Interesting things in the desert:
It was confirmed that three dozen 120mm Iraqi mortar shells, found yesterday by Danish troops, contained Mustard gas. This is a blistering agent first used during World War I (1914-1918). Iraq developed production technology for mustard gas in the 1970s, began producing it in large quantities in 1981 and first used it in combat against Iran in 1983. Nearly 3,000 tons of Mustard were produced by Iraq during the 1980s, and over 20,000 Iranians and Iraqis were injured by it. The Danish troops found the shells south of Baghdad, buried in the desert and wrapped in plastic. Some of the shells were leaking. It was estimated that the shells had been there at least ten years. Iraq agreed to get rid of it’s chemical weapons in 1991, but delayed compliance throughout the 1990s.
What else is buried out there?
dg
And guess who was sent by Reagan to suck on Saddam Hussein in 1983? Donald Rumsfeld! Funny how the mustard gas is a relic of Reagan and Bush’s daddy. The year before US-Iraqi relations were restored.
Think back to those proud, Reagan years…
A State Department background paper dated November 16, 1984 said that Iraq had stopped using chemical weapons after a November 1983 demarche from the U.S., but had resumed their use in February 1984. On November 26, 1984–just ten days after the report–Iraq and the U.S. restored diplomatic relations. Deputy Prime Minister Tariq Aziz, in Washington for the formal resumption of ties, met with Secretary of State George Shultz.
When their discussion turned to the Iran-Iraq war, Aziz said that his country was satisfied that “the U.S. analysis of the war’s threat to regional stability is ‘in agreement in principle’ with Iraq’s,” and expressed thanks for U.S. efforts to cut off international arms sales to Iran. (HA!)
He said that “Iraq’s superiority in weaponry” assured Iraq’s defense. Shultz, with presumed sardonic intent, “remarked that superior intelligence must also be an important factor in Iraq’s defense;” Tariq Aziz had to agree.
Now, fast forward to the present. It’s been a scam all along. Rather you believe it or not.
Ricky
***”Think back to those proud, Reagan years…”***
No doubt you will when you get a cold Mondalian shower in November, dg.
John Cole
It’s not worth my time, but you probaboly are old enough and have been told enough times that we (the US) is not responsible for arming Saddam. Not that this matters to you.
dg
Are you sure that the US is not responsible for arming Iraq?
Department of State, Bureau of Politico-Military Affairs Briefing Paper. “Iraqi Illegal Use of Chemical Weapons,” November 16, 1984.
Indicates that the U.S. concluded some time ago that Iraq had used “domestically produced lethal CW” in the Iran-Iraq war, developed in part through “the unwitting and, in some cases, we believe witting assistance” of numerous Western firms. The State Department’s Bureau of Politico-Military Affairs thinks that Iraq stopped using chemical weapons in response to a U.S. demarche in November 1983, and resumed their use in February 1984.
Source: Declassified through Congressional investigation.
There’s more…
Department of State, Special Adviser to the Secretary on Nonproliferation Policy and Nuclear Energy Affairs Memorandum from Dick Gronet to Richard T. Kennedy. “U.S. Dual-Use Exports to Iraq: Specific Actions” [Includes Document Entitled “Dual Use Exports to Iraq” Dated April 27, 1984], May 9, 1984.
An internal State Department paper indicates that the government is reviewing policy for “the sale of certain categories of dual-use items to Iraqi nuclear entities,” and the review’s “preliminary results favor expanding such trade to include Iraqi nuclear entities.”
Source: Declassified through Congressional investigation
CleverNameHere
No, the US didn’t arm Iraq.
“The United States armed Saddam. This one grew over time, but when Iraq was on it’s weapons spending spree from 1972 (when its oil revenue quadrupled) to 1990, the purchases were quite public and listed over $40 billion worth of arms sales. Russia was the largest supplier, with $25 billion. The US was the smallest, with $200,000. A similar myth, that the U.S. provided Iraq with chemical and biological weapons is equally off base. Iraq requested Anthrax samples from the US government, as do nations the world over, for the purpose of developing animal and human vaccines for local versions of Anthrax. Nerve gas doesn’t require technical help, it’s a variant of common insecticides. European nations sold Iraq the equipment to make poison gas. ”
http://www.strategypage.com/dls/articles/20030327.asp
Kathy K
That was 20 years ago. Are you trying to make a point here? And do you have a link to something other than antiwar.com?
I’m getting a bit tired (to say the least) of the antiwar meme of “you messed up in the past (mess-ups often presented without proof) and that means you can’t do anything now. 20 years ago we had a very different situation and a different government.
I doubt we armed Saddam in the sense you mean (the US was the one and only reason he was armed — BS). I don’t doubt we gave Iraq some things. Back then, he was the lesser of evils. Since then, he graduated into the upper class.
That “but it’s your fault” argument is stupid. Mistakes should be corrected. We should have corrected this one 12 years ago. If we hadn’t listened to your side, Iraq would have been free for over a decade.
tom scott
DG-did you ever see this chart which was compiled with information from the Stockholm International Peace Research Institute (SIPRI)?
It is interesting to note that the top two sellers of weapons to Iraq were the USSR and France. That vestige of the USSR, Russia, and France worked the hardest in the UN to block the interests of the U.S. Indeed, I believe just last week that night vision goggles (illegal) from Russia were found in Iraq.
dg
Keep denying the facts:
United States District Court (Florida: Southern District) Affidavit. “United States of America, Plaintiff, v. Carlos Cardoen [et al.]” [Charge that Teledyne Wah Chang Albany Illegally Provided a Proscribed Substance, Zirconium, to Cardoen Industries and to Iraq], January 31, 1995.
Former Reagan administration National Security Council staff member Howard Teicher says that after Ronald Reagan signed a national security decision directive calling for the U.S. to do whatever was necessary to prevent Iraq’s defeat in the Iran-Iraq war, Director of Central Intelligence William Casey personally led efforts to ensure that Iraq had sufficient weapons, including cluster bombs, and that the U.S. provided Iraq with financial credits, intelligence, and strategic military advice. The CIA also provided Iraq, through third parties that included Israel and Egypt, with military hardware compatible with its Soviet-origin weaponry.
This affidavit was submitted in the course of one of a number of prosecutions, following Iraq’s invasion of Kuwait, of U.S. companies charged with illegally delivering military, dual-use, or nuclear-related items to Iraq. (In this case, a Teledyne affiliate was charged will illegally selling zirconium, used in the manufacture of explosives, to the Chilean arms manufacturer Carlos Industries, which used the material to manufacture cluster bombs sold to Iraq.) Many of these firms tried to defend themselves by establishing that providing military materiel to Iraq had been the actual, if covert, policy of the U.S. government. This was a difficult case to make, especially considering the rules of evidence governing investigations involving national security matters.
Source: Court case
dg
Try this link:
http://www.gwu.edu/~nsarchiv/NSAEBB/NSAEBB82/index.htm
capt joe
So, you are talking about a company that was prosecuted for trying to sell illegal equipment to Iraq. Isn’t it good they caught them.
Nothing I have seen in your link says that that company supplied the majority of equipment or even a lot.
You still haven’t answered the question about the Stockholm International Peace Research Institute own study. Their study seems pretty conclusive. Your evidence seems to be shadows pointing at other shadows. Good enough for someone who has a conclusion and looking for anything to support their premise. You should collaborate with Mike Moore’s next film. ;)
tom scott
DG-from your case “United States of America, Plaintiff, v. Carlos Cardoen [et al.]”. I notice the plaintiff is the United States of America.
From dictionary.com:
\Plain”tiff\, n. [F. plaintif making complaint, plaintive; in Old French equiv. to plaignant complainant, prosecutor, fr. plaindre. See Plaint, and cf. Plaintive.] (Law) One who commences a personal action or suit to obtain a remedy for an injury to his rights; — opposed to defendant.
You suggest the defendant is acting on behalf of the U.S. If that’s so, why would the U.S. be prosecuting it’s own ally?
I don’t see it.
Jon H
It’d be amusing if those shells were British, from their use of gas in 1920 to suppress an Iraqi uprising.
Except I don’t think that was in Basra, where these shells were found.
They certainly look old enough, though.
The fact that we’ve found shells buried over 10 years ago, but haven’t found anything of more recent vintage, even when we have loads of scientists – and Saddam Hussain – in custody and available to tell us where to look, doesn’t really suggest there’s much else out there.
We’ve found the dregs, I think.
HH
Or there is the opposite theory that we’re only just beginning to find things…
S.W. Anderson
“What else is buried out there?”
In a very real sense, nearly 500 Americans and $200 billion.
wallster
S.W. – well said.
H.H. – yes, that’s your story, so cling to it. You know very well that if there were anything significant out there we would have found it by now. Stuff that was buried 12 years ago and forgotten about by everyone until now was obviously no threat to us.
HH
No, I don’t “know” that, wallster and neither do you, unless you’ve been out there and looked for yourself. You also don’t know that they weren’t moved into Syria as more and more reports appear to point to lately…
Dean
And were the MiGs buried 12 years ago, too?
You remember, the late-model MiG-25s (or were they -31s) that the Marines found, out there in the desert, buried in sand?
Nonsensical, in many ways. After all, burying a high-performance fighter aircraft (even one of Russian manufacture) isn’t the best way of using them. But they did it. So, what was the idea?
Jon H
HH writes: “You also don’t know that they weren’t moved into Syria as more and more reports appear to point to lately…”
Actually, what we’ve been hearing more and more of lately is that the WMD programs pretty much died out in the mid-90s.
Tongue Boy
“Stuff that was buried 12 years ago and forgotten about by everyone until now was obviously no threat to us.”
The next course of action should be to bring Hague-style justice to all the lying miscreants who supplied false data to the Bush War Machine to justify its war of aggression against the peace-loving Baathists of Iraq. Clinton, Lake, UNMOVIC inspectors, UNSCOM inspectors, whoever the hell was in charge of British/French/German/Russian intelligence services in the ’90’s, put ’em all in the dock. The road to justice begins outside a glass cage containing Madeleine Albright and Al Gore.
Sheesh.
capt joe
Tongue boy, you were being sarcastic right?
capt joe
Jon H.
I don’t think we know anything yet. Some reports say they went to Syria, some said that everything was scaled back to provide battlefield bio-chem weapons, still others said that a massive scam operation was waged by the scientists against Saddam’s regime.
I am afraid we may not know until some of it winds up here. Don’t think that is crazy, before 9/11 wo would have thunk.
bg
Condi Rice said on Friday there’s no evidence WMDs have moved to Syria.
And Kathy, what’s with this “your side” buisness? We’re all on the same damn side. But if you’re referring to leaving Saddam in power, that was decided by Bush and Powell.
HH
Well actually she said they have nothing they can confirm as of now but they are looking into everything…
bg
That’s right HH. But I think what I said is close enough. If that changes (i.e. if confirmable evidence does surface), so be it.
capt joe
Well, there is this, maybe it is nothing but it certainly fuels speculation
http://www.news.scotsman.com/latest.cfm?id=2391662
capt joe
oops forgot this:
On condi saying no to syria, seems she is not so committed to your view
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A5102-2004Jan9.html
There was an avenue the other way before the war
http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/world/la-fg-usrussia10jan10,1,5453619.story
bg
Capt’n Joe, I think you’re forgetting this paragraph in your description:
“As for the possibility that Syria hid chemical and biological weapons for Iraq, Rice said:
‘I don’t think we are at the point that we can make a judgment on this issue. There hasn’t been any hard evidence that such a thing happened. But obviously we’re going to follow up every lead, and it would be a serious problem if that, in fact, did happen.'”
That pretty much sums it up for me.
Howard Dean
The world will be no safer if we find the WMDs. The world will be safer only if I am elected and turn America over to the UN!
capt joe
bq,
My point is that you have her make up her mind as ‘no’ and then you quote her as “I don’t think we are at the point that we can make a judgment on this issue”. ie. no hard evidence.
If you are going to paraphrase be honest to her words. She did not say no. You softened the response and pretended to say you said the same.
dg
Now, let me get this straight…
1.) Bush says Saddam has WMD.
2.) In an effort to keep the world safe from these WMD, Bush enguaged the US in ”pre-emptive” warfare to secure Iraqi WND.
3.) Can’t find them?
4.) Smuggled to Syria?
5.) Code ”Orange!”
Now remind me again how we are ”safer.”
capt joe
any towers blown up since 9/11
yeah sure it’s mooooore danggggeroooous now, oooh!
But hey, didn’t you get the memo from Mike Moore, “There is no terrorist threat”.
You left wing guys should get your stories straight
bg
The quote I posted plainly says: “There hasn’t been any hard evidence.”
Yes, to me that equates that there’s no evidence, which is what I’ve said in every post thus far.
Where have I been dishonest?
capt joe
uh-uh, don’t change your story now
You said at January 12, 2004 01:15 PM “Condi Rice said on Friday there’s no evidence WMDs have moved to Syria.”
I posted that that was not what she said.
You then softened that to “There hasn’t been any hard evidence” at January 12, 2004 05:54 PM
ergo, you changed your story. That is what I am arguing about. If I let you slip with that distortion how could I live with my self.
Is there hard evidence that Suadi Arabia is behind 9/11? What about THe whitehouse lying? Do you have real proof of that other than they didn’t find anything yet. That isn’t hard evidence.
But then your side cherry picks facts to push on less gullible people.
capt joe
Also, read this since it is on topic
http://www.darrenkaplan.net/archives/000323.html
The left keeps hitting on that dead horse along with the plastic turkey and the new one where regime change originated with Bush rather than Clinton (http://www.newsmax.com/archives/ic/2004/1/13/101255.shtml)
tom scott
dg-“Now remind me again how we are ‘safer.'”
From the BBC: Libya to give up WMD
From USATODAY:Attacks down 22% since Saddam’s capture
The Saudi’s are intensifying their search for and apprehension of Al Queda, financial sources for both Al Queda and the Palestineian terrorists are dwindling. Pakistan is making peace overatures to India-two nuclear powers in that region. Pakistan is also clamping down on its surreptitious channeling of nuclear technology to other radical Islamist countries (as was Libya.)
How anyone can suggest that the capture of Saddam with his billions laying around; the influence on the countries, such as Libya, Saudi Arabia, Pakistan, and to some extent Iran; does not make us safer is beyond the realm of sanity.
Robin Roberts
Basically bg, “no evidence” is not the equivalent of “no hard evidence”. And your conflation of the two either indicates that you don’t understand the gradations of intelligence information or you deliberately wished to conceal that Dr. Rice was making a more nuanced statement than you wanted.
bg
OK, now I’m just rolling my eyes. I used “no evidence” as shorthand for “no hard evidence” and now I get all this shit about how “my side” tries to conflate arguments to seduce “the gullible.” Really, what the hell?!
What other kind of evidence is there other than “hard evidence?”
…Well no, your honor, but we have plenty of heresay and conjecture…. Those are… kinds of evidence…
-Lionel Hutz
dg
A contingency for regime change is one thing; but as O’Neil says: ”…the notion of pre-emption, that the U.S. has the unilateral right to do whatever we decide to do is a really huge leap.”
Do you believe ”that the U.S. has the unilateral right to do whatever we decide to do?”
When O’Neil say’s he’d seen no evidence to justify war, he is discounted. What hard eveidence have YOU seen? Powell didn’t show it at the UN. (Trailers of Mass Destruction?)
All Bush talked about was how there were links between Saddam and Al Qaeda and they ”KNEW FOR A FACT” that Saddam had WMD.
”The president of the United States and the secretary of defense would not assert as plainly and bluntly as they have that Iraq has weapons of mass destruction if it was not true, and if they did not have a solid basis for saying it.”
Ari Fleischer, Press Secretary
Response to Question From Press
12/4/2002
”We know for a fact that there are weapons there.”
Ari Fleischer, Press Secretary
Press Briefing
1/9/2003
”We know where they are. They’re in the area around Tikrit and Baghdad and east, west, south and north somewhat.”
Donald Rumsfeld, Secretary of Defense
ABC Interview
3/30/2003
”Were not going to find anything until we find people who tell us where the things are. And we have that very high on our priority list, to find the people who know. And when we do, then well learn precisely where things were and what was done.” Donald Rumsfeld, Secretary of Defense
Meet the Press
4/13/2003
Wouldn’t Rumsfeld be one of those people? I thought HE knew?
JKC
Well, whatever is buried out there, apparently it ain’t a blistering agent.
Sorry to disappoint you…
Mithras
Definitely not.
Keep looking, though. *snicker*