Saddam's WMD's are in Syria

User avatar
rainbow
Posts: 13793
Joined: Fri Jun 08, 2012 8:10 am
About me: Egal wie dicht du bist, Goethe war Dichter
Where ever you are, Goethe was a Poet.
Location: Africa
Contact:

Re: Saddam's WMD's are in Syria

Post by rainbow » Mon Sep 10, 2012 7:37 am

Seth wrote:Washington Post reporter Joby Warrick reports that western intelligence agencies suspect that the Syrian government is hiding hundreds of tons of chemical weapons and precursor chemicals in as many as 20 sites. Stockpiles may include battle-ready Sarin. The story says "Syria is thought to possess the world's third-largest stockpile of chemical weapons after the United States and Russia, whose Cold War arsenals are being dismantled and destroyed."
The same 'intelligence' agencies that came up with the story of WMDs in the first place?

I guess there is no reason why we shouldn't believe that they are telling the truth this time. :smug:
I call bullshit - Alfred E Einstein
BArF−4

User avatar
Cormac
Posts: 6415
Joined: Thu Feb 26, 2009 3:47 pm
Contact:

Re: Saddam's WMD's are in Syria

Post by Cormac » Mon Sep 10, 2012 1:26 pm

Donald W. Riegle, MBA, (D-MI), and Alfonse M. D'Amato, JD, former (R-NY), former Chairman and Ranking Member, respectively, of the Senate Committee on Banking, Housing and Urban Affairs, in their May 25, 1994 report titled "U.S. Chemical and Biological Warfare-Related Dual Use Exports to Iraq and their Possible Impact on the Health Consequences of the Gulf War," also known as "The Riegle Report," stated:
"In October 1992, the Committee on Banking, Housing, and Urban Affairs, which has Senate oversight responsibility for the Export Administration Act (EAA), held an Inquiry into the U.S. export policy to Iraq prior to the Persian Gulf War. During that hearing it was learned that U.N. Inspectors identified many U.S.-manufactured items exported pursuant to licenses issued by the U.S. Department of Commerce that were used to further Iraq's chemical and nuclear weapons development and missile delivery system development programs...

...we contacted a principal supplier of biological materials to determine what, if any, materials were exported to Iraq which might have contributed to an offensive or defensive biological warfare program.

Records available from the supplier for the period from 1985 until the present show that during this time, pathogenic (meaning "disease producing"), toxigenic (meaning "poisonous"), and other biological research materials were exported to Iraq pursuant to application and licensing by the U.S. Department of Commerce.... Included in the approved sales are the following biological materials...: Bacillus Anthracis: anthrax...Clostridium Botulinum: a bacterial source of botulinum toxin...Histoplasma Capsulatum: a fungus affecting the lungs...Brucella Melitensis: a bacteria which can cause...damage to major organs...Clostridium Perfringens: a highly toxic bateria which causes gas gangrene."


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ProCon.org
Last edited by Cormac on Mon Sep 10, 2012 1:35 pm, edited 1 time in total.
FUCKERPUNKERSHIT!


Wanna buy some pegs Dave, I've got some pegs here...
You're my wife now!

User avatar
Cormac
Posts: 6415
Joined: Thu Feb 26, 2009 3:47 pm
Contact:

Re: Saddam's WMD's are in Syria

Post by Cormac » Mon Sep 10, 2012 1:34 pm

A Time to Break Silence:
U.S. complicity in Saddam's crimes
against humanity

by Paul Rockwell
Oakland, California

Years ago, at the peak of the Vietnam War, Clergy and Laymen Concerned about Vietnam published a book, “In The Name Of America”, a shocking document on the systematic violations of the laws of war by U.S. forces abroad. The graphic information played a role in Dr. King's decision to "break silence," to speak out against U.S. foreign policy in Vietnam.

A time to break silence has come again, a time to raise our voice against U.S. complicity in crimes against humanity.

We now know who supplied Saddam Hussein with materials of mass destruction; where his military regime, notorious for atrocities against Iraqis, Iranians and Kurds, acquired helicopters, germs and lethal chemicals -- an arsenal of terror. Iraq acquired its weapons of mass destruction from the United States, from Germany, France and Britain as well -- the very countries leading a weapons inspection of Iraq.

Last month the Iraq Weapons Inventory included a long list of Western and U.S. companies (Union Carbide, Honeywell, Dupont, SpectraPhysics, Bechtel are some mentioned in “The Nation”, 1/13/2003) that supplied Saddam with deadly and dual-use material. Hoping to disguise its own culpability in Iraq's past war crimes, the U.S. suppressed the list, but the dossier was leaked to a German newspaper, “Die Tageszeitung”.

More information trickled onto the back pages of “The New York Times” and “The Washington Post”. The main facts are no longer in dispute. In violation of the Geneva Protocol of 1925 (which outlaws chemical warfare), the Reagan-Bush administration authorized the sale of poisonous chemicals and deadly biological viruses, from anthrax to bubonic plague, throughout the '80s. In 1982, while Saddam Hussein constructed his machinery of war, Reagan and Bush removed Iraq from the State Department list of terrorist states.

According to newly declassified documents mentioned in “The Washington Post Weekly Edition” (1/6-12/2003), Iraq was already using chemical weapons on an "almost daily basis" when Donald Rumsfeld met with Saddam Hussein in 1983, consolidating the U.S.-Iraq military alliance.

Subsequently, the Pentagon supplied logistical and military support; U.S. banks provided billions of dollars in credits; and the C.I.A., using a Chilean conduit, increased Saddam's supply of cluster bombs. U.S. companies also supplied steel tubes and chemical substances, the types of material for which the Security Council is now searching.

As late as 1989 and 1990, according to a report from U.S. representative Dennis Kucinich (Democrat, Ohio), U.S. companies, under permits from the first Bush administration, sent mustard gas materials, live cultures for bacteriological research, to Iraq. U.S. companies helped Iraq build a chemical weapons factory, and then shipped Hussein a West Nile virus, hydrogen cyanide precursors, and parts for a new nuclear plant.

The infamous massacre at Halabja -- the gassing of the Kurds -- took place in March 1988. On September 19, sixth months later, U.S. companies sent eleven strains of germs, four types of anthrax to Iraq, including a microbe strain, called 11966, developed for germ warfare at Fort Detrick in the '50s. (Judith Miller provides a partial account of the sordid traffic in U.S. chemicals and germs in her book, “Germs: Biological Weapons And America’s Secret War”.)

Dow Chemical (infamous for its napalm in the Vietnam War) sold large amounts of pesticides, toxins that cause death by asphyxiation. Twenty-four U.S. firms exported arms and materials to Baghdad. France also sent Hussein 200 AMX medium tanks, Mirage bombers, and Gazelle helicopter gunships. As Assistant Secretary of Defense Richard Armitage testified in 1987: "We cannot stand to see Iraq defeated."

The vast, lucrative arms trade in the Middle East laid the groundwork for Saddam's aggression against Kuwait. Without high-tech weapons from Europe and the U.S.--from the very countries now conducting an arms proliferation investigation -- Iraq's wars against Iran and Kuwait would never have taken place.

Media pundits and TV commentators treat the arms-trade story with indifference. Most representatives in Congress have avoided comment. To her credit, at a committee hearing January 29th (recorded by KPFA radio in Berkeley), Senator Barbara Boxer called attention to U.S. shipments of anthrax and bubonic plague to Iraq, expressing her shock and outrage at the immorality and folly of U.S. arms sales policy. Revelations of the U.S. role in Iraq's arms buildup spawn a host of questions: Why aren't U.S. and European scientists, who invented and produced lethal materials for Saddam, subject to interrogations, like their counterparts in Iraq? Are U.S. companies sending their deadly material to other dictators? Why are there no Congressional hearings on the companies that profit from war and suffering, the traffic in arms? And where are the headlines, the front-page stories in the mainstream media? Will U.S. weapons of mass destruction be turned on U.S. troops and American personnel? Is it not said that those who sow the wind reap the whirlwind?

Defending the Indefensible

U.S. officials take a dismissive attitude to revelations about complicity in Saddam's military reign of terror in the '80s. Officials tell us that American corporations did nothing wrong when they shipped chemicals, germs, nuclear materials to Iraq. After all, they say, Saddam was a U.S. ally in the '80s.

The entire U.S. arms trade is based on a heinous premise: that atrocities and war crimes in the Third World are acceptable so long as they fit within U.S. global strategy and aims. Saddam's crimes were invisible in the '80s. The same crimes became grist for front-page demonization of Saddam in the '90s, after -- and only after --Saddam threatened Western access to oil.

George Orwell's brilliant essay (“Notes on Nationalism”) on empire and nationalism applies directly to the mendacity of the Bush administration. "Actions are held to be good or bad, not on their own merits, but according to who does them. There is almost no kind of outrage -- torture, imprisonment without trial, assassination, the bombing of civilians -- which does not change its moral color when it is committed by 'our' side… . The nationalist not only does not disapprove of atrocities committed by his own side, he has a remarkable capacity for not even hearing about them."

Now the world is faced with a tragic irony: The world's leading merchant of death is taking us to war to stop arms proliferation in the very region to which it shipped chemicals and arms for over ten years.

Nobel Peace Laureate Oscar Arias Sanchez tells us: "The time has come to rein in the unchecked sale of death and misery on the international market." It is time to measure human rights by one yardstick -- to hold the suppliers, not just the purchasers of death, accountable for their handiwork.


http://www.inmotionmagazine.com/time.html
FUCKERPUNKERSHIT!


Wanna buy some pegs Dave, I've got some pegs here...
You're my wife now!

Seth
GrandMaster Zen Troll
Posts: 22077
Joined: Fri Jan 28, 2011 1:02 am
Contact:

Re: Saddam's WMD's are in Syria

Post by Seth » Mon Sep 10, 2012 2:52 pm

Cormac wrote:Donald W. Riegle, MBA, (D-MI), and Alfonse M. D'Amato, JD, former (R-NY), former Chairman and Ranking Member, respectively, of the Senate Committee on Banking, Housing and Urban Affairs, in their May 25, 1994 report titled "U.S. Chemical and Biological Warfare-Related Dual Use Exports to Iraq and their Possible Impact on the Health Consequences of the Gulf War," also known as "The Riegle Report," stated:
"In October 1992, the Committee on Banking, Housing, and Urban Affairs, which has Senate oversight responsibility for the Export Administration Act (EAA), held an Inquiry into the U.S. export policy to Iraq prior to the Persian Gulf War. During that hearing it was learned that U.N. Inspectors identified many U.S.-manufactured items exported pursuant to licenses issued by the U.S. Department of Commerce that were used to further Iraq's chemical and nuclear weapons development and missile delivery system development programs...

...we contacted a principal supplier of biological materials to determine what, if any, materials were exported to Iraq which might have contributed to an offensive or defensive biological warfare program.

Records available from the supplier for the period from 1985 until the present show that during this time, pathogenic (meaning "disease producing"), toxigenic (meaning "poisonous"), and other biological research materials were exported to Iraq pursuant to application and licensing by the U.S. Department of Commerce.... Included in the approved sales are the following biological materials...: Bacillus Anthracis: anthrax...Clostridium Botulinum: a bacterial source of botulinum toxin...Histoplasma Capsulatum: a fungus affecting the lungs...Brucella Melitensis: a bacteria which can cause...damage to major organs...Clostridium Perfringens: a highly toxic bateria which causes gas gangrene."


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ProCon.org
Thanks for that. What you're telling us is that Saddam DID have WMD programs, and we knew it as far back as 1994. You've just confirmed our justification for re-invading after the first Gulf War because we KNEW he had the stuff, but he was refusing to turn it over or let UN weapons inspectors do their job, which resulted in a violation of the terms of the cease fire and justified the final invasion.

He may have been our ally against Iran back when, but his invasion of Kuwait and his material support for international terrorism changed the situation and he became our enemy and had to be dealt with. And he was.
"Seth is Grandmaster Zen Troll who trains his victims to troll themselves every time they think of him" Robert_S

"All that is required for the triumph of evil is that good men do nothing." Edmund Burke

"Those who support denying anyone the right to keep and bear arms for personal defense are fully complicit in every crime that might have been prevented had the victim been effectively armed." Seth

© 2013/2014/2015/2016 Seth, all rights reserved. No reuse, republication, duplication, or derivative work is authorized.

User avatar
rasetsu
Ne'er-do-well
Posts: 5123
Joined: Fri Jun 22, 2012 1:04 pm
About me: Move along. Nothing to see here.
Contact:

Re: Saddam's WMD's are in Syria

Post by rasetsu » Mon Sep 10, 2012 2:54 pm




At the time of the U.S. invasion, I felt the invasion was justified, but stupid. Probably the worst mistake made by Bush was his impatience in not waiting for a true coalition to form. The reason is anybody's guess, but if he'd had that support, he likely would have gotten the Security Council vote authorizing the use of force, and this would all be a moot point. (Or alternatively, he could have used the time tested dirty tricks the U.S. has used to bring about favorable regime change in the past.) But no, GW had to engage in a war that was both stupid and illegal. Why? I guess that's just his way.

While there is some legitimate debate over the legality of the war, the bulk of legal opinion is against its legality. (See UN resolutions 660, 678, 687 and 1441 specifically; the specific resolutions the U.S. claims justification under do not authorize unilateral force in the absence of specific Security Council resolution authorizing it; the only exception being article 678, which authorizes force to encourage compliance with resolution 660, the resolution condemning the invasion of Kuwait.)

Still, there is a difference between justified and legal. I think Bush's failure to wait for coalition and authorization was bafflingly stupid, but independent of the legality, we had good cause to intervene even in the absence of WMDs.

Though I love Seth's usual argumentative style of throwing out a bunch of buzzwords he doesn't understand in hopes his adversaries don't either (and are somehow facing critical google failure at the time). The Geneva convention details the treatment of people during war and has nothing to do with the legality of a casus belli. And the Nuremberg principles, while admittedly more germane, permit the petitioning of the ICC to open an investigation of the matter, not the rolling of tanks into Baghdad, or Moscow, or Jersey, or wherever you suspect evildoers may be lurking. Moreover, seeing that the Bush administration was openly hostile to the Rome statute and its ratification, the ICC was basically powerless and no mechanism for enforcing the Geneva principles was codified in international law. Prior to that time, enforcement of the Nuremberg principles fell to ad hoc committees of the U.N. in the case of Yugoslavia in 1994, and Rwanda in 1995.
The Nuremberg trials rested on two fundamental principles. First, individuals can and should be held accountable for the most serious international crimes. The judgment of the Nuremberg Tribunal famously declared, “Crimes against international law are committed by men, not by abstract entities, and only by punishing individuals who commit such crimes can the provisions of international law be enforced.”

Ensuring accountability is important in itself, but it is also important because allowing impunity for widespread or systematic atrocities can have serious consequences for international peace.

The second principle is that individuals should only be punished through a fair trial which safeguards the rights of the accused. Here of course, we are reminded of Robert Jackson’s statement to the Tribunal: “We must never forget that the record on which we judge these defendants today is the record on which history will judge us tomorrow. To pass these defendants a poisoned chalice is to put it to our own lips as well.”

Although the Nuremberg trials also declared many other important principles of procedural and substantive law, it is these two fundamental ideas, accountability and fair trials, which were at the core of Nuremberg’s meaning.

. . . . .

I would like to turn now to the International Criminal Court and how it is intended to fill this need. The ICC was established through a treaty negotiated in 1998 by 160 states meeting in Rome. It builds on the two core principles of Nuremberg: the need for accountability for serious crimes and the importance of fair trials.

APPLYING THE PRINCIPLES OF NUREMBERG IN THE INTERNATIONAL CRIMINAL COURT : PHILIPPE KIRSCH



ETA: The question of chemical and biological weapons relate to the above, I haven't checked each U.N. resolution individually, but it would appear Seth is claiming violation of resolutions 686 and 687, March and April of 1991. The Persian Gulf War commenced in August of 1990. So what Seth apparently is arguing is that the violation of a U.N. resolution which didn't exist at the time was the U.S. justification for invading Iraq in 2003. I wish I had his imagination.


Last edited by rasetsu on Mon Sep 10, 2012 3:06 pm, edited 1 time in total.

Seth
GrandMaster Zen Troll
Posts: 22077
Joined: Fri Jan 28, 2011 1:02 am
Contact:

Re: Saddam's WMD's are in Syria

Post by Seth » Mon Sep 10, 2012 3:03 pm

rasetsu wrote:At the time of the U.S. invasion, I felt the invasion was justified, but stupid. Probably the worst mistake made by Bush was his impatience in not waiting for a true coalition to form. The reason is anybody's guess, but if he'd had that support, he likely would have gotten the Security Council vote authorizing the use of force, and this would all be a moot point. (Or alternatively, he could have used the time tested dirty tricks the U.S. has used to bring about favorable regime change in the past.) But no, GW had to engage in a war that was both stupid and illegal. Why? I guess that's just his way.

While there is some legitimate debate over the legality of the war, the bulk of legal opinion is against its legality. (See UN resolutions 660, 678, 687 and 1441 specifically; the specific resolutions the U.S. claims justification under do not authorize unilateral force in the absence of specific Security Council resolution authorizing it; the only exception being article 678, which authorizes force to encourage compliance with resolution 660, the resolution condemning the invasion of Kuwait.)

Still, there is a difference between justified and legal. I think Bush's failure to wait for coalition and authorization was bafflingly stupid, but independent of the legality, we had good cause to intervene even in the absence of WMDs.

Though I love Seth's usual argumentative style of throwing out a bunch of buzzwords he doesn't understand in hopes his adversaries don't either (and are somehow facing critical google failure at the time). The Geneva convention details the treatment of people during war and has nothing to do with the legality of a casus belli. And the Nuremberg principles, while admittedly more germane, permit the petitioning of the ICC to open an investigation of the matter, not the rolling of tanks into Baghdad, or Moscow, or Jersey, or wherever you suspect evildoers may be lurking. Moreover, seeing that the Bush administration was openly hostile to the Rome statute and its ratification, the ICC was basically powerless and no mechanism for enforcing the Geneva principles was codified in international law. Prior to that time, enforcement of the Nuremberg principles fell to ad hoc committees of the U.N. in the case of Yugoslavia in 1994, and Rwanda in 1995.
The US is not subject to the jurisdiction of the ICC and is not required to wait for the UN security council to approve our military actions. We are a sovereign nation and can and will go to war whenever and wherever it is necessary to defend liberty and world peace and to protect our citizens and interests abroad, just like every other nation can.
"Seth is Grandmaster Zen Troll who trains his victims to troll themselves every time they think of him" Robert_S

"All that is required for the triumph of evil is that good men do nothing." Edmund Burke

"Those who support denying anyone the right to keep and bear arms for personal defense are fully complicit in every crime that might have been prevented had the victim been effectively armed." Seth

© 2013/2014/2015/2016 Seth, all rights reserved. No reuse, republication, duplication, or derivative work is authorized.

User avatar
rasetsu
Ne'er-do-well
Posts: 5123
Joined: Fri Jun 22, 2012 1:04 pm
About me: Move along. Nothing to see here.
Contact:

Re: Saddam's WMD's are in Syria

Post by rasetsu » Mon Sep 10, 2012 3:08 pm




So, in other words, your argument is that we can go to war anytime we want, "because we can" ?

Well why didn't you say so! And here I thought this had something to do with WMDs. Silly moi!



Coito ergo sum
Posts: 32040
Joined: Wed Feb 24, 2010 2:03 pm
Contact:

Re: Saddam's WMD's are in Syria

Post by Coito ergo sum » Mon Sep 10, 2012 3:43 pm

Ian wrote:
Seth wrote:Which means, among other things, that our invasion of Iraq on the basis that Saddam was holding undeclared WMD's after the Gulf War cease fire was perfectly correct and legitimate.
.... why hasn't anyone invaded Syria yet?
Russian and Chinese opposition, in the sense that they will have to react, if Western allies act....

Coito ergo sum
Posts: 32040
Joined: Wed Feb 24, 2010 2:03 pm
Contact:

Re: Saddam's WMD's are in Syria

Post by Coito ergo sum » Mon Sep 10, 2012 3:52 pm

Gawdzilla Sama wrote:
Ian wrote:
Seth wrote:Which means, among other things, that our invasion of Iraq on the basis that Saddam was holding undeclared WMD's after the Gulf War cease fire was perfectly correct and legitimate.
As military analysts and anyone living in Israel can tell you, Syria has had large stockpiles of declared chemical weapons for decades.

So, if (and it's still an if, sorry Seth) the existence of chemical munitions in Iraq justified the invasion, why hasn't anyone invaded Syria yet?
Why hell, son, that's easy! Ain't no oil in Syria, now is there?
There is, actually. About 25% of their GDP is from oil production. It is a small contributor to global oil exports, but it has a fair amount of oil, and most of its oil exports go to Europe. And, Syria has huge natural gas supplies -- something like 100 trillion cubic feet of natural gas....

Coito ergo sum
Posts: 32040
Joined: Wed Feb 24, 2010 2:03 pm
Contact:

Re: Saddam's WMD's are in Syria

Post by Coito ergo sum » Mon Sep 10, 2012 3:55 pm

padraic wrote:
Under the Nuremberg principles used to try Nazi war criminals, Bush and "the coalition of the willing" Could all be tried as war criminals for the invasion of Iraq. I think they should be. Chance would be a fine thing..
Under that interpretation, so could Obama and those who bombed Libya and Yemen. And, OBL in Pakistan. And, a drone up the ass of a civilian and his children....

Principle VI

Principle VI states,

"The crimes hereinafter set out are punishable as crimes under international law:

(a) Crimes against peace:

(i) Planning, preparation, initiation or waging of a war of aggression or a war in violation of international treaties, agreements or assurances;

(ii) Participation in a common plan or conspiracy for the accomplishment of any of the acts mentioned under (i).

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuremberg_Principles[/quote]

Coito ergo sum
Posts: 32040
Joined: Wed Feb 24, 2010 2:03 pm
Contact:

Re: Saddam's WMD's are in Syria

Post by Coito ergo sum » Mon Sep 10, 2012 3:57 pm

Cormac wrote:
Seth wrote:
Ian wrote:
Seth wrote:Which means, among other things, that our invasion of Iraq on the basis that Saddam was holding undeclared WMD's after the Gulf War cease fire was perfectly correct and legitimate.
As military analysts and anyone living in Israel can tell you, Syria has had large stockpiles of declared chemical weapons for decades.

So, if (and it's still an if, sorry Seth) the existence of chemical munitions in Iraq justified the invasion, why hasn't anyone invaded Syria yet?
Because Syria hasn't invaded Kuwait, been defeated, signed a cease-fire agreement, violated that agreement immediately, violated 14 UN agreements, and refused to stop being belligerent and supporting international terrorism for a dozen years.

I was in favor of invading Syria way back when based on the same criteria.

But that's not the point, the point is that Saddam's WMD's exist, and have existed since the early 80's, it's just that they were moved to Syria before we got to Baghdad the second time and found that fuck living in a hole in the ground.

I'm just kicking the shit out of the "unjustified war" claim that all the liberals have been trumpeting all this time.
Where'd he get those WMDs by the way?
Mostly China, Russia and France, along with the rest of his armed forces.

Image

User avatar
Cormac
Posts: 6415
Joined: Thu Feb 26, 2009 3:47 pm
Contact:

Re: Saddam's WMD's are in Syria

Post by Cormac » Mon Sep 10, 2012 9:20 pm

Seth wrote:
Cormac wrote:Donald W. Riegle, MBA, (D-MI), and Alfonse M. D'Amato, JD, former (R-NY), former Chairman and Ranking Member, respectively, of the Senate Committee on Banking, Housing and Urban Affairs, in their May 25, 1994 report titled "U.S. Chemical and Biological Warfare-Related Dual Use Exports to Iraq and their Possible Impact on the Health Consequences of the Gulf War," also known as "The Riegle Report," stated:
"In October 1992, the Committee on Banking, Housing, and Urban Affairs, which has Senate oversight responsibility for the Export Administration Act (EAA), held an Inquiry into the U.S. export policy to Iraq prior to the Persian Gulf War. During that hearing it was learned that U.N. Inspectors identified many U.S.-manufactured items exported pursuant to licenses issued by the U.S. Department of Commerce that were used to further Iraq's chemical and nuclear weapons development and missile delivery system development programs...

...we contacted a principal supplier of biological materials to determine what, if any, materials were exported to Iraq which might have contributed to an offensive or defensive biological warfare program.

Records available from the supplier for the period from 1985 until the present show that during this time, pathogenic (meaning "disease producing"), toxigenic (meaning "poisonous"), and other biological research materials were exported to Iraq pursuant to application and licensing by the U.S. Department of Commerce.... Included in the approved sales are the following biological materials...: Bacillus Anthracis: anthrax...Clostridium Botulinum: a bacterial source of botulinum toxin...Histoplasma Capsulatum: a fungus affecting the lungs...Brucella Melitensis: a bacteria which can cause...damage to major organs...Clostridium Perfringens: a highly toxic bateria which causes gas gangrene."


So?

My point was that the USA knew that he had weapons precisely because the USA gave them to him.

Read the list of materials again:

Bacillus Athracis
Clostridium Botulinum
Clostridium Perfringens

Not the kind of materials normally associated with a nascent peaceful chemical or biological industry.

... and, incidentally, Rumsfeld, who was involved in this supply, denied knowledge of any of this.

If the USA had said "dammit, a previous government that was fucking loony* provided this asshat with biochem weaponry. He is looking increasingly like using it. We are morally obliged to go and remove his ability to use this weaponry" - that would nearly have sufficed for me. But instead there is this ridiculous but continued effort to present the USA as the "good-guy" in all things in international affairs. The ridiculous notion that Saddam was in bed with Al Qaeda. The nonsensical idea that invading Iraq was good revenge for 9-11. This is ludicrous, and the more US citizens are infantilised like this, the more your resources will be drastically depleted and the more your government will be run by corporations. (This literally would make the USA a fascist state by the way - along the lines of Mussolini's corporatist state).

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ProCon.org
Thanks for that. What you're telling us is that Saddam DID have WMD programs, and we knew it as far back as 1994. You've just confirmed our justification for re-invading after the first Gulf War because we KNEW he had the stuff, but he was refusing to turn it over or let UN weapons inspectors do their job, which resulted in a violation of the terms of the cease fire and justified the final invasion.

He may have been our ally against Iran back when, but his invasion of Kuwait and his material support for international terrorism changed the situation and he became our enemy and had to be dealt with. And he was.
FUCKERPUNKERSHIT!


Wanna buy some pegs Dave, I've got some pegs here...
You're my wife now!

User avatar
rainbow
Posts: 13793
Joined: Fri Jun 08, 2012 8:10 am
About me: Egal wie dicht du bist, Goethe war Dichter
Where ever you are, Goethe was a Poet.
Location: Africa
Contact:

Re: Saddam's WMD's are in Syria

Post by rainbow » Tue Sep 11, 2012 9:06 am

Seth wrote:The US is not subject to the jurisdiction of the ICC and is not required to wait for the UN security council to approve our military actions. We are a sovereign nation and can and will go to war whenever and wherever it is necessary to defend liberty and world peace and to protect our citizens and interests abroad, just like every other nation can.
The point is that they lied to you, the US public to justify the war.

Why can't you just accept that?
I call bullshit - Alfred E Einstein
BArF−4

User avatar
Cormac
Posts: 6415
Joined: Thu Feb 26, 2009 3:47 pm
Contact:

Re: Saddam's WMD's are in Syria

Post by Cormac » Tue Sep 11, 2012 10:13 am

Cormac wrote:
Seth wrote:
Cormac wrote:Donald W. Riegle, MBA, (D-MI), and Alfonse M. D'Amato, JD, former (R-NY), former Chairman and Ranking Member, respectively, of the Senate Committee on Banking, Housing and Urban Affairs, in their May 25, 1994 report titled "U.S. Chemical and Biological Warfare-Related Dual Use Exports to Iraq and their Possible Impact on the Health Consequences of the Gulf War," also known as "The Riegle Report," stated:
"In October 1992, the Committee on Banking, Housing, and Urban Affairs, which has Senate oversight responsibility for the Export Administration Act (EAA), held an Inquiry into the U.S. export policy to Iraq prior to the Persian Gulf War. During that hearing it was learned that U.N. Inspectors identified many U.S.-manufactured items exported pursuant to licenses issued by the U.S. Department of Commerce that were used to further Iraq's chemical and nuclear weapons development and missile delivery system development programs...

...we contacted a principal supplier of biological materials to determine what, if any, materials were exported to Iraq which might have contributed to an offensive or defensive biological warfare program.

Records available from the supplier for the period from 1985 until the present show that during this time, pathogenic (meaning "disease producing"), toxigenic (meaning "poisonous"), and other biological research materials were exported to Iraq pursuant to application and licensing by the U.S. Department of Commerce.... Included in the approved sales are the following biological materials...: Bacillus Anthracis: anthrax...Clostridium Botulinum: a bacterial source of botulinum toxin...Histoplasma Capsulatum: a fungus affecting the lungs...Brucella Melitensis: a bacteria which can cause...damage to major organs...Clostridium Perfringens: a highly toxic bateria which causes gas gangrene."

Thanks for that. What you're telling us is that Saddam DID have WMD programs, and we knew it as far back as 1994. You've just confirmed our justification for re-invading after the first Gulf War because we KNEW he had the stuff, but he was refusing to turn it over or let UN weapons inspectors do their job, which resulted in a violation of the terms of the cease fire and justified the final invasion.

He may have been our ally against Iran back when, but his invasion of Kuwait and his material support for international terrorism changed the situation and he became our enemy and had to be dealt with. And he was.

So?

My point was that the USA knew that he had weapons precisely because the USA gave them to him.

Read the list of materials again:

Bacillus Athracis
Clostridium Botulinum
Clostridium Perfringens

Not the kind of materials normally associated with a nascent peaceful chemical or biological industry.

... and, incidentally, Rumsfeld, who was involved in this supply, denied knowledge of any of this.

If the USA had said "dammit, a previous government that was fucking loony* provided this asshat with biochem weaponry. He is looking increasingly like using it. We are morally obliged to go and remove his ability to use this weaponry" - that would nearly have sufficed for me. But instead there is this ridiculous but continued effort to present the USA as the "good-guy" in all things in international affairs. The ridiculous notion that Saddam was in bed with Al Qaeda. The nonsensical idea that invading Iraq was good revenge for 9-11. This is ludicrous, and the more US citizens are infantilised like this, the more your resources will be drastically depleted and the more your government will be run by corporations. (This literally would make the USA a fascist state by the way - along the lines of Mussolini's corporatist state).

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ProCon.org


(Edit to fix quote ordering).
FUCKERPUNKERSHIT!


Wanna buy some pegs Dave, I've got some pegs here...
You're my wife now!

User avatar
Cormac
Posts: 6415
Joined: Thu Feb 26, 2009 3:47 pm
Contact:

Re: Saddam's WMD's are in Syria

Post by Cormac » Tue Sep 11, 2012 10:30 am

Seth wrote:
rasetsu wrote:At the time of the U.S. invasion, I felt the invasion was justified, but stupid. Probably the worst mistake made by Bush was his impatience in not waiting for a true coalition to form. The reason is anybody's guess, but if he'd had that support, he likely would have gotten the Security Council vote authorizing the use of force, and this would all be a moot point. (Or alternatively, he could have used the time tested dirty tricks the U.S. has used to bring about favorable regime change in the past.) But no, GW had to engage in a war that was both stupid and illegal. Why? I guess that's just his way.

While there is some legitimate debate over the legality of the war, the bulk of legal opinion is against its legality. (See UN resolutions 660, 678, 687 and 1441 specifically; the specific resolutions the U.S. claims justification under do not authorize unilateral force in the absence of specific Security Council resolution authorizing it; the only exception being article 678, which authorizes force to encourage compliance with resolution 660, the resolution condemning the invasion of Kuwait.)

Still, there is a difference between justified and legal. I think Bush's failure to wait for coalition and authorization was bafflingly stupid, but independent of the legality, we had good cause to intervene even in the absence of WMDs.

Though I love Seth's usual argumentative style of throwing out a bunch of buzzwords he doesn't understand in hopes his adversaries don't either (and are somehow facing critical google failure at the time). The Geneva convention details the treatment of people during war and has nothing to do with the legality of a casus belli. And the Nuremberg principles, while admittedly more germane, permit the petitioning of the ICC to open an investigation of the matter, not the rolling of tanks into Baghdad, or Moscow, or Jersey, or wherever you suspect evildoers may be lurking. Moreover, seeing that the Bush administration was openly hostile to the Rome statute and its ratification, the ICC was basically powerless and no mechanism for enforcing the Geneva principles was codified in international law. Prior to that time, enforcement of the Nuremberg principles fell to ad hoc committees of the U.N. in the case of Yugoslavia in 1994, and Rwanda in 1995.
The US is not subject to the jurisdiction of the ICC and is not required to wait for the UN security council to approve our military actions. We are a sovereign nation and can and will go to war whenever and wherever it is necessary to defend liberty and world peace and to protect our citizens and interests abroad, just like every other nation can.
Precisely how did going to war with Iraq "defend liberty"?

How did it support "World Peace"?

What are your "interests abroad"?
FUCKERPUNKERSHIT!


Wanna buy some pegs Dave, I've got some pegs here...
You're my wife now!

Post Reply

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 30 guests