Iraq, Saddam, Arafat, Afghanistan

[AlanG]

</font><blockquote><font size="1" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">quote:</font><hr /><font size="1" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">Originally posted by Bannana Man:
<strong>
Here's a criptic point. Say you give a man a gun and show him how to use it. Is it your fault if he shoots someone with it? Is the decision to shoot taken by the gun or the man?</strong></font><hr /></blockquote><font size="1" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">If I were to give a man a gun its pretty obvious what he would use it for so I would be partially responsible for his actions. The only purpose of a gun is to fire bullets with the intention of injuring or killing someone. In the same way going back to the post. America supplied Iraq with biological agents whose only purpose is used to spread disease. If Iraq used these, then America is partially responsible as without them supplying the agents they could not be used.

[Red_Baron]

Exactally, but did you or I make these descisions? even Bush didn't have a say (although maybe his dad did). the point I'm kinda getting at is that unfortunatly previous governments have made some horrendous mistakes in that past, the problem is we're left trying to sort it all out. On the one hand we don't want a nutter like Saddam having these things but America can't totally blame Iraq so can't go in guns blazing. But then we can't totally blame present day America for what was done 10, 20 or 30 years ago. They probably didn't think it was a mistake back then. SO now we have a little situation which isn't as black and white as it should be. It's all got a little too complex and nobody really knows anything which is why some impartial investigators need to be put back in and if this is refused we can only really come to one conclusion. Let is also be said that MR Hussain has also been holding back aid from his own people for 11 years so he's not totally blameless (far from it he's nuts) but you can't kill your average Iraqi for that. Which brings me back to my original point. "Why the fuck do we all end up paying for mistakes our governments make?" Get Saddam round a table with Bush and Blair and let them have an argument, let the inspectors back in to find out once and for all what the hell is going on. If proof is there that he has a Nuke, regardless of who gave it to him, he needs a stern talking to and maybe the Iraqi people should be allowed to choose freely what course their country should take. Every country should maybe try harder to educate on other cultures as fear is the biggest 'cause of violence in the world. If Saddam was willing I'd sit down and have a beer with him and discuss world politics, but none of us are in charge of the world so lets hope the big guys are grown up and make the right decision.

[Crabs]

George Bush is the biggest fuckin terrorist out there. He's just a greedy, ignorant, fuck on a massive power trip with the aim of gaining more power.

To change the subject a bit has anyone realised how rich bin laden is after september 11th. September 11th was a get rich quick scheme by bin laden. Before it he invested shit loads of money into american arms companies. Any company which made planes, bombs, guns or whatever he invested money into. Then he sends a big <img border="0" alt="[Fuck You]" title="" src="graemlins/fuckyou.gif" /> to America in the shape of a couple of planes into the world trade centre and all hell breaks loose. America starts bombing the shit out of Afghanistan with weapons made by the american companies that bin Laden invested in and suddenly he's one of the richest men in the world with all of his investments having paid off. Bin Laden ain't hiding in some cave somewhere, he's off on some luxury, uninhabitated island he probably bought takin a toke on some of the finest weed ever grown. Not that I condone such actions!!!

War is totally orientated by money. The only reason Bush is wantin to go to war with Iraq is because it is one of the biggest oil producing countries in the world and he sees a way of makin himself an extremely rich man. Maybe if America hadn't sold weapons to Iraq then there wouldn't be the risk of Saddam using them but it was probably just part of the long term plan anyway so they had an excuse to bomb them!

Fuck You America!!!

[Red_Baron]

I've never met a racist STD before! Amazing how the internet breeds new species. Including talking fruit.

[Crabs]

I ain't no fuckin racist man. When I said 'Fuck you America' it wasn't an attempt to slag of the race of Americans it was an attack on the way the country is run! I didn't think that it would come across like that.

[Deeker]

Crabs ya we fanny -`Fuck You America`? Very articulat you angry young man. I think the problem is more to do wit status and finance and middle America than it does the country itself.Corporate money controls everything that governments do. America is the biggest perpetrator of violence in the name of freedom. Bush is fucking trigger happy and we all know that he likes to execute people - nobody hasput more americans to death than this sick freak. IAnother people, another cause, more money and the cycle of violence will undoubtably continue.

Are you racist, Crabs? <img border="0" title="" alt="[Wink]" src="wink.gif" />

[Crabs]

Alright man, hows it goin?
I think you know I ain't know rascist.
<img border="0" alt="[Elvis]" title="" src="graemlins/elvis.gif" />

[kj]

and did you know the Dollar isnt owned or controlled by the American government? Yup, its controlled by private investors. How crazy is that. They could change the name to something else if they wanted. it is all about money, Iraq is rich in gold, oil and all sorts of other minerals and energy sources. its a perfect location strategically also.

[njw]

i agree with the Nana man... ok so weve established the US government is not innocent and are guilty of alot, right?... what isnt being taken into consideration is that Saddam Hussein is highly possibly as much of a nutter as he's made out to be... Talks should be initiated, but i feel pretty confident when i say they wouldnt work, because Hussein would NOT be interested.

[hamtubulosis]

Not that i'm saying the predicament we're in at the moment isnt dangerous as fuck and has the potential to wipe out hundreds and thousands of innocent people... but put it in relation with other problems in the world such as those in the 3rd world for instants; because of the western world's pig ignorant consumerism, every 3 seconds a child in a developing nation loses its life to malnutrition, i mean, in the time its taken me to read all these statements about war between and within superpowers etc the death toll of the monumental event that happened a year ago has probably just been equalled... and does anyone pay any tributes to the poor inocent children who havent even had the chance to grow old enough to understand why their life is the way it is? no. when i think about it in that context then i start to wonder just how petty the democrasy i live in can b at times. (Thats only one way of looking at it mind! everything else is totally relivant and i personally am shit scared that we're gonna wipe ourselves out because leaders are power/money greedy and cant see themselves by distancing their actions from their "political" frame of mind for just one second).

[AlanG]

</font><blockquote><font size="1" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">quote:</font><hr /><font size="1" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">Originally posted by Bannana Man:
<strong>Exactally, but did you or I make these descisions?
</strong>
I didnt, but the majority of the people in the UK and USA did by proxy of voting for the governments who carried out these actions.

<strong>
even Bush didn't have a say (although maybe his dad did). the point I'm kinda getting at is that unfortunatly previous governments have made some horrendous mistakes in that past, the problem is we're left trying to sort it all out. On the one hand we don't want a nutter like Saddam having these things
</strong>
thats the whole point of this stand off

WE dont want saddam having them.

its ok for us to have them, its ok for us to sell them to our allies. Its ok for us to sell him the components for them but hey if he HAS them thats different, he didnt ask us in triplicate.

<strong>
but America can't totally blame Iraq so can't go in guns blazing. But then we can't totally blame present day America for what was done 10, 20 or 30 years ago.
</strong>
bush jnrs advisors and policy makers = bush snrs advisors and policy makers, so yes, we can.

<strong>
They probably didn't think it was a mistake back then.
</strong>
WHAT!
You are seriously saying even though they KNEW that Saddam used bio weapons against the Iranians and Kurds they then not only did nothing, what with them supporting Saddam in these actions. The next year and for the enxt five years they then sold him the components to make even more deadly bio weapons. Please explain how they didnt think this was a mistake. "Hey this guy uses bio weapons in war - that means we can make money selling him bio weapons, hey US gov can we export these to Iraq given his recored"
Us Gov "hell yeah"

<strong>
SO now we have a little situation which isn't as black and white as it should be. It's all got a little too complex and nobody really knows anything which is why some impartial investigators need to be put back in and if this is refused we can only really come to one conclusion. Let is also be said that MR Hussain has also been holding back aid from his own people for 11 years so he's not totally blameless
</strong>
Hes not but ask yourself why Iraq needs aid? - Because they have been under bombardment for 11years, and have had trade sanctions so have limited export licenses to grow their economy.

<strong>
let the inspectors back in to find out once and for all what the hell is going on.
</strong>
The reason he wont let them in is the last lot contained some US spies who were breaking off and doing tours of Iraq.

<strong>
so lets hope the big guys are grown up and make the right decision.</strong>

way to optimistic considering Dubya is one of the big guys. Anyone know where I can buy a concrete fallout shelter???
</font><hr /></blockquote><font size="1" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">

[AlanG]

&lt;http://www.cam.ac.uk/societies/casi/info/usdocs/usiraq80s90s.html&gt;

==================================================
U.S. Diplomatic and Commercial Relationships with Iraq, 1980 - 2 August 1990
Prepared by Nathaniel Hurd.
15 July 2000 (updated 12 December 2001 by Nathaniel Hurd and Glen Rangwala).

Before 1980
Following the 1967 Arab-Israeli War Iraq severed diplomatic relations with
the U.S. In late 1979 the State Department (SD) put Iraq on its list of
States sponsoring groups categorized by the SD as "terrorist."[1]

1980
The U.S. Defense Intelligence Agency (DIA) asserted in a report that Iraq
has been 'actively acquiring' Chemical Weapons [CW] capacities since the
mid-1970s.[2]

1982
Despite intelligence reports that Iraq still sponsored groups on the SD's
terrorist list, and "apparently without consulting Congress", the Reagan
Administration removed Iraq from the State terrorism sponsorship list in
1982.[3] The removal made Iraq eligible for U.S. dual-use and military
technology.[4]

1983
A SD report concluded that Iraq continued to support groups on the SD's
terrorist list.[5]
Iraq reportedly began using chemical weapons (CW) against Iranian troops in
1982, and significantly increased CW use in 1983. Reagan's Secretary of
State, George Shultz, said that reports of Iraq using CWs on Iranian
military personnel "drifted in" at the year's end.[6] A declassified CIA
report, probably written in late 1987, notes Iraq's use of mustard gas in
August 1983, giving further credence to the suggestion that the SD and/or
National Security Council (NSC) was well aware of Iraq's use of CW at this
time.[7]
Analysts recognized that "civilian" helicopters can be weaponized in a
matter of hours and selling a civilian kit can be a way of giving military
aid under the guise of civilian assistance.[8] Shortly after removing Iraq
from the terrorism sponsorship list, the Reagan administration approved the
sale of 60 Hughes helicopters.[9] Later, and despite some objections from
the National Security Council (NSC), the Secretaries of Commerce and State
(George Baldridge and George Shultz) lobbied the NSC advisor into agreeing
to the sale to Iraq of 10 Bell helicopters,[10] officially for crop
spraying. See "1988" for note on Iraq using U.S. Helicopters to spray Kurds
with chemical weapons.
Later in the year the Reagan Administration secretly began to allow Jordan,
Saudi Arabia, Kuwait and Egypt to transfer to Iraq U.S. howitzers,
helicopters, bombs and other weapons.[11] Reagan personally asked Italy's
Prime Minister Guilio Andreotti to channel arms to Iraq.[12]

1984
The SD announced on 6 March that, based on "available evidence," it
"concluded" that Iraq used "lethal chemical weapons" (specifically mustard
gas) in fresh fighting with Iran.[13] On 20 March, U.S. intelligence
officials said that they had "what they believe to be incontrovertible
evidence that Iraq has used nerve gas in its war with Iran and has almost
finished extensive sites for mass-producing the lethal chemical warfare
agent".[14]
European-based doctors examined Iranian troops in March 1984 and confirmed
exposure to mustard gas.[15] The UN sent expert missions to the battle
region in March 1984, February/March 1986, April/May 1987, March/April 1988,
July 1988 (twice), and mid-August 1988. These missions detailed and
documented Iraq's CW use.[16]
According to the Washington Post, the CIA began in 1984 secretly to give
Iraq intelligence that Iraq uses to "calibrate" its mustard gas attacks on
Iranian troops. In August, the CIA establishes a direct Washington-Baghdad
intelligence link, and for 18 months, starting in early 1985, the CIA
provided Iraq with "data from sensitive U.S. satellite reconnaissance
photography...to assist Iraqi bombing raids." The Post's source said that
this data was essential to Iraq's war effort.[17]
The United States re-established full diplomatic ties with Iraq on 26
November,[18] just over a year after Iraq's first well-publicized CW use and
only 8 months after the UN and U.S. reported that Iraq used CWs on Iranian
troops.

1985
In 1985 the U.S. House of Representatives passed a bill to put Iraq back on
the State terrorism sponsorship list.[19] After the bill's passage, Shultz
wrote to the bill's sponsor, Rep. Howard Berman, cited the U.S.' "diplomatic
dialogue on this and other sensitive issues, " claimed that "Iraq has
effectively distanced itself from international terrorism," and stated that
if the U.S. found that Iraq supports groups practicing terrorism "we would
promptly return Iraq to the list."[20] Rep. Berman dropped the bill and
explicitly cited Shultz's assurances.[21]
Iraq's Saad 16 General Establishment's director wrote a letter to the
Commerce Department (CD) detailing the activities in Saad's 70 laboratories.
These activities had the trademarks of ballistic missile development.[22]

1986
The Defense Department's (DOD) Under Secretary for Trade Security Policy,
Stephen Bryen, informed the Commerce Department's (CD) Assistant Secretary
for Trade Administration in November that intelligence linked the Saad 16
research center with ballistic missile development.[23] Between 1985 and
1990, CD approved many computer sales to Iraq that go directly to Saad 16.
CD approved over $1 million worth of computer equipment for sale to Saad 16
after Commerce received the above-mentioned November letter from DOD.[24] As
of 1991 Saad 16 reportedly contained up to 40% U.S.-origin equipment.[25]

1988
The CD approved exports in January and February to Iraq's SCUD missile
program's procurement agency. These exports allowed Iraq to extend SCUD
range far enough to hit allied soldiers in Saudi Arabia and Israeli
civilians in Tel Aviv and Haifa.[26]
On 23 March, London's Financial Times and several other news organizations
reported from Halabja, located in Iraqi Kurdistan, that several days prior
Iraq used CWs on Halabja's Kurds.[27]
In May, two months after the Halabja assault, Peter Burleigh, Assistant
Secretary of State in charge of northern Gulf affairs, encouraged U.S.-Iraqi
corporate cooperation at a symposium hosted by the U.S.-Iraq Business Forum.
The U.S.-Iraq Business Forum had strong (albeit unofficial) ties to the
Iraqi government.[28]
The U.S. Senate Foreign Relations Committee sent a team to Turkey to speak
to Iraqi Kurdish refugees and assess reports that Iraq "was using chemical
weapons on its Kurdish population."[29] This report reaffirmed that between
1984 and 1988 "Iraq repeatedly and effectively used poison gas on Iran," the
UN missions' findings, and the chemical attack on Halabja that left an
estimated 4,000 people dead.[30]
Following the Halabja attack and Iraq's August CW offensive against Iraqi
Kurds, the U.S. Senate unanimously passed on 8 September the "Prevention of
Genocide Act of 1988" the day after it is introduced.[31] The act cuts off
from Iraq U.S. loans, military and non-military assistance, credits, credit
guarantees, items subject to export controls, and U.S. imports of Iraqi
oil.[32]
Immediately after the bill's passage the Reagan Administration announced its
opposition to the bill,[33] and SD spokesman Charles Redman called the bill
"premature".[34] The Administration works with House opponents to a House
companion bill, and after numerous legislation compromises and
end-of-session haggling, the Senate bill died "on the last day of the
legislative session".[35]
According to a 15 September news report, Reagan Administration officials
stated that the U.S. intercepted Iraqi military communications marking Iraq'
s CW attacks on Kurds.[36]
U.S. intelligence reported in 1991 that the U.S. helicopters sold to Iraq in
1983 were used in 1988 to spray Kurds with chemicals.[37]
"Reagan administration records show that between September and December
1988, 65 licenses were granted for dual-use technology exports. This
averages out as an annual rate of 260 licenses, more than double the rate
for January through August 1988."[38]
A general note about the Security Council's reaction to Iraq's CW use.
Between 1984 and the implementation of the ceasefire on 20 August 1988 the
UN Security Council passed six resolutions directly or indirectly related to
the "situation between Iran and Iraq." In 1984, Security Council Resolution
(SCR) 552 "condemns [Iran's] recent attack on commercial ship en route to
and from ports of Kuwait and Saudi Arabia"[39] but it did not pass a
resolution on the Iran-Iraq War generally or the UN expert mission's
chemical weapons March findings specifically. During all of 1985 the
Security Council did not pass a resolution on the "situation between Iran
and Iraq" or Iraq's chemical weapons use therein. Although the UN's expert
mission concluded in March 1986 that Iraq used chemical weapons on Iranian
troops,[40] SCR 582 (1986) symmetrically noted "that both the Islamic
Republic of Iran and Iraq are parties to the Protocol for the Prohibition of
the Use in War of Asphyxiating, Poisonous and Other Gases, and of
Bacteriological Methods of Warfare signed at Geneva on 7 June 1925"[41] and
"deplores...in particular the use of chemical weapons contrary to
obligations under the 1925 Protocol".[42] Resolution 588 (1986) did not
mention chemical weapons.[43] In 20 July 1987, SCR 598 again deplored "in
particular the use chemical weapons contrary to obligations of the 1925
Protocol",[44] but does not elaborate. After considering the expert
mission's 25 April 1988 report, the Security Council in Resolution 612 is
"dismayed" by chemical weapons' continued use and "more intensive
scale".[45] Furthermore, the Council "affirms the necessity that" both
parties observe the 1925 Geneva Protocol, "condemns vigorously the continued
use of chemical weapons" and "expects both sides to refrain from the future
use of chemical weapons".[46] SCR 619 (1988) focused on implementing the
United Nations Iran-Iraq Military Observer Group and did not mention
chemical weapons.[47] After the ceasefire, the Security Council considered
the reports of the expert missions from 20-25 July and 2-19 August 1988 and
stated in SCR 620 that it is "deeply dismayed" by the "continued use of
chemical weapons" and that "such use against Iranians has become more
intense and frequent".[48] Despite identifying Iranians as more frequent
chemical weapons targets, the Security Council did not condemn Iraq. Rather,
the Security Council "condemns resolutely the use of chemical weapons in the
conflict between the Islamic Republic of Iran and Iraq"[49]. All of the
subsequent four resolutions, passed between 1989-1990 and relevant to "the
situation between Iran and Iraq," pertained to the United Nations Iran-Iraq
Military Observer Group and as such omitted any reference to chemical
weapons use.[50]

The Security Council could only condemn Iraq by name for using chemical
weapons through non-binding Presidential statements, over which permanent
members of the Security Council do not have an individual veto. On 21 March
1986, the Security Council President, making a "declaration" and "speaking
on behalf of the Security Council," stated that the Council members are
"profoundly concerned by the unanimous conclusion of the specialists that
chemical weapons on many occasions have been used by Iraqi forces against
Iranian troops...[and] the members of the Council strongly condemn this
continued use of chemical weapons in clear violation of the Geneva Protocol
of 1925 which prohibits the use in war of chemical weapons".[51] The US
voted against the issuance of this statement, and the UK, Australia, France
and Denmark abstained. However, the concurring votes of the other ten
members of the Security Council ensured that this statement constituted the
first criticism of Iraq by the Security Council. A similar Presidential
statement was made on 14 May 1987, which noted that the Council was "deeply
dismayed" about the CW use against Iranian forces and civilians.

1989
In March, CIA director William Webster testified before Congress that Iraq
was the largest CW producer in the world.[52]
James Baker received an SD memo stating that Iraq was diligently developing
chemical, biological, and new missiles, and that Baker was to "express our
interest in broadening U.S.-Iraqi ties" to Iraqi Under-Secretary
Hamdoon.[53]
Although the CIA and the Bush Administrati