We didn't give the same dollar value in weapons to Saddam. A MiG is worth much much more than a strain of anthrax.
But in terms of devestation and what Saddam used to brutally kill people with, we are the main culprit.

We supplied him with:
Anthrax, Botulism, Megaterium, Bacillus Subtilis, Brucella, Cholera, E Coli, Bhania Virus, Dongua Virus, Hazara Virus, Kemeroud Virus, Langat Virus, Sandfly Fever, Sindbis Virus, Tahyna Virus, Thgoto Virus, West Nile Virus.
http://www.fas.org/irp/congress/2002_cr/s092002.html

We shipped them mustard gas components right after they had finished killing over 40,000 people with the stuff, that we knew of.
http://www.rehberg.net/arming-iraq.html
This mustard gas that WE shipped them is one of the weapons Saddam used to create the corpses that fill the mass graves that we are so outraged over now.

We enabled them throughout the 1980's to continue it by beating back the UN who tried numerous times to censure Iraq for its use of WMD.
http://www.casi.org.uk/info/usdocs/usiraq80s90s.html
http://hnn.us/comments/9046.html

And finally we gave them the green light to start the first Gulf War.
http://www.chss.montclair.edu/english/furr/glaspie.html

No, strictly on the weight of capital, we didn't "arm saddam". But in terms of lethality, Saddams known use, and brutalness. America armed Saddam.
France, Russia, America. All bastards.
But all I care about is America, because this is my country. And this is the one I can help change directly. We gave weapons knowingly, we gave them the tools to kill hundreds of thousands.
That's what I really care about.

The German newspaper Die Tageszeitung reported that only 3,000 pages of the original report were given to the rest of the council. This was reported on March 7th, 2003. Go have a look through their archives if you wish. http://www.taz.de/

Here's a few links that show that the US was indeed planning on censoring much of the report. They claimed to do this because they were worried it would act as a proliferation manual for other aspiring nuclear states. And then 8,000 pages...dissapeared. Copies of the original document obtained by news sources led to the publication of those American companies that were involved, as listed several times above.

http://www.useu.be/Categories/Global...nspectors.html

http://www.cnn.com/2002/US/12/09/spr...irq.documents/

SLM3

So you are them saying that he HAS WMDs? Which one is it Superbelt? None of this stuff was reported destroyed and yet you say he had them? So I dont understand. You said numerous time he didnt have any of these thngs, now you say he did. WHich one was it?

You keep trying to "catch" people in this little trap of yours.

It doesn't work. We gave him this stuff throughout the 1980's.
We launched 200 tomahawks at different facilities during Operation Desert Fox, as Rush called it, Operation Wag the Dog. It's purpose was to destroy the WMD. It was successful upwards of 95% or more according to all the security and weapons experts and CIA intelligence.

The rest can be accounted for as degrading. Without all the infrastructure, viruses die off in several months. Chemicals break down in several months to years.

Without material support and the proper facilities, he lost it all.
Saddam had nothing left.
We. Have. Found. Nothing.

Nothing but Crimean Congo Hemorrage Fever. Or are you of Strange Famous's idea that he was working on a cure to sell to ailing nations?

Well so far Superbelt we have found he was ready to start a full fledged program as soon as your buddies the French and Germans got the sanctions lifted. Also ALL the missing anthrax would fit into a back of a rider truck, how hard do you think that would be to hide?

You can whine all you want but while you condem the US you say nothing to those who supplied him with conventional weapons while he was filling mass graves.

Had your choise of administration been in power he would be free to continue to kill and more importantly threaten that area of the world. Luckly your choise is still whining about Florida.

Strange you bring that up again.
I was thinking of calling you out on this thread about that claim you made and never backed up. I decided against it.
http://www.tfproject.org/tfp/showthr...threadid=39998

But you can do it here if you like.

If they DO have it, it is very likely they are working on a cure.
There is a problem of that disease over there.

http://www.deploymenthealth.mil/depl...ar/crimean.asp

It is a problem because the Iraqi ticks over there are infected with it.

So, can you provide ANY Proof that Saddam had WMD when we went to war. Can you show me that we have found ANY WMD whatsoever?

You are still working with an absence of proof here.

Also, ALL that missing anthrax, would have been dead for years. So where it is, is in a state of decomposition.

http://www.cia.gov/cia/public_affair..._10022003.html

Its the Kay report... read it.

I've read the Kay report. It basically says, We didn't find evidence of shit, except for a few vials of botulin.

And I can grow botulisim in my refigerator in a few weeks, without even trying.

Ummm you dont' know much about bacteria spores do you. Spores are viable for decades at least, and perhaps much longer.

I thought you would have learned this lesson in the global warming thread. Check your scientific facts before posting.

Just a random cut and paste from the Kay report. You saying we haven't found shit only proves to me once and for all you don't care about facts, only idiology.

If the Kay Report had clear evidence that Iraq had WMD's directly before the US invasion, why isn't the current adminstration shouting that from the highest clocktower ?

Anthrax can stay viable for a long time, even years.

But not from 1998, which is when all WMD programs were halted by Operation Desert Fox, to the present. That's 5 full years. The anthrax, if any survived the bombings, has been dead for years now without a laboratory to keep growing new strains safely.

They didnt have it untill after we went in. And its only in its third month so I am sure it will only get longer.

Again Ignoring the Crimean Congo Hemorage Fever. Why is that?

Why are you saying he ignored it when he specifically discussed it AND provided a link to more information?

SLM3

Was there something special about 1998 which makes all anthrax spores die?

Anthrax spores live for decades , .

You get live anthrax from said spores (biology 102) even if Clinton's missle attack destroyed every lab and every live strain (laughable) all it would take would be a handfull of spores to start over.

Why was it not reported to the UN then? Why was it in a secret lab? Not in a legitimate hospital?

PS the link is broken.

Link is fine.



SLM3

This broken link?

http://www.deploymenthealth.mil/dep...war/crimean.asp

Thanks for clearing up why this vaccine was reported to the UN......:rolleyes:

link works here, too

gotta be smarter than the mouse pointer, I guess...

Dont see it. Still broken.


And I dont see anyone fighting to explain why none of this was reported to the UN.

Click, don't copy and paste.

http://www.deploymenthealth.mil/depl...ar/crimean.asp

Again, why was this not found in hospitals, and why was it not reported to the UN? Third time I asked, third time you dodged.

PS I would love your take on why its ok for Saddam to have those rockets that were in violation of the UN treaty he signed. I

You're reaching, now. Of all the means of destruction we've discussed, this is the one thing you're left with, and it's very shaky at that.

What are you trying to prove? It's a fact that Iraq had reported cases yet you're convinced they were trying to use the virus as a weapon as opposed to finding a cure for their people. You've already made up your mind, so really, what's the point in arguing?

Maybe they reported it, maybe they didn't, I don't know. Beyond your word, you haven't proven anything.


SLM3

I'd love to see you participate in a thread without creating arguments to suit you.

Seriously, are you infering that I think it's ok that he had any such rockets? Where do you come up with this stuff?


SLM3

Yes I believe that Saddam murderer of 3 million people was secretly, without disclosing information to anyone, working on a cure. Its so like everything we know about him. And they DIDNT report it, thats why its in the kay report. Why are all the other dieasses that are in IRaq not on the Kay report list? Surely there are other infections that plauge IRaq? Why CCHF goes unreported and listed on the report? Why single out this ? Why cause of it being unreported and the type of research that was discovered with it, and what was found with it.

You repeated that he had nothing, and yet you are wrong. What else am I to infer? You are quick to defend Saddam at every oppurtonity. So I am following the pattern that you weave.

Ok, I read the part in the Kay report on CCHF and he says they found research on the virus. Research. So, they didn't even have anything beyond stuff written on paper?

Geez, I should have read this earlier. This discussion is suddenly a greater waste of time than it was before.

Are you basing your argument on research on a virus that was affecting Iraqi people and not some sort of diabolical biological weapon?



SLM3

Where have I said he had nothing? Where have I defended him?


Show me.


SLM3

Ustwo, what is special about 1998 is Operation Desert Fox.
Most accounts say we destroyed 95% or greater of all wmd's in Iraq. Plus we destroyed all the programs.

So there was no means to safely handle or create any new anthrax spores.

Anthrax spores survive for decades? What I have seen say they only survive for a couple of years at best in a laboratory environment.

They can survive for 60 years or more, but only when left in the environment. In a lab, or controlled setting, they have a short shelf life.

Try this link Endymon, for CCHFDeployment Health

Where are you getting these numbers?

The account from the commander who directed Desert Fox, Marine General Anthony Zinni, says Desert Fox was 74% successful.
(http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv...tary122298.htm)

Also at http://www.cnn.com/US/9812/21/iraq.us.forces/ and http://www.defenselink.mil/news/Dec1...t1221fox.html.

These numbers were also correlated with Air Marshall John Day's statements, at http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/events/cr...ws/238605.stm.

And from http://www.fas.org/news/iraq/2000/02..._t0201asd.htm, regarding WMD targets:

Here is the list of WMD targets (all defined as "hit"):
- Biological Research Center (Baghdad University)
- Ibn al Haytham missile R&D center
- Karama electronics plant
- Al Kindi missile R&D facility (Mosul)
- Shahiyat liquid engine R&D, T&E facility
- Zaafaraniyah fabrication facility (Nidda)

and WMD-related (defined as "WMD Security" and all hit as well)
- Directorate of General Security headquarters
- Special Security Organization (SS0) headquarters
- Special Republican Guards (SRG) headquarters
- SSO Communications/Computer Center
- SSO/SRG barracks (Abu Ghraib, Radwinyah, Baghdad, Tikrit)

The same source quotes General Zinni again,
(http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv...q/analysis.htm)

From the above information I am not sure how it is possible that we know that Desert Fox destroyed 95% or greater of all WMDs in Iraq as well as the programs. We know we didn't hit everything, and we know we weren't even close to hitting everything. But, in my opinion, the political pressure on Clinton (the "Wag the Dog" nonsense) caused severely limited Desert Fox. Though, one wonders, why Clinton ordered the attack on such short notice. With all he had been through, surely he could have endured the political pressure for just a short while longer.

To the best of my knowledge, the 95% of WMD destroyed claim comes from Scott Ritter,
(http://www.commondreams.org/views02/0901-02.htm)

-- Alvin

You can't honestly believe that. Without the conventional army in place, Saddam could not terrorize a country of greater than 25 million people. The invasion of Kuwait was not possible with only the chemicals we sold him, after all. In terms of devastation and what Saddam used to brutally kill people with, his army cleared out far more than WMD. All bastards, yes, but a fallacy to claim that we are more culpable than France, Germany, or Russia. I will take equally culpable (all sins are equal), but not more.

(http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/3253783.stm)

The attacks on the Kurds (note chemical weapons are directly addressed), the crushing of revolts -- all done with conventional weapons, with a large state army. The bullet holes in their heads came from Saddam's state army. The artillery and missiles delivering "our" WMD must be from a (conventional) state army as well. 40,000 is horrific. 300,000, equally horrific. Or maybe more horrific? Is it possible?

I suppose you mean to say we were culpable in arming Saddam, and thus we should not have liberated Iraq.

-- Alvin

I don't think Zinni and Day's accounts contradict what Ritter and the UN Weapons inspectors say. Just because only 74% of targets were neutralized doesn't mean an equal percentage of the WMD were spread out among all the targets.

I believe the 90 - 95+% could still be spot on. Especially since they were on the ground afterwards to verify everything while the US military was not.

Onto your second point, you're right, and I should correct myself. We are all equally culpable for the enabling we did for Iraq through the decades.

I've never thought this. I think what we did, it was honorable. I thin that Iraq basically comes down to being our responsibility since we did arm him with much of what he has used. I think the means through which we did it were utterly wrong though. We wen't in basically, because of the spectre of a nuclear bomb being able to be flown to america on drone aircraft. It was national security plain and simple. Not humanitarianism.

I am appalled by our methods, Even though the basic outcome of Saddam being ousted is absolutely good.

If we had decided to enter Iraq based entirely on humanitarian concerns, I could have supported it, and many other nations would have as well. We went in basically alone because the argument turned into "You're either with us or against us, and we are doing this for Americas security."

Ummm a spore, which is inert, can survive for decades OUTSIDE but not INSIDE?

I give up.

Right -- that's why I included the second half of the post, which showed that #1) we didn't target all the sites (none of the WMD storage sites, for example) and #2) we didn't even try to target suspected sites.

From an address to the House of Commons (http://www.fas.org/news/iraq/2000/07/0041913.htm), the first specific objective is "To degrade Saddam's WMD capabilities including his concealment organisation." Degrade -- not destroy. This is confirmed in the damage assessment done by the US Military, reproduced in http://www.csis.org/stratassessment/...DesertFox.pdf. (Table III)

Focusing on WMD industry alone, out of 11 targets, 4 received light damage, 5 moderate, 1 severe, and 0 destroyed. 1 was still being assessed, so we'll count that destroyed. On WMD Security, 5 light, 6 moderate, 5 severe, 2 destroyed. This is nowhere near 90-95% of their capability destroyed, or even severely curtailed. (We were more successful with Command and Control targets, destroying at least 7 of 20 targets)

We didn't target everything, and we sure didn't destroy everything we targeted. This is because that was not the objective of Desert Fox. Unless you read Joe Conason or Sidney Blumenthal or the like, you know this was the case. Clinton himself on December 19, 1998 (two days after bombing started):
The first sentence is key -- degrade, not destroy. In this measure Desert Fox was a success. You'll get no argument from me -- I supported Desert Fox, and $400 million of ordnance goes a long way.

But to say that we set out and destroyed 90-95% of Iraq's WMD capability contradicts both the intent and the end result of the mission.

Ritter could not have possibly confirmed the effectiveness of Desert Fox -- he resigned in August 1998, and Desert Fox began December 17, 1998. He did return to Iraq (in 2000), but to film a documentary.

-- Alvin

EDIT: Incorrect date (December 19, 1999 changed to December 19, 1998)

I am not a microbiologist, but a link off the a CDC website to the Journal of the American Medical Association (JAMA) http://jama.ama-assn.org/cgi/content/full/281/18/1735? is referenced to make this statement,

(http://www.bact.wisc.edu/Bact330/lectureanthrax)

As far as I can tell this means that it is possible to store weaponized anthrax for decades. But, I am not a microbiologist.

-- Alvin

As Artie Johnson used to say, "Very Interesting..."