How to Join Member's Area Private Library Search Today's Topics p Login
Main Forums Discussion Tech Talk Mature Content Archives
   Nav Win
 Discussion
 The Alley
 2nd Presidential Debate   [ Page: 1  2  3  4  5  ]
 100 101 102 103 104 105 106 107 108 109 110 111 112 113 114
Follow us on Facebook

 Moderated by: Ron   (Admins )

 
User Options
Format for Better Printing EMail to a Friend Not Available
Admin Print Send ECard
Passions in Poetry

2nd Presidential Debate

 Post A Reply Post New Topic   Go to the Next Oldest/Previous Topic Return to Topic Page Go to the Next Newest Topic 
Denise
Moderator
Member Seraphic
since 08-22-99
Posts 23002


100 posted 10-24-2004 09:19 PM       View Profile for Denise   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems  View IP for Denise

No Raph, that's not what I said.

We were helping him in the Iran/Iraq war at the time, that's why we supplied him with support and aid, not chemical weapons, to prevent his defeat, because Iran posed the biggest threat to us at the time.

You are blaming the U.S. for supplying chemical warfare capabilities to Iraq? What is your source for that information?

According to the Stockholm International Peace Research Institute, in March 1984, the U.S. called for export embargoes on 5 chemicals that could be used in the production of mustard and nerve gas to Iraq and Iran and called on other nations who dealt with these countries to do the same. Britain added 3 more chemicals to the list in April, followed by various embargoes by other European countries after that.

According to the report, some sources cite the USSR as a supplier, which they have denied. Iran cited the USSR, Brazil, France and Britain, but did not disclose the basis for their accusations. Foreign military and diplomatic sources in Baghdad cited France, Czechoslovakia and both Germanies "to have supplied Iraq with chemical precursors needed for an indigenous production effort". And Egypt, according to unofficial published sources, was also cited as a "possible supplier of actual chemical weapons." The report also states that Iraq had the capability of manufacturing its own chemical weapons, according to various sources.
http://projects.sipri.se/cbw/research/factsheet-1984.html


We were trying to establish diplomatic relations with Baghdad, but it was made known to Saddam that the U.S. had serious concerns over human rights issues and the use of chemical weapons against Iran and against the Kurds. We did not condone it and were equally outraged that he did it.

He was left in power after his defeat in Kuwait at the behest of the U.N., if I recall correctly.
Aenimal
Member Rara Avis
since 11-18-2002
Posts 7451
the ass-end of space


101 posted 10-25-2004 12:56 AM       View Profile for Aenimal   Email Aenimal   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems  View IP for Aenimal

quote:
You are blaming the U.S. for supplying chemical warfare capabilities to Iraq? What is your source for that information?


Documents and invoices from the Centre of Disease Control(CDC) and US congressional records show that the CDC and a US company sent strains of virus' to Iraq from 1986-1988. These included Botulinum toxin and botulinum toxoid(another type of nerve gas), Gas Gangrene, and Anthrax strains. Some sent directly to the Iraq's Atomic Energy Commission(which was involved in attempts to build wmd's) and some to the al-Muthanna complex (Once center for Iraq's chemical weapons program).

Considering their knowledge of Iraq's chemical warfare, don't you find this a serious lack of judgement on the admin's part? Yes, I've read the SIPRI report before, the did place an embargo on 5 chemicals that produced Mustard, Tabun and Sarin gas as of 1984. But why? Why would you then supply Iraq with bacterial germ strains with full knowledge that 'Iraq had the capability of manufacturing its own chemical weapons' and a penchant for using them after 1984?


http://www.usatoday.com/news/world/2002-09-30-iraq-ushelp_x.htm
http://www.usatoday.com/news/world/2002-09-30-iraq-ushelp-list_x.htm

quote:
We were trying to establish diplomatic relations with Baghdad, but it was made known to Saddam that the U.S. had serious concerns over human rights issues and the use of chemical weapons against Iran and against the Kurds. We did not condone it and were equally outraged that he did it.


Equally outraged? Internal documents and memos, show that Reagans administration knew of the attacks on Iran before the SIPRI(Stockholm International Peace Research Institute)report and yet dealt with, and removed Iraq from its list of Terror states in 1982. Only after a SIPRI report released in 1984 confirmed the attacks and their capabilities, did the US publicly denounce Iraq.

Yet despite this, trade continued between the US and Iraq for another 4 years. Aside from the germ strains mentioned earlier, trade included the sale of $200 million worth of UH-1H and MD-500 Defender helicopters used in further gas attacks against Iranians and the Kurds. It also included export permits for high tech equipment for advanced weaponry programs were allowed with full US knowledge and consent.

Most disturbing, a memo uncovered by the NSA, shows that US policy for the sale of equipment to Iraq's nuclear program was also reviewed and it was concluded that "results favor expanding such trade to include Iraqi nuclear entities."

Publicly denounced, but continually assisted.

Denise
Moderator
Member Seraphic
since 08-22-99
Posts 23002


102 posted 10-30-2004 05:07 PM       View Profile for Denise   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems  View IP for Denise

I would say that the company and the CDC were definitely naive to have believed that Iraq would make use of them for legitimate medical research and development programs.

As for our continuing trade at the time with Iraq and supplying them with defender helocopters and high tech items, and equipment to their nuclear program, etc., I'd have to have a fuller contextual picture of what was going on at the time. For instance, did we trade with them in exchange for promises not to commit atrocities again, or with the understanding that they wouldn't, and would only use these items for defense? I just don't know all the facts.

But if we hoped for the best from Saddam, I'd certainly say we were guilty of naivete. But I don't see it as an indictment that we were not outraged at the atrocities already committed.

Aenimal
Member Rara Avis
since 11-18-2002
Posts 7451
the ass-end of space


103 posted 10-30-2004 05:31 PM       View Profile for Aenimal   Email Aenimal   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems  View IP for Aenimal

quote:
I'd have to have a fuller contextual picture of what was going on at the time. For instance, did we trade with them in exchange for promises not to commit atrocities again, or with the understanding that they wouldn't, and would only use these items for defense? I just don't know all the facts.


So if the European nations you've recently condemned for dealing with Saddam give you a fuller contextual picture, for instance, did they trade with them in exchange for promises not to commit atrocities again, or with the understanding that they wouldn't, and would only use items for defense, would you let them off the hook?


quote:
But I don't see it as an indictment that we were not outraged at the atrocities already committed.


Of course you don't, that's the problem. You're all too willing to chalk it up to naivete rather than seeing it for the dark deal it was. Just how outraged can an administration, who kept their knowledge of the attacks under wraps until a public report, then continually supplied a terrorist nation with chemicals, intelligence and weaponry, be?
Denise
Moderator
Member Seraphic
since 08-22-99
Posts 23002


104 posted 10-30-2004 06:21 PM       View Profile for Denise   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems  View IP for Denise

No, I wouldn't let them off the hook, Raph, because that's not what happened in this case. There is evidence of kick-backs to Saddam, undermining the effectiveness of the sanctions, and bribes for votes against the U.S. on the Security Council.

Present me with the evidence of the "dark deal" of our dealings with Iraq, that you claim it was, and I'll look at it.  
Aenimal
Member Rara Avis
since 11-18-2002
Posts 7451
the ass-end of space


105 posted 10-31-2004 03:32 AM       View Profile for Aenimal   Email Aenimal   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems  View IP for Aenimal

I've already listed and given links to evidence that after a 1984 report revealed the Iraqi gas attacks, the US government continued to arm, support and offer biochemicals (even after further gas attacks on the Kurds) to Saddam's regime up until the Gulf War. That you hope to justify these dealings while condemning others is disturbing, to say the least.
Denise
Moderator
Member Seraphic
since 08-22-99
Posts 23002


106 posted 10-31-2004 07:59 AM       View Profile for Denise   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems  View IP for Denise

Raph, you've provided links showing that the trades happened. You haven't provided anything concerning the 'whys' of the trades, the context in which those trades happened, or that 'dark dealings' or sinister motives were behind those trades.  
Ron
Administrator
Member Rara Avis
since 05-19-99
Posts 9708
Michigan, US


107 posted 10-31-2004 11:07 AM       View Profile for Ron   Email Ron   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems   Click to visit Ron's Home Page   View IP for Ron

There is none so blind ...
Aenimal
Member Rara Avis
since 11-18-2002
Posts 7451
the ass-end of space


108 posted 10-31-2004 11:57 AM       View Profile for Aenimal   Email Aenimal   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems  View IP for Aenimal

amen.
Denise
Moderator
Member Seraphic
since 08-22-99
Posts 23002


109 posted 10-31-2004 03:03 PM       View Profile for Denise   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems  View IP for Denise

Show me the documents detailing these dark deeds, the context in which they happened, and I will study them. If they exist, I'm sure you can produce them. Am I supposed to just take your word for it that since the trades happened that there were sinister motives involved, as oppossed to naivete on the part of the CDC and the company?

And your sarcasm is not warranted or appreciated. From either of you. I thought free and open discussion was welcome here.
Ron
Administrator
Member Rara Avis
since 05-19-99
Posts 9708
Michigan, US


110 posted 10-31-2004 07:04 PM       View Profile for Ron   Email Ron   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems   Click to visit Ron's Home Page   View IP for Ron

Denise, there is no context within which giving a gun to a known murderer can be justified or excused. You are free to apply your double standards as you please. Others should be equally free to point out they ARE double standards.
Denise
Moderator
Member Seraphic
since 08-22-99
Posts 23002


111 posted 10-31-2004 08:33 PM       View Profile for Denise   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems  View IP for Denise

Double standards, Ron? If I had been shown evidence of graft and kick-backs and double-dealing, as we now know happened with France, Russia and China in the U.N. on the Security Council, then the double standard argument would be applicable. All I've seen are articles that said one company and the CDC sent some germ samples to Iraq for the manufacture of vaccine and for medical research.  In hindsight, pretty dumb, granted, but where is the evidence of sinister motives by our government?

And speaking of giving a murderer a loaded gun, where is the outrage at Kerry saying that he will give Iran nuclear fuel to "test" its intentions? I'd say that's at least as stupid as sending germ samples to Iraq 20 years ago. If that happens, how will we be judged 20 years hence, if we're still here, that is. I guess we haven't learned very much from our past mistakes.

Yes, I am free to express my opinions. I'm also free to ask for evidence of serious allegations made. That doesn't make me guilty of double standards, and it doesn't warrant sarcastic replies because you assume I'm operating from a double-standard mindset, even if I were. What happened to the idea of respect and tolerance?
Ron
Administrator
Member Rara Avis
since 05-19-99
Posts 9708
Michigan, US


112 posted 10-31-2004 09:15 PM       View Profile for Ron   Email Ron   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems   Click to visit Ron's Home Page   View IP for Ron

quote:
If I had been shown evidence of graft and kick-backs and double-dealing, as we now know happened with France, Russia and China in the U.N. on the Security Council, then the double standard argument would be applicable. All I've seen are articles that said one company and the CDC sent some germ samples to Iraq for the manufacture of vaccine and for medical research.  In hindsight, pretty dumb, granted, but where is the evidence of sinister motives by our government?

Dumb? Look at the list of pathogens again, Denise. Look at the locations where they were sent.

Dumb, I think, would be not reaching the conclusion that our government expected and wanted Iraq to create chemical weapons to be potentially used against our common enemy, Iran. I don't much care for graft or kick-backs, Denise. But human greed, while always intolerable, is at least understandable. I will never understand inhuman cruelty.

quote:
And speaking of giving a murderer a loaded gun, where is the outrage at Kerry saying that he will give Iran nuclear fuel to "test" its intentions? I'd say that's at least as stupid as sending germ samples to Iraq 20 years ago. If that happens, how will we be judged 20 years hence, if we're still here, that is. I guess we haven't learned very much from our past mistakes.

I absolutely agree, Denise. To not agree would be to employ a different set of standards for precisely the same sins.

I think we should try to support what we believe is right, not try to twist what is right to support what we believe.
Aenimal
Member Rara Avis
since 11-18-2002
Posts 7451
the ass-end of space


113 posted 10-31-2004 10:10 PM       View Profile for Aenimal   Email Aenimal   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems  View IP for Aenimal

First, you'll pardon me for not apologizing for my sarcasm, considering I didn't exactly appreciate the rotf response to my questioning of Bush family ethics in another thread.


Second, that the 'darkness' of dealing with Saddam isn't immediately evident, suggests incredibly skewed or double standard thinking. I can't fathom a context where dealing with a tyrant during,after and through a new set of gassings would be justifiable.

And finally,:

quote:
All I've seen are articles that said one company and the CDC sent some germ samples to Iraq for the manufacture of vaccine and for medical research.  In hindsight, pretty dumb, granted, but where is the evidence of sinister motives by our government?


..cleary shows selective thinking/reading on your part. The articles and links provided clearly state that germ samples where sent by the CDC directly to Iraq's Atomic Energy Commission(wmd program) and to the al-Muthanna complex (Iraqi centre for chemical weapons).

Free and open thought is indeed welcome, but it's hard to mask frustration with unbalanced/double standard rational.
Denise
Moderator
Member Seraphic
since 08-22-99
Posts 23002


114 posted 11-02-2004 01:11 AM       View Profile for Denise   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems  View IP for Denise

That wasn't directed at you, Raph, but at the article. I'm very sorry if it came across as being directed at you. That wasn't my intent, believe me.

I have spent the entire evening researching this and still have lots more reading to do.
I'm not a double-standard kind of person, this is just the first I've heard of this information and I have to study it out. I was far from politically aware in the late 80's and I'm sure lots of stuff went right over my head. Most of my focus back then was on hiding and trying not to be killed or maimed by my ex.

If the U.S. did this for the purpose of Saddam using biologicals against Iran, that's deplorable. If they supplied them with the materials with the intent of Saddam creating vaccines because it was known that Iran was working on a biological weapsons plan to be used against Iraq, then that's a different story because the intent would be different. That at least would have the humane intent of trying to save lives.  
 
 Post A Reply Post New Topic   Go to the Next Oldest/Previous Topic Return to Topic Page Go to the Next Newest Topic 
All times are ET (US) Top
  User Options
>> Discussion >> The Alley >> 2nd Presidential Debate   [ Page: 1  2  3  4  5  ] Format for Better Printing EMail to a Friend Not Available
Print Send ECard

 

pipTalk Home Page | Main Poetry Forums

How to Join | Member's Area / Help | Private Library | Search | Contact Us | Today's Topics | Login
Discussion | Tech Talk | Archives | Sanctuary



© Passions in Poetry and netpoets.com 1998-2013
All Poetry and Prose is copyrighted by the individual authors