Who Armed Saddam?
 

Lets end this lie that the Americans Armed Saddam

The main sources for the below are the Desert Shield Fact Book (Frank Chadwick, Loren Wiseman et al, GDW 1991) and the Gulf War Fact Book (Frank Chadwick, Matt Caffrey et al, GDW 1991). Equipment will be listed by category, along with the nation of origin. For those scoring at home, items of AMERICAN origin will be highlighted thusly, and of European (FRANCE) likewise. As of 90/91, Iraq had the following:

Aircraft
MiG-29s - 70 (Soviet)
Mig-25s - 18 (Soviet)
MiG-23s - 20 (Soviet)
MiG-21s - 105 (Soviet)
F-7s - 20 (Red China)
MiG-17s - 30 (Soviet)
Su-25s - 20 (Soviet)
Su-20s - 30 (Soviet)
Su-7s - 50 (Soviet)
F-6s - 20 (Red China)
Su-24s - 10 (Soviet)
Mirage F1s - 100 (FRANCE)
MiG-23/27s - 70 (Soviet)
Il-20s - 10 (Soviet)
Tu-22s - 7 (Soviet)
Tu-16s -12 (Soviet)

Armored Vehicles
T-54/55 - 1400 (Soviet)
Type 59 - 500 (Red China)
Type 69 - 1000 (Red China)
T-62 - 1600 (Soviet)
T-72 - 1000 (Soviet)

IFVs, armored recon vehicles, and APCs - 9000 total, aprox (biggest component BTR - 60s); no precise breakdown but consist of:

EE-3 (Brazil)
EE-9 (Brazil)
EE-11 (Brazil)
ERC-90 (FRANCE)
AML-60 (FRANCE)
AML-90 (FRANCE)
Panhard M-3 (FRANCE)
FUG-70 (Hungary)
BRDM-2 (Soviet)
BTR-40 (Soviet)
BTR-50 (Soviet)
BTR-60 (Soviet)
BMP-1 (Soviet)
Type 63 (China)
OT-62 (Czechoslovakia)
OT-63 (Czechoslovakia)
BVP-1 (Czechoslovakia)
Walid (Egypt)

Navy
Interesting to note, at the time Iraq had 13 modern ships on order from ITALY

Artillery
G-5 155mm (South Africa)
GHN-45 155mm (AUSTRIA)
Astros-II SS-30 MRL (Brazil)
Astros-II SS-40 MRL (Brazil)
M56 105mm (BRITAIN)
D-74 122mm (Soviet)
D-30 122mm (Soviet)
2S1 122mm (Soviet)
2S3 152mm (Soviet)
M1937 152mm (Soviet)
M1938 122mm (Soviet)
M1939 37mm (Soviet)
M1943 152mm (Soviet)
M-1975 122mm MRL (Soviet)
BM-21 122mm MRL (Soviet)
BM-13 132mm MRL (Soviet)
S-23 180mm (Soviet)
ZSU-23-4 23mm (Soviet)
ZSU-57-2 (Soviet)
ZU-23 23mm (Soviet)
"Majnoon" 155mm (Iraq/Gerald Bull of CANADA)
"Al Fao" 210mm (Iraq/Gerald Bull of CANADA)
82 mm Mortar (Soviet)
SA-2 SAM (Soviet)
SA-3 SAM (Soviet)
SA-6 SAM (Soviet)
SA-7 SAM (Soviet)
SA-13 SAM (Soviet)

Small Arms
AK-47 (Soviet)
RPK (Soviet)
RPG-7 (Soviet)

Clearly, the vast majority of Iraq's weapons came from the Soviet Union and other Communist nations. Behind them, however, it's largely European countries that armed Iraq. The best I can tell, the U.S. provided Iraq with some spare parts for systems Iraq acquired elsewhere, relatively trivial support compared with even what France provided (much less the Soviets). Even on the level of parts and logistical support, America's contribution was small compared with that supplied by those nations. Hysterical reports to the contrary of how America armed Saddam are belied by the facts of Iraq's TO&E on the eve of the Gulf War. Therefore, it is deceptive to the point of dishonesty for anyone - especially anyone from Europe - to say America armed Iraq. People are only able to get away with this like they do with inflated civilian casualty figures for the Afghanistan campaign - feeding off of people's ignorance. The ignorant then take the accusation at face value and pass it on.
In the key period between 1973-91 the US exported a mere $5 million of weapons to Iraq; more reprehensibly the UK sold $330 million-worth of arms. Of much greater interest are the arms export totals to Iraq of the four countries most against military action: Germany with $995 million, China $5,500 million, France $9,240 million, and the Russians a massive $31,800 million. So the claim that we armed Saddam has to be treated with a degree of care, particularly by those who would award the moral high ground in this debate to the leaders of nations such as Germany, France and Russia.

You dont believe me here is a link to the Stockholm International Peace Research Institute. I cant cut and paste it for some reason.
http://projects.sipri.se/armstrade/T...Imps_73-02.pdf


Dont you think it odd that the four major nations opposing the war had the most invested in Saddam's army?

Might I add that the countries that had most to gain from not going to war, but from lifting of the UN sanctions instead were, in no particular order: France, Germany, Russia and China. (mostly thanks to lucrative oil deals)

(sorry, had to be said)

But one might argue that Iraq was simply very good at playing political-economical games to drive her enemies against another. The constant in-fighting at the UN kept him in power for a loooooong time.

I was under the understanding that US support for Iraq was not in the equipment department, but rather in chemical and biological weapons.

For instance:
(from http://www.somalilandtimes.net/2003/60/6020.htm)

and from the Washington Post (downloaded from http://www.jonathanpollard.org/2002/123002.htm):
and (from http://www.sfbg.com/News/32/21/Features/iraq.html):

I agree that the "The US armed Iraq" argument is a bit silly because lots of other countries were also complicit -- but the US should still acknowledge that it played a role as well as other countries. It is ironic that the alleged WMD programs that justify our occupation of Iraq were founded on technology sold by US corporations with US government approval.

So you are then saying that Iraq DOES have WMD?

lordjeebus, looking at the big picture, it seems that, again, the US is hardly a big player in the Iraqi WMD area. German companies build the chemical plants that made Saddam's nerve gas; French companies build the nuclear power plant that might have led to the Iraqi's having nukes (if Israel hadn't blown up said plant). Apparently, Russia later build *another* nuclear power plant for them.

If I'm not mistaken, the US "merely" supplied Iraq with reverence strains of biological agents. Nasty of course, but not something those other countries were unable or unwilling to do, I'd imagine.

In short, your claim that "the WMD programs ... were founded on technology sold by US corporations with US government approval" is clearly inaccurate (at the very least). Biological weapons programs, maybe; but chemical and nuclear weapons programs were not based on technology supplied by the US. Well, unless you count the Manhatten project as a direct source for Iraqi WMDs; and even that was initiated by an European (Einstein)... :)

German factories may have made the nerve gas for saddam but the US and the rest of the world turned a blind eye to its use. the list doesn't mean these countries supplied the weapons to Iraq the black market is so vast that people can get anything they do not need to go to the country where it was made. go to Mogadishu and find anything you want.

The Orweillian nature of thsi thread astounds me. The logic here astounds me. No one defends France, Russia et al. for selling weapons to Iraq. But to somehow infer that because they might have sold more than the US so what the US did was ok or not as bad is simply rediculous. Are you really assigning levels of guilt dependant on who sold more chemical weapons than the other?!

The selective nature of your little list is also very suspect. According to the Iraq Weapons Dossier Report (remember that 12,000 page document?), several (more than 20) US companies were identified for their involvement in arming Iraq. And that's not just chemical or nuclear programs (like that's somehow not as bad, ok guys). There's Honeywell, Spectra Physics, Semetex, TI Coating, Unisys, Sperry Corp, just to name a few who all helped supply rocket programs as well as conventional weapons and military logistics.

According to the German Press Agency DPA, the dossier report was reduced from 12,000 pages to 3,000 pages and it was this truncated version that was given to Non-permanent members on the Security Council.

Ya know, as much as I'd love to put all my faith in your source, the fact that it was written as part of a war game casts a shadow upon it.


SLM3

it does seem like a very suspect list, the US funded the mujahadeen in Afghanistan with money and weapons,

Iraq DID have WMD. Most were destroyed by inspectors and bombing (I think it started on Dec. 15, 1997,) anything that wasn't disarmed or destroyed was forgotten about or lost.

We supplied them with the gas that was repeatedly used on the Kurds, we smoothed things over when people got pissed about Saddam's use of WMD. Then, like the parent who confiscates a kid's BB gun when he starts shooting the other kids with it, we got rid of what we had given him.

Let's put it this way.
Yes, the US unfortunately funded and/or helped the Iraqi war-machine.
As did many OTHER nations, including many who also profited from Iraq
and then protested the war against them.

Iraq was found in the past to have had WMD,
and it's willingness to use them.

Considering it invaded another country,
and then didn't comply on several terms with its first surrender by UN definition
and intelligence was showed that Iraq was continuing to research
and "perhaps" develop WMD on top of it arsenal then (whether valid or not)

Then all things considered, both past & present
violations, attitude, aggressions, actions (against outside & internal civilians)
It was decided it was best to pop a potentially festering sore.
That by past action showed that it was more than likely to NOT be benign.

Same reason we went into Kosovo.
The unstability in either area,
had the ability to pull our nation into major conflicts & wars and the greater international community too.
Both have done so in the past, and then with great potential in the future.

The current administration decide to head it off aggressively,
rather than being passive and letting it grow.
(although I disagreed with their international relations diplomacy)

And it acknowledged the past mistake of feeding that growth,
and took action to correct its mistake.
Simple.

Other nations decide to let it just be, and continue to make profits from it.
And even now, they are trying to get back into the deal.

Let's remember the decisions of ALL nations made are first for strength,
the rationalization after is that "value-based" rhetoric.
And hell, if it "promotes" your way of living...even better.

No one is innocent here.

Nice post Rogue

And the mujahedeen fought againts soviet invaders, legitimate military targets. This means that they were not, terrorists, as the current meme by the likes of Michael Moore like to keep spewing. Terrorists dont fight legitimate military targets.

By the way, you are the first person to call the SPRI a suspect source of information.

the iraqi gureillas are fighting foreign invaders much like the viet cong. no matter what the US administration says there are always going to be people in iraq who see America as an occupier instead of a liberator.

i must give credit that was a nice post rogue.

For the record we funded Pakistan who funded the Mujahadeen.

With the intention of funding the Mujahadeen to fight the Soviets. Duh - its the way to fund and have soemone else to blame.

And what is wrong with fighting Soviet invaders from your homeland?

Among others listed here’s some specifics:

1. Honeywell
2. Spectra Physics
3. Semetex
4. TI Coating
5. Unisys
6. Sperry Corp.
7. Tektronix
8. Rockwell
9. Leybold Vacuum Systems
10. Finnigan-MAT-US
11. Hewlett-Packard
12. Dupont
13. Eastman Kodak
14. American Type Culture Collection
15. Alcolac International
16. Consarc
17. Carl Zeiss
18. Cerberus
19. Electronic Associates
20. International Computer Systems
21. Bechtel
22. EZ Logic Data Systems, Inc.
23. Canberra Industries Inc.
24. Axel Electronics Inc.


Here’s a link that has a directory of some unclassified Congressional documents. I’d hate to see the classified ones.

http://www.chronicillnet.org/PGWS/tuite/default.htm

We sold Iraq lots of things, just as we sell weapons to France, England and any nation not being sanctioned by the UN. When it became ILLEGAL to see to IRaq, France, China, Russia, and Germany flouted international law and CONTINUED to see to Iraq.
The same nations that told us it was immoral to fight Iraq were the same nations that bypassed the UN to trade oil for weapons.
Pretty immoral of them, huh?

So, are you saying the US did help arm Iraq? Which story are you going to decide on? I find you keep changing your stance to suit whatever argument you come up with next.

What's it gonna be?

Also, I'm confused with your concept of morality. Is your standard of morality based on the status of UN sanctions upon the receiving state? American chemicals used to gas Kurds is ok because Iraq wasn't being sanctioned then? Then of course there's the fact that the US with its veto could make sure no sanctions were inflicted upon a US-client state., much as it did in 80's concerning Iraq's weapons.

Your arguments are narrow and therefore useless. Take a step back, look at the big picture, and then make your decisions.

Moral vs. immoral, it means nothing in this world of competing truths. It's interests vs. the willingness to pay for those interests, that is all. Welcome to realpolitik.


SLM3

what's wrong with iraqi's fighting foriegn invaders?

you do seem to jump all over the board. do you actually have a position on this, or like SLM3 said do you just change to suit your new point?

Nothing is wrong with fighiting American invaders if you are an al queda terrorists that wants to kill for allah and impose martial law. Or you are a baathist loyalits fighting to restore your priviledge postion on the back of the average joe.

I think the Northern Alliance fighting Soviet Military expansion is a lot different than whats going on in Iraq? dont you?

Do you have an opionion or do you just hate bush for no reason that makes sense and just want to slam him for all the good he is doing?

Do you really, honestly, think Al Qaeda is killing for Allah? What is terrorism to you? What do you think is going on in Iraq?


SLM3

I dont know what al qeada members think personally, but accourding to their leader and his speaches, that is the official al queda doctrine.

Terrorism is targetting of non military targets by unsanctioned opperatives. Isnt that what it is to everyone?

I think some of you misinterpret Endymon32. I've taken the liberty of breaking up the discussion part of his post into smaller parts -- if one was speeding past the list, it would be easy to miss this section.

The point here as I see it is not that America did not arm Iraq; rather, our contributions are miniscule compared to the contributions of others. It does not, in any way, excuse the US. I believe Endymon32 means to make the point that most of Iraq's weapons are not of American origin, and while the statement "America armed Iraq" is partially true, it is like saying that the Augusta National Golf Club is diverse because it has a half-dozen minority members.

However, the first sentence of the post, "Let's end this lie that America armed Iraq," is misleading. Actually I find it somewhat humorously ironic, as it is as partially true as "America armed Iraq."

In his initial post, Endymon32 includes numbers for how much we sold Iraq; if one's story was "America never helped arm Iraq," it might be better to not include actual monetary amounts. It appears (to me, at least) that Endymon32's story has been rather consistent.

Endymon32's point is that the big picture is that the contributions of anti-liberation countries to Iraq's military far outweigh America's contributions. Likely, Iraq's military would not be much different without American equipment.

The narrow (and useless) argument is that America sold something, anything, to Iraq. Therefore, America armed Iraq.

-- Alvin

Many of the statements refuting what Endymon32 said were based on the fact that his main source left much to be desired as well as the contradictory evidence produced by the 12,000 page WMD dossier report.



SLM3

Again, you are the only one saying that the SPRI is an ureliable source. Why is that? Do you have evidence that the SPRI is not accurate? Please post that proof.

Your main source was the Desert Field Fact Book, created for a war game.


How do you then refute the evidence from the actual dossier report on all those weapons?


SLM3

His main source listed mainly conventional weapons. I can see, tangentially, perhaps, that, for example, something like artillery may also fall in the WMD dossier. However, the point remains that the majority of Iraq's armed forces were not American, thus it is deceptive to say that "America armed Iraq."

He listed three sources -- the details may be different, but all three corroborate the same basic story, that Iraq's military was overwhelmingly non-American. In particular the monetary amounts appear to come from the Stockholm International Peace Research Institute.

You two are firing over each other's heads -- SLM3, you believe that America was responsible for Iraq's WMD program, and Endymon32, you believe that America was not responsible for Iraq's military. Both of these you two believe fall under "weapons."

-- Alvin

I understood he was referring to conventional weapons and such. This is why I mentioned Honeywell, Spectra Physics, Semetex, TI Coating, Unisys, Sperry Corp, just to name a few because they provided conventional weapons programs and military logisitcs as opposed to what we commonly refer to as WMD. There's many more who provided conventional weapons programs. I'm just confused as to why these facts as displayed in the 12,000 page dossier aren't reflected in the sources presented in this thread. To me, it seems suspect.

Also, I wonder if the SIPRI figures come from the truncated version of the dossier, which was released to non-permanent members on the security council. The German Press Agency DPA has revealed that this version, altered by the US, omits almost all of the US dealings with Iraq.

SLM3

Note you ignored the SPRI. Please provide the information that the dossier report says, so I can argue it. Unlike you, I dont argue information I dont have.

I did?

SLM3

Yes it showed that France, China and Russia provided IRaq with 84% of his weapons, and The US NOTHING after Iraq was declared a rogue nation.

When it was legal to sell Iraq weapons, we sold them. When it was illegal, we stopped. Unlike other nations that said it was immoral to go to war with Saddam. But it was moral to violate the law and sell him weapons.

I rarely get to quote myself:


It is my contention that your source does not accurately portray the history of Iraqi arms dealings with the US. You're allowed to disagree. Is that enough?

I did provide information on the dossier, as told by the German Press Agency DPA.

SLM3

SLM3

Very interesting. I've heard of this story before, but I haven't quite found anyone who has any information about it. I'm curious -- you say that the permanent members got to see the whole dossier -- one that includes China, France, and Russia, three of Endymon32's four horsemen.

Why didn't they complain at the time that the US was censoring damaging material? Or Kofi Annan? The "official" reason is that they removed data on building nuclear weapons, data considered unwise to share with non-nuclear powers. Your source at Deutsche Presse-Agentur doesn't have much information on the reaction from China, France, and Russia. One would think that they would jump on the opportunity to reveal the US as the major supplier of Iraq's WMD.

-- Alvin

Well, as many have pointed out, no one is innocent here. France, Russia, and China played their hand trying to keep the war from happening, and now that it's all out in the open they're probably just as eager to keep things under wraps as the US.

Actually, from what I gather it was the US that lead the way towards the censorship but all the permanent members supported it as well.


SLM3

And you still failed to provide the dates. As I have said, the US stopped selling to Iraq after Iraq was put on the Rogue nations list. You are only saying over and over that we did sell, and again, no one will argue that. I have shown, and argued that once it was illegal to sell weapons to IRaq, three members of the UN security council continued to sell to Iraq. You have yet to prove that we violated this.
We did sell food and medicine to Iraq, for oil, as was allowed. The fact that Iraq choose to sell oil for weapons with three members of the security council of the UN, while his people starved can hardly be blamed on the sanctions.
Saddam choose weapons over food, he ate, while his people starved. And France, China, Germany and Russia are his cohorts in this.
So again SLM please provide the dates to your sales and you have a case.

Ok, we're going in circles. You can't use US policies as a constant in the international system. Why do I care about a rogue nations list if the US is the only one that creates and uses it? According to that list, am I a horrible person if I go on my summer vacation to Cuba? What if Germany came up with an anti-occupation mean country list and put the US on it? I'm not going to be bound by your argument that other actors in the international system must abide by US policies and decisions.

Maybe I'm reading your link wrong, but after 1990, no state sold weapons to Iraq. Atleast not according to that SIPRI link.

When it was legal you did, when it was illegal you didn't? Illegal according to who? the US? You only refer to this US created rogue states list. Again, why should such a list have any bearing at all in the international system?

Stop trying to inject a sense of morality into this so you can somehow put the US up on a pedestal. The US, like any other state, is a fair-weathered friend to freedom and democracy. Being the hegemonic power it has taken on a greater role in that respect but has continued on with its realist policies.

Where was this morality during the Iran-Contra affair? Why are you picking and choosing?

SLM3

You'll have to forgive me, I'm still trying to figure this out. You're telling me to believe proof that refutes Endymon32's evidence in which neither you nor I have seen, in which the reporting agency (Deutsche Presse-Agentur) has apparently not shared with anyone, in which the reporting agency was in a virulently anti-liberation democratic country and thus would not be suppressed, in which the primary benefactor was the censor, in which the primary opponents had copies of the uncensored version and did not see fit to protest.

This proof contradicts Endymon32's fact book that merely listed numbers, makes, and models of Iraq's military forces, and a separate SIPRI report that tabulates the total amount of arms sales to Iraq from 1973-1991, which I was able to partially correlate with additional, publicly available data (see below).

You know, I'm absolutely willing to believe either of you two. I try hard to be open-minded. But in order for me to do that, I need more information, more than a flimsy conspiracy theory about a censored WMD report that was then further censored by the majority anti-liberation world press. It just doesn't add up.

-- Alvin

P.S. The SIPRI report was apparently performed on data available long before the censored dossier -- a second $5 million of weapons claim was also published in 1998 by Anthony Cordesman, long before the WMD dossier

I don't think that's what he's saying. What he's saying is that the overwhelming majority of arms sold to Iraq are non-American. If we assume that nobody (including the US, France, Germany, whatever) sold arms to Iraq after 1990, the point still remains that Iraq was not, in a realistic sense, armed by the United States.

The list is important because there is apparently a belief that the United States, and the United States alone, armed Iraq and that makes us culpable in supporting Saddam. Thus we cannot remove him from power because we were once his friend. Or something like that, it is not particularly good logic to begin with, especially considering anyone could plainly see on the television that the Iraqi equipment was clearly not American.

But with this list, we see that this is not the case. Therefore, with a few facts we can put the above notion to rest. However, I doubt it will convince one who wholly believes that logic. After all, it is impossible to reason a fool out of a notion that he did not reason himself into in the first place (Jonathan Swift).

-- Alvin

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..."