Why Does U.S. Know So Much About Iraq's Weapons?

by cellomould 14 Replies latest jw friends

  • cellomould
    cellomould
    US helped Iraq develop biological and chemical arms-report
    (from REUTERS 06:22 PM ET 02/12/98)

    LONDON (Reuters) - The United States helped Iraq develop its chemical and biological weapons programs in the 1980s while Britain sold Baghdad the antidote to nerve gas as late as March 1992, Britain's Channel Four television news said Thursday.

    The program said it had found U.S. intelligence documents which showed 14 consignments of biological materials were exported from the United States to Iraq between 1985 and 1989. These included 19 batches of anthrax bacteria and 15 batches of botulinum, the organism that causes botulism. The exports, backed by the State Department, were licensed by the Department of Commerce, it said.

    The program said Iraq had bought other toxins from the United States while the atomic energy commission in Baghdad acquired human genetic material and E. coli bacteria for use as a culture medium. No less than 29 batches of material were sent after Iraq had used gas in an attack on the Kurdish town of Halabja in 1988, killing 5,000 people, it said. Stephen Bryen, a former senior Pentagon official in the 1980s, said he and a few colleagues had tried hard to stop the exports of sensitive materials. "They just were stupid, utterly stupid, and the people who did it I don't think had even a slight grasp of what they were doing", he told Channel Four. He said he had managed to stop a 1988 order from Iraq for 1.5 million doses of atropine, which is used to protect troops from nerve gas.

    Channel Four news quoted from a classified U.S. Department of Defense document which it said showed Iraq had bought pralidoxine -- an antidote to nerve gas -- from Britain in March 1992, after the Gulf War. "This (sale) took place, as I understand it, long before we came into government", British Defense Secretary George Robertson told the program. "We'll investigate it, but I understand it probably was exported on the grounds that it was medication and medications are allowable exports to Iraq today".

    Channel Four also said it had uncovered U.S. intelligence documents which showed London and Washington knew as long ago as August 1990 of the existence of Agent 15, a deadly nerve gas. Robertson, releasing what he said was new information about Iraq's 1991 weapon stocks, on Monday said Iraqi leader Saddam Hussein may have possessed large quantities of Agent 15. "There may well have been some knowledge of the range of things Saddam might have had at that time but the concrete information has only gradually come forward (in) recent times". Robertson told Channel Four.

    http://www.billtotten.com/english/ow2/00148.html

    Edited by - cellomould on 30 September 2002 4:57:0

  • cellomould
    cellomould
    Weapons of mass destruction? The world is full of them. At least six Middle Eastern countries have built chemical and/or biological weapons. Israel went nuclear years ago, and has adamantly refused to sign the nuclear nonproliferation treaties. And while most - if not all - of Iraq's Scud missiles have been destroyed in the past few years, seven Middle Eastern nations have been improving their ballistic missiles.

    also from the above link I posted above...

    George W is so smart, he's playing the same hand Clinton played 4 years ago. I almost wish I still believed in the bible, so I could quote Solomon's 'nothing new' line.

    cellmould

  • Wolfgirl
    Wolfgirl

    I am of the opinion that it's all too neatly packaged to be real. Looks more like a case of "here is what we want you to believe."

  • COMF
    COMF

    I think we ought to just kill all americans and be done with it, don't you, cello?

  • plmkrzy
    plmkrzy

    Before you and cello go on your killing spree, would you mind emailing me first so I can catch the next flight out?

  • Undecided
    Undecided

    I'm about as paranoid of politicians as I am of the GB. I don't beleive either has any real interest in anyone but themselves.

    Ken P.

  • cellomould
    cellomould

    Comf,

    I think we are on the same page when it comes to the safety of U.S. citizens. That has been an priority in each adminstration, ostensibly. We should definitely clamour for more domestic safety. Intelligent foreign policy amounts to domestic safety, of course.

    But look at what the government has done. (And keep in mind the above information is from 4 years ago) How does it feel to know that the government is trying to cover its own ass? Isn't it the people they should be protecting?

    I hope everyone sees why there is good reason to complain. U.S. scholars are perplexed over what the government is trying to do. If the the best and brightest see that we are striking out on an errant path, why do we not listen to them?

    cellmould

    Attack on Iraq would be mark of failure
    By Ghassan Salame
    Special to The Washington Post
    The Daily Yomiuri February 16,1998

    @

    PARIS - The more one thinks about the U.S. government's stated rationale for bombing Iraq, the less convincing it seems. Even someone like me, a critic of the Iraqi regime's human-rights record for 20 years and a public opponent of Iraq's occupation of Kuwait, finds it difficult to accept the various U.S. explanations for pursuing a shortsighted policy that will bring further death and destruction to an already traumatized society.

    Is the objective to defeat a dangerous dictatorship? But how does launching smart bombs from afar bring about a democracy? Why would bombing Baghdad miraculously produce a government that respects human rights or a society that obeys the rule of law? And how many sorties will be necessary to find and kill Saddam Hussein (as some bellicose commentators have openly called for) and rouse the population against the Iraqi regime (as some senators have suggested)? I see a different outcome of a sustained bombing campaign: a weakened Iraq even more vulnerable to interference from its neighbors, either those frightened by the prospect of lawlessness in Iraq or those who take advantage of the chaos to extend their influence.

    Or is it a matter of enforcing UN resolutions? Other countries have failed to implement UN resolutions. But it appears that only Iraq must implement them all. Furthermore, what incentive does Iraq have to comply? In a now-famous speech delivered in March 1997, U.S. Secretary of State Madeleine Albright ruled out normalization of relations with the present regime, even if it were to satisfy the requirements of all relevant international resolutions. Is the United States' purpose to make Saddam Hussein understand that whatever he does (even full compliance), he will remain a pariah?

  • cellomould
    cellomould

    Undecided,

    I wouldn't call that paranoia...more like wisdom.

    Plmkrzy,

    You are always running away from me (i.e. Alpine Village)!

  • plmkrzy
    plmkrzy

    Plmkrzy,

    You are always running away from me (i.e. Alpine Village)!

    It's no wonder! Just look how dangerous you are. You said so yourself I should be killed. That Alpine thing could have been a set up and we (the others and I) were lucky enough to get lost. Oh wait...that was Comf's idea.

    If the the best and brightest see that we are striking out on an errant path, why do we not listen to them?
    Famous last question
  • Pathofthorns
    Pathofthorns
    Intelligent foreign policy amounts to domestic safety, of course.

    You say this so matter-of-factly but if only the American government understood this they would save themselves so many headaches. Then again maybe this is not all about domestic safety but merely the vehical by which they have chosen to advance their agendas for the region?

    Path

Share this

Google+
Pinterest
Reddit