Well apart from when they’re shot
I found this buried in your article:
When y’all get evidence of the CNN completely fabricating all of the warm receptions Americans received, give me a ring.
:: Notes down “One shithead does not make dungheap.” ::
Well, you know, there’s something not quite right about the way the flags hang … and the shadow on the surface wouldn’t be at that angle if … and what about the reflection in the eyes of some of those celebrating … to paraphrase the administration; prove to the world with clear unambiguous evidence the images of celebrating Iraqi’s are not false ?
“French Russians”??
Coming up-e agreat debate: french or russian dressing, which better?
Donald Rumsfeld is German?!
from another thread:
rjung, replying to december also disbelieving that the US sold Saddam the weapons:
Records Show US Sent Biological Weapons Germs to Iraq
by Matt Kelley, Associated Press
WASHINGTON –– Iraq’s bioweapons program that President Bush wants to eradicate got its start with help from Uncle Sam two decades ago, according to government records getting new scrutiny in light of the discussion of war against Iraq.
The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention sent samples directly to several Iraqi sites that U.N. weapons inspectors determined were part of Saddam Hussein’s biological weapons program, CDC and congressional records from the early 1990s show. Iraq had ordered the samples, claiming it needed them for legitimate medical research.
The CDC and a biological sample company, the American Type Culture Collection, sent strains of all the germs Iraq used to make weapons, including anthrax, the bacteria that make botulinum toxin and the germs that cause gas gangrene, the records show. Iraq also got samples of other deadly pathogens, including the West Nile virus.
The transfers came in the 1980s, when the United States supported Iraq in its war against Iran.
…
How Did Iraq Get Its Weapons? We Sold Them
by Neil Mackay and Felicity Arbuthnot, Sunday Herald (Scotland)
THE US and Britain sold Saddam Hussein the technology and materials Iraq needed to develop nuclear, chemical and biological weapons of mass destruction.
Reports by the US Senate’s committee on banking, housing and urban affairs – which oversees American exports policy – reveal that the US, under the successive administrations of Ronald Reagan and George Bush Sr, sold materials including anthrax, VX nerve gas, West Nile fever germs and botulism to Iraq right up until March 1992, as well as germs similar to tuberculosis and pneumonia. Other bacteria sold included brucella melitensis, which damages major organs, and clostridium perfringens, which causes gas gangrene.
Classified US Defense Department documents also seen by the Sunday Herald show that Britain sold Iraq the drug pralidoxine, an antidote to nerve gas, in March 1992, after the end of the Gulf war. Pralidoxine can be reverse engineered to create nerve gas.
The Senate committee’s reports on ‘US Chemical and Biological Warfare-Related Dual-Use Exports to Iraq’, undertaken in 1992 in the wake of the Gulf war, give the date and destination of all US exports. The reports show, for example, that on May 2, 1986, two batches of bacillus anthracis – the micro-organism that causes anthrax – were shipped to the Iraqi Ministry of Higher Education, along with two batches of the bacterium clostridium botulinum, the agent that causes deadly botulism poisoning.
One batch each of salmonella and E coli were shipped to the Iraqi State Company for Drug Industries on August 31, 1987. Other shipments went from the US to the Iraq Atomic Energy Commission on July 11, 1988; the Department of Biology at the University of Basrah in November 1989; the Department of Microbiology at Baghdad University in June 1985; the Ministry of Health in April 1985 and Officers’ City, a military complex in Baghdad, in March and April 1986.
The shipments to Iraq went on even after Saddam Hussein ordered the gassing of the Kurdish town of Halabja, in which at least 5000 men, women and children died. The atrocity, which shocked the world, took place in March 1988, but a month later the components and materials of weapons of mass destruction were continuing to arrive in Baghdad from the US.
But of course the Iraqis are celebrating. Why wouldn’t they. Let’s look at the timeline of events:
From the end WWI to the buildup preceding WWII, Iraq was under British control by League of Nations mandate. The British installed monarchy and strong arm tactics fueled strong anti-western sentiment. [It always begins with the British and their pals at the League of Nations, doesn’t it?]
Coups were attempted in ’58, ’63, ‘and ’68. Not coincidently, a young Saddam was a decision maker in all three. Although only a deputy following the success of the ’68 coup, Saddam built a ruthless and pervasive government security force. More on this in a few years.
A lucrative deal with the Soviet Union in 1972 and souring oil prices allowed Iraq to thrive, achieving one of the highest standards of living in the Middle East.
The infamous Shah of Iran, with US backing, instigated a Kurdish revolt in 1974. No comment on the possible cold war motivations, you can interpret the facts as you see fit. The backing was insufficient, and the uprising was brutally but down.
Between 1978 and 1979 things take a turn for the surreal, and a nation with an admirable standard of living is about to revisit the dark ages. Saddam consolidates power, forces his predecessor to retire, and makes opposition a crime punishable by death. Of course dozens of political figures were grandfathered into violation, and were asked to take a dirt nap.
In 1980 Iraq enters a decade long war with neighboring Iran. The standard of living plummets. There are not enough facts to state with certainty why Saddam received a degree of support from the west, but it is curious considering his actions the previous two years.
Through 1988, Iraq experimented with chemical weapons in the Iran war. In 1988, the much publicized gassing of 5000 Kurds raised eyebrows in the west, but little action was taken. Much less publicity is given to the estimated 50,000 northern Iraqis and Kurds who vanished during the Anfal offensive. 50,000. Western reaction was limited to ceasing the supply of arms [we think]; there does not seem to be an Arab reaction. The average Iraqi must have felt caught between the devil and the deep blue sea. Up to this time western nations, in an apparent turn around from the events of 1974, had been supplying Iraq. It also came to light that the US was also furtively supplying Iran – which strained relations all around.
In 1991 Iraq invades neighboring Kuwait. Motivation is uncertain, but Iraq did have some 400Bn in war debt to shoulder (some to Kuwait itself). The Iraq / Kuwait border was a League of Nations invention that was never truly accepted, and vast oil reserves straddle the border – revenue for whoever draws it first and faster. It’s not surprising that the invasion drew a reaction from the UN, but what is surprising is how little reaction there was during the Anfal offensive and bloody war with Iran.
By the ceasefire of 1991, some 60,000 Iraqi soldier had been killed, and the already destitute civilians, in addition to suffering ‘collateral damage’ of their own, had been blasted further back into economic ruin. To add insult, war reparations were stacked on war debt.
In the months following the war, there were uprisings and requests for aid from the US. Kurds, Shia, and other non-denominational opponents of the regime were bid “take matters into their own hands,” and were summarily slaughtered. 30,000 to 60,000 lives were lost.
The UN didn’t turn a blind eye to these atrocities or lack of cooperation in disarmament. No, the idea of sanctions was pushed forward. Saddam’s regime was just a bit too savvy to be hindered by such a blunt tool, and the brunt of the hardship was borne by the average Iraqi. It’s difficult to separate the effect of sanctions from other effects, but Unicef reports a doubling of infant mortality during this time period.
The Food for Oil program didn’t get food into Iraq until 1997, and has been roundly criticized for not doing enough, nor even ensuring supplies make it to the general population and are not shunted directly into the ruling Baath party.
In 2003, with inspectors in place and a UN resolution pending a vote, the country who had been reported to have 90% of its ability to wage war destroyed was invaded again due to fears over its ability to wage war. Over-running Saddam’s forces was never really in doubt, and few could argue the country is not better without him, but the methods were again blunt and Iraqi civilians (as well as unwilling conscripts) suffered the most.
After the ousting of the Baath party, a number of civilians celebrated, but looting was mixed with celebration, and US and British forces were unwilling or unable to quell the raids. In addition to more mundane targets, necessary services were rendered inoperable, including hospitals. No longer collateral damage, civilians died simply because order was lacking. US forces were able to secure several oil fields during this period, calling the activity a “top priority”.
We don’t need to bicker about where revelers got their flags, or if crowds only perform when cameras are about, or if Iraqis are relieved that they can voice their opinion, or whose idea it was to pull down a statue. They are all moot discussions. The simple reality is that the average Iraqi has been caught in a grinding wheel for decades, and every attempt to extricate them has been ill-conceived and ham-fisted. So Saddam is gone. Good. Now let’s stock the freaking hospitals and pick up the un-exploded cluster bombs so that maybe the next generation doesn’t have to live in fear.
Can a atheist say AMEN?
There is a different perspective on the crowds of jubilant Iraqis here:
http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article2842.htm
Not an unbiased site, by any means. It does, however, provide a different perspective and the images certainly paint a different picture than the one most of the main US media outlets prtrayed.
And rightly so. Do you understand the consequences to Iraq’s future had the oil fields been destroyed?
Halliburton would have cancelled it’s rebuilding contracts?
(kind of)
Glee, do you even pretend to care about the difference between providing WMD and providing technology that has a different purpose but was misused to produce WMD? Because if you don’t, I suggest you start a class action suit against U.S. Steel, after all, thousands of people have died in the last ten years from steel that they produced that happened to be made into guns, it’s clearly their fault.
Lib,
If I were assigning priorities, I would have set the safety and well being of civilians first, secured non-strategic targets at some point afterward. Was there a threat to the wells that made it impossible to establish order first? I certainly have the impression that their status wasn’t going to change that quickly. If it were, why not do both? Well, for starters, there probably weren’t enough men, but the number of troops and the scope of their duties was decided beforehand and very much in control of the planners. Had it been seen as important, it could have been done.
Now let me ask you a question: What are the implications of allowing that brief moment when there appeared to genuine appreciation for US efforts to pass amid the chaos, and turn to anger and frustration?
Not to worry, he’s been stamping out the economy for two years, already.
sniff
At least tomndebb appreciates me…
You have a strange way of looking at things.
-
This thread is a sarcastic parody. (There are plenty of other threads if you want to discuss WMD supplies.)
-
While reading about coalition troops watching looters destroy Iraqi museums (incidentally how many countries make a coalition? :rolleyes: ) I was struck by an amusing phrase in the original about ‘preserving relics’. So, in the spirit of the thread, I popped in a comment.
-
Libertarian objected and raised the subject of the gas killings. He seemed to have no idea that the US sold Saddam the stuff and then backed him using it in the Iran - Iraq war (because the US were concerned about the Iranian theocracy taking over the region.)
Apparently you don’t either. -
You are saying that Rumsfeld sold Saddam chemical and biological equipment because he thought it would be used for innocent research?!
Unbelievable.
From my earlier post:
’The shipments to Iraq went on even after Saddam Hussein ordered the gassing of the Kurdish town of Halabja, in which at least 5000 men, women and children died. The atrocity, which shocked the world, took place in March 1988, but a month later the components and materials of weapons of mass destruction were continuing to arrive in Baghdad from the US.'
So presumably you think the US administration had **no idea **that Saddam was going to misuse their deadly supplies. :wally -
Saying I should start a lawsuit against US steel may be the biggest strawman I have ever seen.
I would be quite happy to ban weapon sales to dictators who will then use them to oppress their population, or to invade their neighbours.
Would you agree?
Do you think the US should ban the use of landmines and cluster bombs?
Or do you not care about civilians?