kurds and Marshland Arabs are confirmation that they used these weapons. Aren't you?)

The United States provided the Government of Iraq with " dual use " licensed materials which assisted in the development of Iraqi chemical, biological, and missile- system programs, including

chemical warfare agent precursors;

chemical warfare agent production facility plans and technical drawings (provided as pesticide production facility plans);

chemical warhead filling equipment;

biological warfare related materials;

missile fabrication equipment; and,

missile-system guidance equipment. “

(Confirming that the Iraqis have/had WMD. Even the Americans MUST KNOW the Iraqis possess or possessed these WMD.

I'll say it again, these guys had more than 10 years to come clean. They chose not to. They were given a final ultimatum and even under the threat of invasion would not come clean. So, it is now a moot point. If the Americans wish to prove these WMD then they are going to have to go in there and find them. Period.)

By the way, that’s exactly what they’ve done.

[Guest JakeYYZ]

This Bush Administration is the emergence of a new principle, or body of ideas about what you might call the limits of sovereignty. Sovereignty entails obligations. One is not to massacre your own people. Another is not to support terrorism in any way. If a government fails to meet these obligations, then it forfeits some of the normal advantages of sovereignty, including the right to be left alone inside your own territory. The United States, gains the right to intervene. In the case of terrorism, this can even lead to a right of preventive, or peremptory, self-defense. You essentially can act in anticipation if you have grounds to THINK it's a question of when, and not if, you're going to be attacked.

The United States has already removed the government of one country, Afghanistan, the new government is obviously shaky, and American military operations there are not completed. Pakistan, which before September 11th clearly met the new test of national unacceptability (it both harbors terrorists and has weapons of mass destruction), will also require long-term attention. Who’s next? Iran, Pakistan, Syria or N Korea?

I don't think the World (UN) needs a lot of persuading about the evil that is Saddam Hussein. But, I'd fully expect the President and his chief lieutenants to make the case for peremptory action. Public opinion can be changed. They should be able to make the case that this isn't a discretionary action but one done in self-defense. Otherwise, we have a world in which states consider themselves subject to law, with the notion that there is no law but the discretion of the President of the United States.

I have no hang-ups about the United States. It's a one-superpower world, and that is a fact. Russia is dead. Japan is in perennial economic crisis. Germany is trying still to deal with reunification. England is a bygone era. There is no one except the United States. Being alone is hard. If you fine-tune your policies, you can create a peace that could last a long time. But, if not, an opposition front will grow over time, and it will develop alliances and counter the existing supremacy. That’s precisely what I’m afraid of.

After an eternity of time, blood and money had been spent by Brush Jr. and his cronies trying to find evidence of WMD’s, Brush has a big fat credibility-sucking ZERO.

And I’m not thinking the world is a safer place for it.

Gino, we’ll never agree on the US role in the arming of Iraq. Maybe we can agree on this.

[Guest Gino Under]

JakeYYZ

I'd say we're closer on this issue than we may have originally thought.

I don't for a minute think the US should be allowed to run roughshod over whomever it likes. There has to be justification for their actions. I'm just trying to weed out the 'political correctness' issues for most of the normal rules can't/don't/shouldn't apply.

If we allow ourselves to think we can trust those nations that DO harbour terrorists and those who allow terrorist training camps and funding more than we can trust the Americans, then I'd say we're in very deep do-do. But that's my opinion and I accept the fact that not all who read this agree with me.

I suppose also, in my mind, everytime I see those Twin Towers come down, I not only shake my head from side to side in disgust, I can't help but feel, GO GET 'EM and don't spare the horses. Maybe that's how vengence is suppose to feel.

I like your words though. Well said.

[Guest JakeYYZ]

Gino,

For me, one of the most numbingly fascinating aspects of the entire ‘War on Terrorism” debacle is the way in which Republican politicos somehow managed to act as if they weren't being the same old nimrods they've always been -- and the ways in which the unelected Washington punditocracy dutifully mapped out the marketing plan to pitch this bill of goods to the American people.

They were so sure the Iraqis would rise up once they landed. That's one feature you'll find in every bad military plan ever devised: "and then the people will rise up." That was how Bay of Pigs was supposed to go: "We'll land a few hundred men, and then the Cubans will rise up." Which they didn't, naturally. Every time a lieutenant in some African hellhole talks a half dozen of his barrack drinking buddies into staging a coup he uses the same line: "and then the people will rise up to help us." Cut to him and his friends hanging from the nearest lamppost.

The Iraqis rose all right. But, not against Saddam, against the invaders. They got a lot more upset about foreign troops in the streets than they ever did about not having "democracy." When did Iraqis ever give a sheet about democracy? All they know is the air conditioning doesn't work, they have to get their water off the back of a truck, and some scared GI manning the .50 on a humvee just blew half the shacks in the village to kingdom come because he mistook a garden rake for an RPG tube. Bad diplomacy.

That's how occupations go. That's what it's like. It ain't pretty, it ain't good TV, and it takes a long time to make it work.

I appreciate the conversation, thanks.

[Guest JakeYYZ]

http://www.boston.com/news/world/europe/articles/2003/09/09/war_in_iraq_erodes_worlds_sympathy_for_us/

Very telling…..I hope someone is listening!