Lies and more lies. Who Said What When

See the post just above yours. Blix says the WMD were in existence and are unaccounted for; unbiased facts, he's no friend of the invasionists.

 

I read your whole post..Are you serious? CIA's documentation is full of maybe's, if's, possibilities, and stretched future outcomes, based on unfounded evidence.

So you go to war on a maybe? what happened to innocent until PROVEN guilty. Is this what you want the US to convey to the rest of the world? sad man, truly sad.
We have killed what over 5000 Iraqi's on a maybe? and close to 2 hundred of ours died for that maybe?

On Forgery:
"In our state-of-the-union address you spoke of Iraq’s pre-1991 focus on how to “enrich uranium for a bomb” and added, “the British government has learned that Saddam Hussein recently sought significant quantities of uranium from Africa.” No doubt we have now been told that this information was based on bogus correspondence between Iraq and Niger. Answering a question on this last week, Secretary Powell conceded—with neither apology nor apparent embarrassment—that the documents in question, which the US and UK had provided to the UN to show that Iraq is still pursuing nuclear weapons, were forgeries. Powell was short: “If that information is inaccurate, fine.”

But it is anything but fine. This kind of episode inflicts serious damage on US credibility abroad—the more so, as it appears neither you, nor your advisers and political supporters are in hot pursuit of those responsible. Senate Intelligence Committee Chairman Pat Roberts has shown little enthusiasm for finding out what went awry. Committee Vice-Chairman, Jay Rockefeller, suggested that the FBI be enlisted to find the perpetrators of the forgeries, which US officials say contain “laughable and child-like errors,” and to determine why the CIA did not recognize them as forgeries. But Roberts indicated through a committee spokeswoman that he believes it is “inappropriate for the FBI to investigate at this point.”

You say: The Left used to stand for something other than attacking the US and protecting tyrants.

Under what logic is anyone who questions this administration's actions and reasons for war, labeled leftist and anti US?
(Ron Paul comes to mind among many congressmen)

Protecting tyrants??? what are you smoking??? you will not like the response but it should open your eyes..
continue next post,

 

Protecting tyrants???? WHO THE F*&K is protecting tyrants? I asked you to go back and read our insolvent in the region and in Particular with Iraq. It would appear you are still clueless. Sooo here is a small summary for ya including sources:

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 U.S. 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 U.S. becomes the only country refusing to sign a Security Council statement condemning Iraq's use of these weapons. (10)

May 1986. The U.S. 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 U.S. 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. U.S. 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. U.S. 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 U.S. 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 U.S. officials plead innocent of any knowledge of his crime. (14)

June 1992. Ted Koppel of ABC Nightline reports: "It is becoming increasingly clear that George Bush, Sr., operating largely behind the scenes throughout the 1980s, 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 U.S. shipments of dual-use biological and chemical agents to Iraq that may have been used against U.S. 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 U.S. 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 U.S. supplied chemical and biological agents and technology to Iraq when it knew Iraq was using chemical weapons against the Iranians. The U.S. supplied the materials and technology for these weapons of mass destruction to Iraq at a time when it was known 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 U.N. 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.

So what do these events have to do with the current conflict?

Just this: If we do go to war with Iraq, it is important to know why! War will not really be about terrorism! Twenty years ago the United States threw its support behind Saddam Hussein in a geopolitical bid for enhanced access to oil. The trajectory given him by our support lead directly to the Gulf War and to the current crises. War, after all, will be about a history of misdeeds and miscalculations. And war will not be about morality. War will be about cynicism, deceit and a thirst for oil that knows no boundaries.

John King
Long Prairie, MN, USA.

(ED. Note: Although this article was written before the attack began, the analysis still rings true.)

Sources

1. Washingtonpost.com. December 30, 2002
2. Jonathan Broder. Nuclear times, Winter 1990-91
3. Kurt Nimno. AlterNet. September 23, 2002
4. Newyorktimes.com. August 29, 2002
5. ABC Nightline. June 9, 1992
6. Counter Punch, October 10, 2002
7. Riegle Report: Dual Use Exports. Senate Committee on Banking. May 25, 1994
8. Timeline: A walk Through Iraq's History. U.S. Department of State
9. Doing Business: The Arming of Iraq. Daniel Robichear
10. Glen Rangwala. Labor Left Briefing, 16 September, 2002
11. Financial Times of London. July 3, 1991
12. Elson E. Boles. Counter Punch. October 10, 2002
13. Iran-Iraq War, 1980-1988. Iranchamber.com
14. Columbia Journalism Review. March/April 1993. Iraqgate
15. Times Online. December 31, 2002. How U.S. Helped Iraq Build Deadly Arsenal
16. Bush's Secret Mission. The New Yorker Magazine. November 2, 1992
17. Grolier Multimedia Encyclopedia: Iran-Contra Affair
18. Congressional Record. July 27, 1992. Representative Henry B. Gonzalez
19. Bob Woodward. CIA Aiding Iraq in Gulf War. Washington Post.
15 December, 1986
20. WWW.gendercide.com

continued next post

 

Kaymar,

A pic is worth a thousand words. Please tell us what leftist is in it?
http://ming.tv/flemming2.php/_d10/_v10/__show_article/_a000010-000496.htm

Ahhh previous post, question: Who was in charge of CIA when saddam was first placed in power and helped to stay there? Bush Sr rings a bell?

Follow the $$$$$ trail and you will find the truth. Trillions upon trillions of dollars at stake.

Man you used to be one of the more balanced of your group. What happened?

Remember: a closed mind is an empty mind. sad truly sad.

We wanted Iraq occupation/control even before Afghanistan, any excuse fabrication would do.

Blair to Bush 'Taliban first, Iraq second'
Apr 3 2003
By Tom Kelly, PA News, in New York
http://icwales.icnetwork.co.uk/0100...fm?objectid=12807231&method=full&siteid=50082

Origins of Regime Change in Iraq
Carnegie Endowment for International Peace.
Proliferation Brief, Volume 6, Number 5

http://www.ceip.org/files/nonprolif/templates/Publications.asp?p=8&PublicationID=1214


What the friggin f&^K are we doing????

you know.. connecting the dots.. it's starting to make sense..

 

Interesting how you choose and omit. The US and Saddam go back to the late 50's not 82 which conveniently for you is Reagans time. Your balance is still skewed. In an earlier post about where you are from. Is that the country where they have seminars for public defenders about how to get serious sex offenders back on the street, funded by the state. I am sure we all asapire to be like that.

 

You and everyone who opposed the war was objectively seeking to protect a tyrant. That's the f*&k who.

Regardless of whom you blame for Saddam's hold on power up until oh just a little while ago (we'll get to the details), do you or do you not acknowledge that he was a tyrant? If you cannot acknowledge his eminent qualifications for that title, or feel the need to quibble about it, then there really may not be much to discuss. If you do acknowledge it, then, as we discussed many times before, then the issue was what was to be done about him. To me the case that his regime was tyrannical and dangerous, and that the state of affairs prior to the war was unsustainable practically and morally, is indisputable - and certainly has never successfully been disputed by you.

Who was responsible for Saddam being in power and being equipped and supplied is a different question. The answer or answers might be relevant to aspects of how to deal with him, but would not affect the basic decision. Whatever the motivations, whatever share of guilt you apportion to US governments and officials, past and present, the policy at issue was whether or not to depose Saddam's regime. The Left, and individuals such as yourself, opposed the action.

But let's say that the US was totally and exclusively responsible for Saddam. Let's suppose that the US was morally responsible for every crime ever committed by Saddam, every death in battle, every victim of torture or genocide - and any danger to the US or its friends or anyone else would also be a danger created by the US.

It would then be all the more the US responsibility to get rid of Saddam and his regime - to correct its own, horrible, possibly unforgivable mistake. I've made this argument to you many times, and you have never responded to it.

This leaves aside the question of self-defense, looking forward. So, I'll give you a parallel situation to help you understand me: If you handed a gun to a guy who then turned it on you, would you just stand there and let him shoot you, because, after all, it was your fault that he was armed? And, while we're making up stories, lets consider corrupt motivations. If the only defender available to you was a corrupt crack-dealing cop who used to do business with the gunman, would you say, "Oh, well, never mind, just let the guy kill me"?

As for the timeline that you present, most of it concerns the period of the Iran-Iraq war. Even the author whose work you've c&p'd acknowledges that "[t]he Soviet Union was the largest weapons supplier, but England, France and Germany were also involved in the shipment of arms and technology." This rather understates the proportions of these countries' involvement, and also happens to leave out China. According to respected international observers (the SIPRI institute), the total US contribution to Iraq was on the order of 1%.

Such timelines also cannot tell you what would have happened if the US had not made a strategic decision to help keep Iraq from losing its war with Iran, and if it had not sought to gain influence with the Iraqi regime and explore the possibility of cooperation. It does not and cannot tell you what the effects of an Iranian victory or greater Iranian progress in the war would have been. It cannot tell you how the Soviet Union or other nations would have reacted in the absence of US involvement, especially if an Iranian victory had appeared imminent. It cannot tell you whether Iraq wouldn't have found other sources for whatever unique contributions to the Iraqi war machine the US or American companies made. It cannot tell you what other alliance and arrangements would have arisen.

In addition, though many of the items in the timeline come from somewhat legitimate or at least mainstream sources, others come from committed Leftist or anti-capitalist/globalist organizations. Full contexts are not provided, and there is insufficient information to assess how critical or important individual items might have been.

Finally, even if you choose to accept the entirety of the timeline, and set aside the other issues raised above, the material does not justify the leap the author makes to conclusions about the "real" basis and meaning of the conflict.

 

The Biggest Threat To Peace

Which country really poses the greatest danger to world peace in 2003? TIME asks for readers' views

http://www.time.com/time/europe/gdml/peace2003.html

 

msfe-Peace to you is doing nothing about terrorism and playing ostrich with reality.

 

it was a pre-emptive strike, and I am glad they did it. complain all you want, its a moot point now.

I hope they can find some "grand deception" to get rid of Castro in Cuba.