Obama Praises McCain’s Comments on Iraq

Welcome to our community

Be a part of something great, join today!

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (The Return of the Raider @ Jul 28 2008, 10:27 AM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div><div class='quotemain'><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Denny Crane @ Jul 28 2008, 12:14 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div><div class='quotemain'>People weren't against the Iraq war when it started. Bush had an approval rating through the roof when he made his "mission accomplished" speech signaling the end of the actual war and the start of rebuilding.

Maybe people will support a quagmire in Afghanistan (ask the Ruskies about that one) because the press won't piss all over it to change public opinion, but it's still a massive mistake.

If we're going to war, it should be for a purpose. Revenge is the worst of all purposes, and rebuilding a nation that was in the stone ages to that same level has already been accomplished. At least in Iraq, we spent $600B (and counting) rebuilding a modern nation with schools and universities and hospitals and natural resources that can support a healthy economy. In Afghanistan, we're putting the heroin exporters back in business, because they have nothing else to build an economy around.</div>

Not everyone was supportive of the Iraq invasion. Most were, but not all.

How about we go to war just so that we can take resources for ourselves? It's not revenge, its domination and control. If our oil costs are going through the roof, why not just take someone else's supply so that it brings our costs down a bit? Seems logical to me.

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE </div><div class='quotemain'>I grew up in the 60s, Vietnam era. I know the anti-war crowd to not support the troops, but rather to throw baggies of urine and feces at them when they returned from duty. I find it difficult to believe that they've truly changed to a position of "support the troops" other than giving it lip service and realizing it is good for winning elections. The rest of the people who use the phrase seem to be parrots.</div>

You are generalizing people, and not giving each opinion the benefit of the doubt- stereotyping people to a large degree. I have no doubt what you have experienced in your own lifetime, but I can tell you that not everyone follows a specific set of beliefs that you think they do - perhaps just many that you have encountered. Why not get to know people a little better before rushing to judgements like that? Peace, Denny.
</div>

A lot of liars said we went to war in Iraq to control their oil. The truth is, we were interested in the fair and free flow of their oil, and that the revenues from it not be used to build Saddam and his sons massive palaces while his people starved and were subjected to WMDs.

What I know is a LOT of those people who demonstrated at the '68 convention are now working as democratic party operatives, and that people are still parroting the democratic party talking points. As if they share some WWW site for talking points and memorize them.
 
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (sunsfan1357 @ Jul 28 2008, 11:57 AM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div><div class='quotemain'>People for the most part weren't against the Iraq war because they actually believed our government when they started talking about mushroom clouds and reminding people how crazy Sadaam was. When everyone figured out it was all exaggerations or lies then people started to want to get out of there and Bush's rating went down. I don't believe we're in Afghanistan or rebuild or invade (hopefully its just to get the terrorists and get out, but ya never know I suppose). Plus the mujahadeen had the backing of America with the Soviets tried to invade, which country is going to back Al-Qaeda? Iran? Will they give enough resources to make America get out?</div>

Saddam was more than crazy, he was a vicious torturer and mass murderer. There were no exaggerations or lies.

Think on this: Saddam had MIGs and SCUDs and Silkworms and AK47s, not US made weapons. Those are the weapons used against us in Afghanistan, too, as well as RPGs made by the same manufacturers. Israel interdicts shiploads of similar weapons going into Gaza often enough, if you've followed the news. In other words, there's plenty to be had via the black market.

As for patience, the situation in Iraq proves we have little. Put more of our guys with bullseyes on their backs in Afghanistan and you'll be seeing a similar kind of death toll there.
 
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (The Return of the Raider @ Jul 28 2008, 02:40 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div><div class='quotemain'><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Real @ Jul 28 2008, 02:19 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div><div class='quotemain'><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (The Return of the Raider @ Jul 28 2008, 12:27 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div><div class='quotemain'>You are generalizing people, and not giving each opinion the benefit of the doubt- stereotyping people to a large degree. I have no doubt what you have experienced in your own lifetime, but I can tell you that not everyone follows a specific set of beliefs that you think they do - perhaps just many that you have encountered. Why not get to know people a little better before rushing to judgements like that? Peace, Denny.</div>

Why don't you ask Al Gore what he went through when he walked through campus at Harvard with his military uniform on?
</div>

I just sent an email to him.
</div>

Well good because he always has his labtop on and plugged into his private jet and he takes it with him when he's being driven around in his motorcade.
 
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Denny Crane @ Jul 28 2008, 03:20 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div><div class='quotemain'><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE </div><div class='quotemain'>
How about we go to war just so that we can take resources for ourselves? It's not revenge, its domination and control. If our oil costs are going through the roof, why not just take someone else's supply so that it brings our costs down a bit? Seems logical to me.</div>

A lot of liars said we went to war in Iraq to control their oil. The truth is, we were interested in the fair and free flow of their oil, and that the revenues from it not be used to build Saddam and his sons massive palaces while his people starved and were subjected to WMDs.

What I know is a LOT of those people who demonstrated at the '68 convention are now working as democratic party operatives, and that people are still parroting the democratic party talking points. As if they share some WWW site for talking points and memorize them.
</div>

Well, we should definitely go take Afghanistan's oil(and Iraq's while we're at it. They owe us so much money for disposing of this guy that used to be in charge). I would love to see my energy costs go down here at home. For Afganistan, they're probably even easier to bribe than the Iraqi's.

To the people from the 68' convention, to each his own, I guess.

I hate parrots. They are so annoying.
 
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Real @ Jul 28 2008, 03:31 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div><div class='quotemain'>Well good because he always has his labtop on and plugged into his private jet and he takes it with him when he's being driven around in his motorcade.</div>

Must be nice. I envy that guy.
 
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Denny Crane @ Jul 28 2008, 03:31 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div><div class='quotemain'>Think on this: Saddam had MIGs and SCUDs and Silkworms and AK47s, not US made weapons. Those are the weapons used against us in Afghanistan, too, as well as RPGs made by the same manufacturers. Israel interdicts shiploads of similar weapons going into Gaza often enough, if you've followed the news. In other words, there's plenty to be had via the black market.</div>


The US gave Saddam ~$5 billion in loans prior to the first Gulf War. This included loans for military purposes against Iran. Iraq was getting military hardware from both the US and Russia (I'm assuming that is where they bought the Russian-made equipment). Times have changed, obviously.


<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE </div><div class='quotemain'>Reagan Played Decisive Role in Saddam Hussein's Survival in Iran-Iraq War


WASHINGTON - As Americans mourn the passing of president Ronald Reagan, almost forgotten is the decisive part his administration played in the survival of Iraq's president Saddam Hussein through his eight year war with Iran.

US soldiers now fighting the remnants of Saddam's regime can look back to the early 1980s for the start of a relationship that fostered the rise of the largest military in the Middle East, one whose use of chemical weapons set the stage for last year's war.


Reagan played decisive role in Saddam Hussein's survival in Iran-Iraq war
Reagan, determined to check arch-foe Iran, opened a back door to Iraq through which flowed US intelligence and hundreds of millions of dollars in loan guarantees even as Washington professed neutrality in Baghdad's war with Tehran.

It was complemented by French weaponry and German dual-use technology that experts say wound up in Iraq's chemical and biological warfare programs.

Donald Rumsfeld, then Reagan's special Middle East envoy, is credited with establishing the back channel to Saddam on a secret trip to Baghdad in December 1983.

Washington had plenty of motives to help Saddam stave off an Iranian victory. Not only was the United States still smarting from the 1980 hostage-taking at the US embassy in Tehran, but its embassy and a marine barracks in Beirut had been struck with truck bombings earlier in 1983.

In fact, the United States had begun to tilt in favor Baghdad even before Rumsfeld's arrival in Baghdad.

In February 1982, the State Department dropped Baghdad from its list of state sponsors of terrorism, clearing the way for aid and trade.

A month later, Reagan ordered a review of US policy in the Middle East which resulted in a marked shift in favor of Iraq over the next year.

"Soon thereafter, Washington began passing high-value military intelligence to Iraq to help it fight the war, including information from US satellites that helped fix key flaws in the fortifications protecting al-Basrah that proved important in Iran's defeat in the next month," wrote Kenneth Pollack in his recently published book "The Threatening Storm."

Economic aid poured into Iraq in the form of hundreds of millions of dollars worth of loan guarantees to buy US agricultural products, indirectly aiding the war effort.

Sales of UH-1H helicopters and Hughes MD-500 Defender helicopters were approved by Washington. Though sold as civilian aircraft, nobody objected when they were quickly converted for military use.

A May 9, 1984 memo unearthed by the National Security Archive, a Washington research organization, noted that US policy for the sale of dual-use equipment to Iraq's nuclear program also was reviewed.

The memo said its "preliminary results favor expanding such trade to include Iraqi nuclear entities."

By March 1985, the United States was issuing Baghdad export permits for high tech equipment crucial for its weapons of mass destruction programs, according to Pollack.

US allies also were active in Iraq.

"By 1982, Iraq accounted for 40 percent of French arms exports," wrote Pollack. "Paris sold Baghdad a wide range of weapons, including armored vehicles, air defense radars, surface-to-air missiles, Mirage fighters, and Exocet anti-ship missiles."

"German firms also rushed in without much compunction, not only selling Iraq large numbers of trucks and automobiles but also building vast complexes for Iraq's chemical warfare, biological warfare, and ballistic missile programs," he wrote.

The aid came despite clear evidence as early as mid-1983 that Iraq was using chemical weapons on Iranian forces.

Washington said nothing publicly, but noted "almost daily" Iraqi use of chemical weapons in internal reports.

"We have recently received additional information confirming Iraqi use of chemical weapons," a November 1, 1983 State Department memo said. "We also know that Iraq has acquired a CW production capability, primarily from western firms, including possibly a US foreign subsidiary."

It said "our best present chance of influencing cessation of CW use may be in the context of informing Iraq of these measures."

Washington did not publicly denounce Iraqi use of chemical weapons until March, 1984 after it was documented in a UN study.

The Reagan administration opened full diplomatic relations with Baghdad in November, 1984. Iraqi chemical attacks continued not only on Iranian forces but also on Kurdish civilians, notably at Hallabja in 1987.

For its support, Pollack wrote, Washington got a bulwhark against Iran, cheap oil and Iraqi support for peace negotiations with Israel.

But when the Iran-Iraq war ended, Baghdad was left with huge debts and a large and menacing military looking for easy prey.</div>

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE </div><div class='quotemain'>U.S. and Iraq's Weapons (LA Times-23 Feb 93)

* From: Nathaniel Hurd <nhurd@DELETETHISemail.com>
* Subject: U.S. and Iraq's Weapons (LA Times-23 Feb 93)
* Date: Thu, 13 Jul 2000 09:58:11 -0400 (EDT)

Source: Lexis-Nexis Academic Universe

Copyright 1992 The Times Mirror Company
Los Angeles Times
View Related Topics
February 23, 1992, Sunday, Home Edition
SECTION: Part A; Page 1; Column 5; National Desk
LENGTH: 3506 words
HEADLINE: BUSH SECRET EFFORT HELPED IRAQ BUILD ITS WAR MACHINE;
PERSIAN GULF: DOCUMENTS SHOW THAT 9 MONTHS BEFORE HUSSEIN'S INVASION OF KUWAIT THE PRESIDENT
APPROVED $1 BILLION IN AID. OBJECTIONS FROM OTHERS WERE SUPPRESSED.

SERIES: BUSH AND AID TO IRAQ: First of three parts. Next: Reagan and Bush administrations pressure
the Export-Import Bank.

BYLINE: By DOUGLAS FRANTZ and MURRAY WAAS, SPECIAL TO THE TIMES; Frantz is a Times staff writer and
Waas is a special correspondent.

DATELINE: WASHINGTON

BODY:
In the fall of 1989, at a time when Iraq's invasion of Kuwait was only nine months away and Saddam
Hussein was desperate for money to buy arms, President Bush signed a top-secret National Security
Decision directive ordering closer ties with Baghdad and opening the way for $1 billion in new aid,
according to classified documents and interviews.

The $1-billion commitment, in the form of loan guarantees for the purchase of U.S. farm
commodities, enabled Hussein to buy needed foodstuffs on credit and to spend his scarce reserves of
hard currency on the massive arms buildup that brought war to the Persian Gulf.

Getting new aid from Washington was critical for Iraq in the waning months of 1989 and the early
months of 1990 because international bankers had cut off virtually all loans to Baghdad. They were
alarmed that it was falling behind in repaying its debts but continuing to pour millions of dollars
into arms purchases, even though the Iran-Iraq War had ended in the summer of 1988.

In addition to clearing the way for new financial aid, senior Bush aides as late as the spring of
1990 overrode concern among other government officials and insisted that Hussein continue to be
allowed to buy so-called "dual use" technology -- advanced equipment that could be used for both
civilian and military purposes. The Iraqis were given continued access to such equipment, despite
emerging evidence that they were working on nuclear arms and other weapons of mass destruction.

"Iraq is not to be singled out," National Security Council official Richard Haas declared at a
high-level meeting in April, 1990, according to participants' notes, when the Commerce Department
proposed curbing Iraqi purchases of militarily sensitive technology.

Invoking Bush's personal authority, Robert Kimmitt, undersecretary of state for political affairs,
added: "The President doesn't want to single out Iraq."

And the pressure in 1989 and 1990 to give Hussein crucial financial assistance and maintain his
access to sophisticated U.S. technology were not isolated incidents.

Rather, classified documents obtained by The Times show, they reflected a long-secret pattern of
personal efforts by Bush -- both as President and as vice president -- to support and placate the
Iraqi dictator. Repeatedly, when serious objections to helping Hussein arose within the government,
Bush and aides following his directives intervened to suppress the resistance.

The White House declined to comment Saturday.

In the case of the $1 billion in commodity loan guarantees, for instance, senior Bush aides, armed
with the presidential order -- NSD 26 -- insisted that the credits be approved despite objections
by officials in three government agencies. These officials warned that aid was being diverted to
buy weapons in violation of American law, that the loans would not be repaid and that earlier
assistance efforts were plagued by financial irregularities.

Bush's involvement began in the early 1980s as part of the so-called "tilt" toward Iraq initiated
by then-President Ronald Reagan to prop up Hussein in his war with Iran. Hussein's survival was
seen as vital to U.S. efforts to contain the spread of Islamic fundamentalism and thwart Iran's bid
for dominance in the Middle East.

Many in the American government, including Presidents Bush and Reagan, also hoped that U.S. aid
would gradually cause Hussein to moderate his ways and even play a positive role in the Middle East
peace process.

But classified records show that Bush's efforts on Hussein's behalf continued well beyond the end
of the Iran-Iraq War and persisted in the face of increasingly widespread warnings from inside the
American government that the overall policy had become misdirected.

Moreover, it appears that instead of merely keeping Hussein afloat as a counterweight to Iran, the
U.S. aid program helped him become a dangerous military power in his own right, able to threaten
the very U.S. interests that the program originally was designed to protect.

Clearly, U.S. aid did not lead Hussein to become a force for peace in the volatile region. In the
spring of 1990, as senior Administration officials worked to give him more financial aid, the Iraqi
leader bragged that Iraq possessed chemical weapons and threatened to "burn half of Israel." Nor
did he change his savagely repressive methods. In the summer of 1988, for example, he shocked the
world by killing several thousand Kurds with poison gas.

Even today, the Iraqi nuclear and chemical weapons programs carried forward with the help of
sophisticated American technology continue to haunt U.S. and United Nations officials as they
struggle to root out elements of those programs that have survived the allied victory in the
Persian Gulf War.

What drove Bush to champion the Iraqi cause so ardently and so long is not clear. But some evidence
suggests that it may have been a case of single-minded pursuit of a policy after its original
purpose had been overtaken by events -- and a failure to understand the true nature of Hussein
himself.

"When the Iran-Iraq War ended and Iran was really flat on its back, there should have been some
immediate kind of repositioning of U.S. policy so you wouldn't give Saddam this signal that we were
backing him as the big shot in the region," said William B. Quandt, a Middle East expert at the
Brookings Institution.

"We missed so many cues. Saddam wasn't behaving as you might expect an exhausted, war-weary leader
to behave. He was showing that he had just won a war and he was a power to be reckoned with and he
concluded that the Americans were not too upset about that," Quandt said.

Much of the blame for failing to perceive Hussein's expansionist ambitions and the dangers of
building him up has fallen on mid-level officials and on agencies such as the Commerce Department,
which approved the sale to Iraq of $1.5 billion worth of American technology, and the Agriculture
Department, which authorized a total of $5 billion in loan guarantees.

However, classified documents from several agencies and interviews over the last two months
demonstrate that it was foreign-policy initiatives from the White House and State Department that
guided relations with Iraq from the early 1980s to the eve of the Persian Gulf War -- and that Bush
and officials working under him played a prominent role in those initiatives.

For example:

* In 1987, Vice President Bush successfully pressed the federal Export-Import Bank to provide
hundreds of millions of dollars in aid for Iraq, the documents show, despite staff objections that
the loans were not likely to be repaid as required by law.

* After Bush became President in 1989, documents show that senior officials in his Administration
lobbied the bank and the Agriculture Department to finance billions in new Iraqi projects.

* As vice president in 1987, Bush met personally with Nizar Hamdoon, Iraq's ambassador to the
United States, to assure him that Iraq could buy more dual-use technology. It was three years later
that National Security Council officials blocked the attempt by the Commerce Department and other
agencies to restrict such exports.

* After Bush signed NSD 26 in October, 1989, Secretary of State James A. Baker III personally
intervened with Agriculture Secretary Clayton K. Yeutter to drop Agriculture's opposition to the $1
billion in food credits. Yeutter, now a senior White House official, agreed and the first half of
the $1 billion was made available to Iraq at the beginning of 1990.

* As late as July, 1990, one month before Iraqi troops stormed into Kuwait city, officials at the
National Security Council and the State Department were pushing to deliver the second installment
of the $1 billion in loan guarantees, despite the looming crisis in the region and evidence that
Iraq had used the aid illegally to help finance a secret arms procurement network to obtain
technology for its nuclear weapons and ballistic-missile program.

An Agriculture Department official cautioned in a February, 1990, internal memo that, when all the
facts were known about loan guarantees to Iraq, the program could be viewed as another "HUD or
savings-and-loan scandal."

Of the $5 billion in economic aid provided to Iraq over an eight-year period, American taxpayers
have now been stuck for $2 billion in defaulted loans.

Washington's supportive policy toward Iraq began in 1982. Hussein was in the second year of his war
with Iran and the conflict was not going well for Baghdad. The Reagan Administration, while
officially neutral, decided to help Iraq as a means of containing the Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini.

U.S. relations with Iraq had been severed in 1967 after the Arab-Israeli war, but the biggest
obstacle to renewed ties was the fact that Iraq was on Washington's official list of countries
supporting international terrorism. That meant that most forms of U.S. aid were prohibited by law.

The State Department responded by removing Iraq from the terrorism list in February, 1982, an
action opposed by some within the Administration. Four former officials said in interviews that
there was no evidence that Iraq's support of terrorists had waned.

"All the intelligence I saw indicated that the Iraqis continued to support terrorism to much the
same degree as they had in the past," said Noel Koch, then in charge of the Pentagon's
counterterrorism program. "We took Iraq off the list and shouldn't have. . . . We did it for
political reasons."

The assertion was supported by a secret 1988 memo in which Deputy Secretary of State John Whitehead
wrote, "Even though it was removed from the terrorism list six years ago, (Iraq) had provided
sanctuary to known terrorists, including Abul Abbas of Achille Lauro fame."

Almost immediately after Iraq was dropped from the list, Washington provided loan guarantees to
enable it to buy such American commodities as rice and wheat through the Agriculture Department's
Commodity Credit Corp.

Two years later in 1984, Bush personally pressed the federal Export-Import Bank to guarantee $500
million in loans so that Iraq could build a controversial oil pipeline, according to classified
government documents.

And throughout much of the period from 1982 to the end of the Reagan Administration, efforts were
made to funnel arms as well as economic aid to Baghdad -- sometimes through the Pentagon and
sometimes through U.S. allies in the Middle East. Some of the specific arms plans failed to work
but government sources said that significant quantities of arms did reach Baghdad as a result of
U.S. efforts.

At one point in 1982, for example, a proposal was put forward to trade four American-made howitzers
to Iraq for a Soviet T-72 tank, according to classified documents. The T-72 was of particular
importance according to a secret July, 1982, report by the Defense Intelligence Agency, because it
was protected by a new type of armor, which might prove invulnerable to American firepower. A
second plan in 1983 would have allowed Iraq to buy $45 million worth of 175-millimeter long-range
guns and ammunition in exchange for turning over a Soviet tank.

Pentagon officials also reported to then-Secretary of Defense Caspar W. Weinberger "that Iraqi
officials said it might be possible to exchange a (Soviet Hind) helicopter for permission to buy
100 Hughes helicopters" equipped with TOW missiles, according to a secret Pentagon memo.

For various reasons, each of these deals fell through. The helicopter transaction was scrapped
after the late Richard Stillwell, a retired general who was then deputy undersecretary of defense,
objected to working with an Iraqi-sponsored arms trafficker with a reputation for questionable
dealings.

"While I fully recognize the value to the U.S.A. of obtaining an MI-24 HIND, I recommend against
pursuing this particular deal because . . . the potential for causing embarrassment to the U.S.
government is too great," Stillwell wrote in a top-secret memo for Weinberger in 1983.

In a recent interview, Weinberger refused to discuss any of the proposed exchanges. Although
low-level Pentagon operatives saw the arms swaps or sales to Iraq as a means to obtain Soviet
technology, two officials say that Weinbeger saw it as a pretext to begin covert and direct arms
shipments to Iraq. But Weinberger did acknowledge being part of a faction in the Reagan
Administration that favored Iraq over Iran. "Many of us thought it would be better if Iraq won,"
said Weinberger, now a lawyer in private practice.

A number of classified State Department cables also describe proposals in 1982 and 1983 by William
Eagleton, the senior U.S. diplomat in Baghdad, to funnel arms to Iraq through allies in the Middle
East. "We can selectively lift restrictions on third-party transfers of U.S.-license military
equipment to Iraq," he said in an October, 1983, cable.

Although initially rejected, other documents and interviews with former U.S. officials indicate
that the policy was pursued on a covert basis with Egypt, Jordan and Kuwait and that arms were
transferred to Iraq.

"There was a conscious effort to encourage third countries to ship U.S. arms or acquiesce in
shipments after the fact," said Howard Teicher, who monitored Middle East policy at the National
Security Council in the Reagan Administration. "It was a policy of nods and winks."

While the American rationale was that Hussein was a buffer against Iran, classified records show
U.S. support for his regime continued unabated after the official cease-fire in the Iran-Iraq War
was signed in August, 1988, and after Iraq's chemical weapons attack on the Kurdish villages on
July 19, 1988.

In fact, in August, 1988, Deputy Secretary of State Whitehead recommended in a secret policy memo
that "there should be no radical policy changes now regarding Iraq."

The pro-Iraq strategy was embraced by Bush when he became President. His Administration continued
to encourage the transfer of U.S.-supplied arms to Iraq from Arab allies, according to interviews
and classified documents.

In NSD 26, he said, "Access to the (Persian) Gulf and the key friendly states in the area is vital
to U.S. national security." Included among those states was Iraq, and Bush ordered federal agencies
to expand political and economic ties with Baghdad.

NSD 26 came at the height of attempts by the Agriculture Department and other agencies to slash the
largest U.S. aid program to Iraq -- the commodity loan guarantees.

Set up to help U.S. farmers increase exports, the program guarantees repayment of bank loans to
foreign governments for purchases of American commodities. If the foreign government defaults on
the loan, U.S. taxpayers pick up the tab.

Regulations require the Agriculture Department to allocate guarantees on the basis of the receiving
country's agricultural needs, its market potential and the likelihood that the loans will be
repaid. Classified documents show, however, that foreign-policy considerations played a decisive
role in allocating credits to Iraq.

The Iraqis themselves raised the idea of U.S. guarantees for food aid in 1983, a time when U.S.
officials feared that Hussein might be overthrown because of food shortages caused by the Iran-Iraq
War.

Before the year was out, the first $402 million in Agriculture Department loan guarantees was
approved for Iraq. In 1984, the amount rose to $513 million and it eventually reached $1.1 billion
in 1988.

As the guarantees increased, so did concerns. The primary forum for airing these anxieties was a
little-known, interagency organization called the National Advisory Council.

Advisory Council documents show that beginning in 1985, a number of members representing the
Federal Reserve Board, Treasury Department and the Export-Import Bank counseled or voted at
different times against increases of aid to Iraq. They feared that Iraq was not credit-worthy and
would not be able to repay the billions owed.

Their concerns intensified when on Aug. 4, 1989, FBI and Customs Service agents raided the Atlanta
branch of an Italian bank, Banca Nazionale del Lavoro, and uncovered $4 billion in unauthorized
loans to Iraq, including $900 million guaranteed by the Agriculture Department program.

Nevertheless, top Bush Administration officials, including Secretary of State Baker, discounted the
protests in the interagency group and sought another $1 billion in loan guarantees for Iraq in the
fall of 1989, to be given in two installments.

By early 1990, Iraq had used the first $500 million and was asking for the second installment. The
NSC and the State Department pressed to have the aid released.

Again there was resistance. Iraqi officials had been implicated more deeply in the growing Banca
Nazionale affair and government analysts were more skeptical about Iraq's ability to repay its
growing foreign debt because it was spending so much on arms.

"In the worst-case scenario, investigators would find a direct link to financing Iraqi military
expenditures, particularly the Condor missile," Paul Dickerson, head of the Agriculture Department
program that aided the Iraqis, wrote in a Feb. 23, 1990, memo to his superior.

Condor was an Iraqi effort to develop an intercontinental missile capable of delivering a nuclear
warhead. While Dickerson later told a congressional committee that he was only speculating about
the Condor, his warning reflected growing evidence that the Agriculture aid had gone for military
uses.

Then on March 27, 1990, the U.S. Customs Service thwarted an effort by Iraq to obtain American-made
triggers for nuclear weapons. And in a speech that same month, Hussein issued his threat to "burn
half of Israel." Publicly, at least, President Bush promised a crackdown on exports to Iraq, saying
that "nuclear proliferation . . . continues to pose serious threats to U.S. interests, as well as
the interests of our friends in the region."

On April 16, 1990, CIA Director Robert M. Gates, then deputy national security adviser, chaired an
interagency meeting to discuss Iraqi policy. At that meeting, Commerce Undersecretary Dennis Kloske
presented a variety of proposals to restrict licenses of high-tech technology with potential
military uses to Iraq. The proposals were rejected.

On June 8, Kloske also sent a classified memo to Gates recommending a limited proposal to tighten
up controls of exports to Iraq for technology with ballistic-missile applications. That proposal
was rejected as well.

Hussein had also begun his campaign of overt threats against Kuwait, accusing his tiny neighbor of
economic warfare and vowing to retaliate.

Yet as late as July 9, 1990, April Glaspie, the U.S. ambassador to Iraq, assured Iraqi officials
that the Bush Administration was still trying to get the second $500 million released, according to
a classified cable.

Only on Aug. 2, 1990, did the Agriculture Department officially suspend the Agriculture Department
guarantees to Iraq -- the same day that Hussein's tanks and troops swept into Kuwait.

Aid on the Eve of War

Classified documents obtained by The Times show a long-secret pattern of personal efforts by Bush
-- as President and as vice president -- to support and placate Iraqi dictator Saddam Hussein. Here
are some of the key incidents:
1984

* June: Vice President Bush telephones the president of the Export-Import Bank and helps persuade
him to approve $500 million in loan guarantees so Iraq can build an oil pipeline.

1987

* Late February: Vice President Bush telephones the new president of the Export-Import Bank and
successfully lobbies for Iraq to receive $200 million in new loan guarantees from the federal
agency.

* March 2: Vice President Bush meets with Iraqi ambassador Nizar Hamdoon and tells him that two
requests by Iraq for sensitive American technology had been approved over objections from the
Defense Department.

1988

* Aug. 19: Iraq and Iran sign official cease-fire ending 8-year war.

1989

* Early October: President Bush signs a secret national security directive ordering U.S. agencies
to expand political and economic ties with Iraq.

* Oct. 31: Secretary of State James A. Baker III telephones Agriculture Secretary Clayton K.
Yeutter and persuades him to reverse Agriculture's position and approve $1 billion in new loan
guarantees to Iraq.

* Nov. 8: The $1 billion is approved despite concerns by the Treasury Department and Federal
Reserve about a growing scandal involving Iraq and the Agriculture credits.

1990

* April 19: White House National Security Council thwarts efforts by Commerce Department to stem
the flow of U.S. technology to Iraq.

* July 9: April Glaspie, U.S. ambassador to Iraq, assures officials in Baghdad that the Bush
Administration is still trying to obtain the release of the second $500 million of the $1 billion
approved in November.

* Aug. 2: Iraq invades Kuwait and the Agriculture Department officially ends loan guarantees to
Iraq that have amounted to $5 billion since 1983.</div>
 
Man, read your own articles.

We didn't send $.01 to Saddam, and never did. (What is a loan guarantee?)

We did help him win his war against Iran by sharing satellite photos of where all the Iranian tanks and other strategic targets were. But even that was done late in the game.

That we did prop him up in lots of ways is why WE had the moral obligation to take him out.

We didn't sell him any chemical weapons or chemicals to make into weapons. The ones he used were of German and Russian design.

We did sell him the precursors to bio weapons (actually, sold to Baghdad Universities), but he never used anything like that against Iran or his own people.
 
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Denny Crane @ Jul 28 2008, 03:31 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div><div class='quotemain'>Saddam was more than crazy, he was a vicious torturer and mass murderer. There were no exaggerations or lies.

Think on this: Saddam had MIGs and SCUDs and Silkworms and AK47s, not US made weapons. Those are the weapons used against us in Afghanistan, too, as well as RPGs made by the same manufacturers. Israel interdicts shiploads of similar weapons going into Gaza often enough, if you've followed the news. In other words, there's plenty to be had via the black market.

As for patience, the situation in Iraq proves we have little. Put more of our guys with bullseyes on their backs in Afghanistan and you'll be seeing a similar kind of death toll there.</div>

So it wasn't an exaggeration when Bush said "Facing clear evidence of peril, we cannot wait for the final proof -- the smoking gun -- that could come in the form of a mushroom cloud." Inspections showed that there were no WMD. Then again that doesn't answer whether or not those stockpiles could have been moved. There are and will remain to be lots of questions on whether or not going into Iraq was correct to do in the first place but most citizens and officials do not believe it was.

Are you someone that believes the surge worked in Iraq? If it worked in Iraq then why wouldn't a surge in troops work in Afghanistan?
 
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Denny Crane @ Jul 28 2008, 04:39 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div><div class='quotemain'>Man, read your own articles.

We didn't send $.01 to Saddam, and never did. (What is a loan guarantee?)</div>

I do, you didn't. 1 penny, huh? It's pretty obvious that you stopped reading at some point. Here are some highlights...

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE </div><div class='quotemain'>In the fall of 1989, at a time when Iraq's invasion of Kuwait was only nine months away and Saddam
Hussein was desperate for money to buy arms, President Bush signed a top-secret National Security
Decision directive ordering closer ties with Baghdad and opening the way for $1 billion in new aid,
according to classified documents and interviews.

The $1-billion commitment, in the form of loan guarantees for the purchase of U.S. farm
commodities, enabled Hussein to buy needed foodstuffs on credit and to spend his scarce reserves of
hard currency on the massive arms buildup that brought war to the Persian Gulf
.</div>

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE </div><div class='quotemain'><u>Much of the blame for failing to perceive Hussein's expansionist ambitions and the dangers of
building him up has fallen on mid-level officials and on agencies such as the Commerce Department,
which approved the sale to Iraq of $1.5 billion worth of American technology, and the Agriculture
Department, which authorized a total of $5 billion in loan guarantees.</u>
</div>

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE </div><div class='quotemain'>Their concerns intensified when on Aug. 4, 1989, FBI and Customs Service agents raided the Atlanta
branch of an Italian bank, Banca Nazionale del Lavoro, and uncovered $4 billion in unauthorized
loans to Iraq, including $900 million guaranteed by the Agriculture Department program.</div>

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE </div><div class='quotemain'>Of the $5 billion in economic aid provided to Iraq over an eight-year period, American taxpayers
have now been stuck for $2 billion in defaulted loans.</div>


That's a bit more than 1 penny, my friend. We helped Saddam become the monster that we cursed him for becoming, financially and otherwise.
 
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (sunsfan1357 @ Jul 28 2008, 03:39 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div><div class='quotemain'><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Denny Crane @ Jul 28 2008, 03:31 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div><div class='quotemain'>Saddam was more than crazy, he was a vicious torturer and mass murderer. There were no exaggerations or lies.

Think on this: Saddam had MIGs and SCUDs and Silkworms and AK47s, not US made weapons. Those are the weapons used against us in Afghanistan, too, as well as RPGs made by the same manufacturers. Israel interdicts shiploads of similar weapons going into Gaza often enough, if you've followed the news. In other words, there's plenty to be had via the black market.

As for patience, the situation in Iraq proves we have little. Put more of our guys with bullseyes on their backs in Afghanistan and you'll be seeing a similar kind of death toll there.</div>

So it wasn't an exaggeration when Bush said "Facing clear evidence of peril, we cannot wait for the final proof -- the smoking gun -- that could come in the form of a mushroom cloud." Inspections showed that there were no WMD. Then again that doesn't answer whether or not those stockpiles could have been moved. There are and will remain to be lots of questions on whether or not going into Iraq was correct to do in the first place but most citizens and officials do not believe it was.

Are you someone that believes the surge worked in Iraq? If it worked in Iraq then why wouldn't a surge in troops work in Afghanistan?
</div>

Inspections showed there were all kinds of WMD. They had huge amounts of pesticides (chemical weapons) among other things. The UN inspectors were severely disappointed they could not find everything and in Iraq's continual obstruction of the inspections. By the time we invaded, there had not been inspectors there (but Blix and he was ineffective) for several years. Clinton bombed the **** out of Iraq in 1998 over the same issue, and declared Saddam had to go (official US policy). If Bush was lying, so was Clinton, so were the Russians, so were the French, so were the Germans, and so were all kinds of intelligence agencies outside the USA.

We cannot wait for the final proof. We waited on Al Qaeda and see what happened. Even with all that Bill Clinton did to try and stop it.

We had sanctions on them for over a decade. Their people were starving and dying of curable illnesses. The Russians, Chinese, French, and Germans were ready to lift the sanctions sooner than later; they were all in on the corrupt oil-for-food UN scandal, BTW. Once sanctions were lifted, there was no stopping Iraq from continuing their WMD programs.

Most citizens don't know better. They don't follow the news or politics or foreign affairs. Only what the media sees fit to print or show on TV in 30 second sound bites. The media was rooting for failure from the start and changed public opinion over years of negative reporting and zero positive reporting. But hey, the negative reporting stopped since the surge, and public opinion has swung towards seeing it through in Iraq.

As for Afghanistan, no, I do not believe a surge makes sense. The surge in Iraq bought time for a sophisticated nation with a history of having the 6th largest military in the world (pre Gulf War I) to build the kind of security and military forces they need to control their quite modern country. What is a surge in Afghanistan supposed to buy time for? You're talking about a country with one city and a handful of towns and most of the people live a tribal existence. The country has 1 highway; it took the US a month after 9/11 to even figure out if they had any strategic targets to take out with all our might. They don't have oil to base an economy upon. Think it through.

Oh yeah, 550 casualties in Afghanistan. Why go for more?
 
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Denny Crane @ Jul 28 2008, 07:02 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div><div class='quotemain'>Inspections showed there were all kinds of WMD. They had huge amounts of pesticides (chemical weapons) among other things. The UN inspectors were severely disappointed they could not find everything and in Iraq's continual obstruction of the inspections. By the time we invaded, there had not been inspectors there (but Blix and he was ineffective) for several years. Clinton bombed the **** out of Iraq in 1998 over the same issue, and declared Saddam had to go (official US policy). If Bush was lying, so was Clinton, so were the Russians, so were the French, so were the Germans, and so were all kinds of intelligence agencies outside the USA.</div>

We're not talking about past inspections we're talking about inspections involved directly with the current War in Iraq where no WMD were found after we invaded.

"On the day before it is due to be shut down, the U.N. unit that found no weapons of mass destruction in Iraq but failed to stop the U.S.-led invasion said on Thursday time had justified its methods and work. In a voluminous report detailing the history of Iraq's banned weapons programs and U.N. efforts to dismantle them, it said the episode had shown that on-the-ground inspections were better than intelligence assessments by individual countries." http://www.globalpolicy.org/security/issue...0628tolduso.htm

Thus proves that there was no threat of a "mushroom cloud" and that the administration did lie as evidenced by the Valerie Plame case and Scooter Libby going to trial.

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE </div><div class='quotemain'>We cannot wait for the final proof. We waited on Al Qaeda and see what happened. Even with all that Bill Clinton did to try and stop it.</div>

We can and should wait for proof in forms of solid intelligence, which the adminstration provided none of when going into Iraq. There was enough intelligence to know about Al-Qaeda and there have been opportunities to stop them pre-911 the government just failed to get the job done really. Pre-emptive strikes land you in the situation in Iraq right now.

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE </div><div class='quotemain'>Most citizens don't know better. They don't follow the news or politics or foreign affairs. Only what the media sees fit to print or show on TV in 30 second sound bites. The media was rooting for failure from the start and changed public opinion over years of negative reporting and zero positive reporting. But hey, the negative reporting stopped since the surge, and public opinion has swung towards seeing it through in Iraq.</div>

How can you argue that the media wanted the war to fail when they are the ones that didn't question the intelligence the war was based on in the first place? It was their job to inform the public and raise questions but they did none of that and followed the Bush Administration into war.

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE </div><div class='quotemain'>As for Afghanistan, no, I do not believe a surge makes sense. The surge in Iraq bought time for a sophisticated nation with a history of having the 6th largest military in the world (pre Gulf War I) to build the kind of security and military forces they need to control their quite modern country. What is a surge in Afghanistan supposed to buy time for? You're talking about a country with one city and a handful of towns and most of the people live a tribal existence. The country has 1 highway; it took the US a month after 9/11 to even figure out if they had any strategic targets to take out with all our might. They don't have oil to base an economy upon. Think it through.

Oh yeah, 550 casualties in Afghanistan. Why go for more?</div>

We didn't go into Afghanistan for oil or to topple a dictator, we went into Afghanistan to take down the Taliban and Al-Qaeda and capture Bin Laden. It's no secret that violence in Afghanistan is on the rise because we are not concentrated enough there. A surge buys us time to go into the regions where high level terrorist cells are (Afghan/Pakistan border) and take out the targets we were supposed to take out in the first place.
 
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Denny Crane @ Jul 28 2008, 07:02 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div><div class='quotemain'>As for Afghanistan, no, I do not believe a surge makes sense. The surge in Iraq bought time for a sophisticated nation with a history of having the 6th largest military in the world (pre Gulf War I) to build the kind of security and military forces they need to control their quite modern country. What is a surge in Afghanistan supposed to buy time for? You're talking about a country with one city and a handful of towns and most of the people live a tribal existence. The country has 1 highway; it took the US a month after 9/11 to even figure out if they had any strategic targets to take out with all our might. They don't have oil to base an economy upon. Think it through.

Oh yeah, 550 casualties in Afghanistan. Why go for more?</div>

I have an idea. Let's go into Afganastan with some military tech, provide support for a rival tribal faction, and let them fight Al Queda for us! No US casualties!

Also, Stark Industries can created a new missle battery that will "make the bad guys never want to leave their caves".
 
The media? They were rooting for a sandstorm to stop the US troops from going into baghdad within a few days of the start of the invasion. It didn't get any better. I'll jog your memory:

http://www.hickpolitics.com/?p=421

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE </div><div class='quotemain'>CNN is helping set the stage for the Democrats to stand up as the quitters they are, only THIS time Iraqi Soldiers must be declared beaten before the battle is over. Nothing new here, folks…move along now. Two days is enough time to determine that wherever there is resistance from an enemy, the “good guys” need to Tuck Tail and Run™.

The Iraqi military push into the southern city of Basra is not going as well as American officials had hoped, despite President Bush’s high praise for the operation, several U.S. officials said Friday.

A closely held U.S. military intelligence analysis of the fighting in Basra shows that Iraqi security forces control less than a quarter of the city, according to officials in both the United States and Iraq, and Basra’s police units are deeply infiltrated by members of radical Shiite cleric Muqtada al-Sadr’s Mehdi Army.

“This is going to go on for a while,” one U.S. military official said.

“Go on for a while” is all the Democrat Media Wing needs to hear; stiff resistance = fight is lost.</div>



globalsecurity.org has a lot of nifty documents. Like the final report of the Iraq Survey Group. The intel reports from around the world may not have been 100% accurate, but they were not without solid foundation. Why cherry pick the UN inspectors' reports, when their inspections were obstructed all along the way. How about the ISG, which had all the time they needed and without Saddam and his cronies there to impede the inspections?

http://www.globalsecurity.org/wmd/library/...vol1_rfp-03.htm

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE </div><div class='quotemain'>Executing Illicit Procurement in Iraq: Ministries, Commissions, and Front Companies
Overview

Saddam used his complete control over the Iraqi Government to facilitate his illicit procurement programs. Almost every Ministry in the Regime assisted with procurement in some way. Directed by Saddam, the Ministries of Foreign Affairs, Oil, and Trade helped the former Regime orchestrate its primary foreign objective of ending UN sanctions (see Annex H: UN Security Council Resolutions Applicable to Iraq).

* The MFA curried favors at the UN. Among other techniques and tactics used by the MFA, it bestowed oil allocations to nationals of the UNSC permanent members to influence and divide the council in order to erode sanctions. For additional details on the MFA role in influencing the UNSC, see the RSI chapter.
* The MoT established bilateral trade Protocols that were used to hide prohibited trade. The ministry used commercial attaches to pay for illicit procurement.
* The MoD developed requirements, hosted and conducted foreign visits, and procured conventional military goods, the export of which breached UN sanctions.
* The banking system established foreign accounts to hold illicit hard currency until it could be used for procurement or smuggled into Baghdad.
* The Ministry of Higher Education an Scientific Research (MHESR) conducted dual-use research; procured and developed technical expertise in WMD-related fields and procured key technologies through university systems.

Saddam, however, relied on three organizations in particular for the procurement of prohibited materials to include potentially-WMD related or dual-use items (see Annex I: Suspected Iraqi Dual-Use Procurement Transactions):

* The MIC, headed by Huwaysh since 1997, and its associated front companies led Iraqi efforts to obtain prohibited military hardware and dual-use goods.
* The IIS was directed by Saddam to assist the MIC with procurement in 1998.
* The Iraqi Atomic Energy Commission (IEAC) pursued its own illicit procurement goals, occasionally with MIC assistance.</div>


http://www.globalsecurity.org/wmd/library/...1_rfp-anx-i.htm

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE </div><div class='quotemain'>Suspected WMD-Related Dual-Use Goods and Procurement Transactions

The following is a list of procurement transactions, contracts, attempted transactions, or contract tenders of products of suspected dual-use goods. The section below lists terms used by ISG throughout the report and this particular annex, as well as summarizes specific UNSCR affecting member states’ obligations in exporting dual-use and military goods to Iraq.

The goods described below appear to be dual-use as specified by the 1051 or the GRL, and consequently could have been of use to Iraq for the development, production or use of WMD. However, without full technical specifications of the items or knowledge of whether UN approval was granted for these exports, ISG cannot determine whether UN sanctions were actually breached with the procurement transactions summarized below. Investigating possible breaches of sanctions relating to the export of dual-use goods is outside the scope of ISG.

Possible Violations of UN Sanctions by French Companies
2002—French Company Carbone Lorraine Supplied the MIC with Chemical Warfare Raw Materials

As of August 2002 the former Iraqi Regime and the French company Carbone Lorraine had been cooperating for many years in the procurement of high-tech industrial equipment, some of which had WMD applications.
2001—Attempt To Procure Mobile Laboratory Trucks

A French firm known for violating UN sanctions submitted a request for bids to a South Korean and a German company for 20 mobile laboratory trucks in August 2001. The end-user for the trucks was purported to be the Iraqi General Company for Water and Sewage.

Possible Breaches of UN Sanctions by Austrian Companies
2001—Negotiations To Procure Autoclaves

AGMEST and the Al Rafad Scientific Bureau for Promoting Drugs and Medical Appliances, both located in Baghdad, negotiated a contract for the Iraqi Ministry of Health for autoclaves from an Austrian firm in early 2001.

* Two of the autoclaves were reportedly intended for the Vaccine and Serum Institute in Baghdad, a probable reference to the Amiriyah Serum and Vaccine Institute (ASVI).
* In July 2002, Sabah N.M. Ali of AGMEST in Baghdad, Iraq, Firas Kadhum of the Iraqi Al Rafah Scientific Bureau for Promoting Drugs and Medical Appliances, and an official from a Jordanian firm negotiated a contract for autoclaves, sterilizers, and vacuum pumps from the Austrian company with the end user being SDI.

Possible Breaches of UN Sanctions by German Companies
2001—Attempts To Acquire Biotechnology and Biological Weapons-Related Technology and Expertise

The Amman, Jordan office of the Iraqi front company Winter International forwarded offers for dual-use laboratory equipment from a German firm to the Winter International office in Baghdad, in March 2001. The end-user of this equipment was purported to be the Iraqi MoI. The equipment offered included:

* An electrophoresis system including a special atomizer with rubber bellows for producing reagent mists. This system can be used for recombinant DNA process-cloning and many other molecular biology applications.
* A refrigerated ultracentrifuge, a microcentrifuge, a low temperature freezer (between -30 and -80 degrees Celsius), and an automatic DNA-analysis system with mono-laser. This equipment is on the UN dual-use monitoring lists and would have required verification.
* A moisture purging vacuum pump and electroporator. This equipment is used for plasmid cloning.

2002—Attempts To Procure a DNA Synthesizer

From August 2002 through February 2003 representatives from a Jordanian trading company with links to Iraq attempted to purchase a DNA synthesizer from a German based company. This equipment was restricted under the UN GRL.

* An official claiming to be the managing director of the Jordanian firm Al Theker forwarded the information to Iraq. The report stated that it appeared that the Jordanian firm’s official was forwarding information back to the Baghdad-based Wateera Company.

Possible Breaches of UN Sanctions by Italian Companies
2002—Attempt To Procure Biotechnology and Bio Weapons Related Technology and Expertise

In January 2002, the Al-Mazd Group for Medical and Engineering Systems and Technology (AGMEST) in Baghdad requested a quotation for 10 freeze dryers through the Iraqi Ministry of Health from an Italian firm.
2002—Attempt To Procure Dual-Use Autoclaves

In March 2002 the Iraqi firm Al Mutasem Engineering used a Jordanian intermediary company, to contact an Italian firm and receive a price quote for dual-use autoclaves.

* Autoclaves are commonly used in laboratories to sterilize equipment. They are not a vital part of a BW program as there are other means to sterilize equipment.

Possible Breaches of UN Sanctions by Turkish Companies
2002—Procurement of CBW Protective Equipment

A Turkish firm sold and transferred atropine autoinjectors to the Iraqi government starting in August 2002. The company also provided coordination in response to Iraqi requests for chemical protective equipment, unspecified laboratory chemicals and biological growth media.

* In December 2002, the same firm continued to work with the Iraqi government on a new order for atropine autoinjectors and was also working to fill Iraqi orders for additional CBW protective equipment; specifically 600 microbial decontamination systems, 600 CBW protective kits including protective masks and garments, and 10 sterilizers.

Possible Breaches of UN Sanctions by Indian Companies
2002—Attempt To Procure Biotechnology Equipment

According to reports, an Indian export company provided a quotation for a dry powder injection-filling project at the Al-Anaam Pharmaceutical Company packaging plant in Baghdad.
2002—Attempt To Procure Biotechnology technology

According to reporting, in late 2002, Iraq’s State Company for Vegetable Oil issued tender no. 649/2002 to several different Iraqi trading firms in an attempt to procure detergent production facilities that included high-capacity spray drying equipment and cyclone filters. An Indian firm was the only supplier to present Iraq’s State Company for Vegetable Oil with an offer.
2003—Attempt To Procure Dual-Use Drugs

In January 2003, an Indian firm offered to deliver 10 metric tons of bulk Ciprofloxacin to the Iraqi State Company for Manufacturing of Drugs and Medical Appliances, Kimadia’s Samarra Drug Industries.

* Ciprofloxacin is a widely used antibiotic that could also be used to treat Anthrax infection. It was specifically added to the UN Goods Review List (GRL), pursuant to UNSCR 1454.
* Iraq’s procurement and stockpiling of Ciprofloxacin would have facilitated the country’s employment of BW against coalition forces, Iraq’s neighbors, and/or its own citizens.
* There is insufficient data available to confirm the completion of this deal.

2003—Transfer of Hormone Tablet Production Manufacturing Technology

An Indian firm working through representatives of the Syrian Group Company (SGC) Baghdad offices, provided an offer for a hormone tablet facility to Iraq in late January 2003. The client for the facility was identified as “M/S Al-Amin” which is very likely the Al-Anaam Pharmaceutical Company.
Nuclear Dual-Use Related Procurement
Possible Breaches of UN Sanctions by Belarusian Companies
2001—Contract for Ferrite Materials Including Magnets

The MIC company Al-Tahadi had a contract with the Belarusian company, Balmorals Ventures, for ferrite materials, including permanent ferrite magnets.

* Some of the equipment was received from this contract, to include, a press machine and a mixer.
* The MIC initiated direct contact with the Belarusian company and therefore neither Al-Sirat nor Al-Najah were involved in this procurement attempt.</div>

http://www.globalsecurity.org/wmd/library/...vol1_rfp-04.htm
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE </div><div class='quotemain'>Supplying Iraq With Prohibited Commodities
Overview

Despite UN sanctions, many countries and companies engaged in prohibited procurement with the Iraqi regime throughout the 1990s, largely because of the profitability of such trade.

* Private companies from Jordan, India, France, Italy, Romania, and Turkey seem to have engaged in possible WMD-related trade with Iraq.
* The Governments of Syria, Belarus, North Korea, former Federal Republic of Yugoslavia, Yemen, and possibly Russia directly supported or endorsed private company efforts to aid Iraq with conventional arms procurement, in breach of UN sanctions.
* In addition, companies based out of the following 14 countries supported Iraq’s conventional arms procurement programs: Jordan, the People’s Republic of China, India, South Korea, Bulgaria, Ukraine, Cyprus, Egypt, Lebanon, Georgia, France, Poland, Romania, and Taiwan.
* The number of countries and companies supporting Saddam’s schemes to undermine UN sanctions increased dramatically over time from 1995 to 2003 (see figure 54).
* A few neighboring countries such as Jordan, Syria, Turkey, Egypt, and Yemen, entered into bilateral trade agreements with Iraq. These agreements provided an avenue for increasing trade coordination and eventually led to sanctions violations.

The countries supporting Iraq’s illicit procurement changed over time. These changes reflected trends based on Saddam Husayn’s ability to generate hard currency to buy items and the willingness of the international community to criticize those countries selling prohibited goods to the Regime. The following sections addressing each country have been grouped according to when evidence indicates they began supporting Saddam’s illicit procurement programs</div>
 
I hate to use analogy to try and prove a point. It's poor rhetoric. But a hypothetical isn't a bad way to go.

A well known bad guy is caught with dynamite, wiring, timers, fuses, and all the things needed to make a bomb. They're all laid out on a workbench in his garage ready to be assembled. The police raided his house and found all this, but no actual bomb.

Is he a threat?
 
If you guys haven't already, go read some of the articles on that Hickpolitics site that Denny linked above. I laughed my ass off. There's one in there

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE </div><div class='quotemain'>Sorry - a la “The Exorcist” - that’s all that ran through my head as I listened to the Obamessiah give his sermon at a place that once enjoyed a similar spectacle when Hitler addressed his OWN zealots…and we all know how well THAT worked out, don’t we?

I’m likely “dirtied” by the speech because I first heard it as Limbaugh threw down his commentary throughout the hand-picked snippets he selected to further his points against Obama...</div>

Need more?

Wackos?
 
OK, so when the facts aren't in your favor, attack the source. Fine.

chart0317.jpg


Remember this?

http://www.mrc.org/realitycheck/2003/fax20030331.asp

Peter Arnett was fired by NBC Monday morning for doing an interview with Saddam-controlled Iraqi TV. NBC News President Neal Shapiro said Arnett was wrong to grant the interview, and wrong to “discuss his personal observations and opinions in that interview.”

In an apologetic interview on this morning’s Today, Arnett regretted the appearance of the “impromptu” interview with the enemy government’s propaganda outlet, but insisted his opinions about how the first U.S. war plan “failed” were in line with the media establishment.

Today co-host Matt Lauer insisted, “Peter, at the risk of getting myself in trouble, I want to say I respect the work you've done over the last several weeks and I respect the honesty with which you've handled this situation. So good luck to you.”

But did Arnett’s performance deserve the respect of media professionals? Recent reporting for NBC suggests a repeat of his performance in Gulf War I, with unverified repetition of incredible Iraqi propaganda claims:

• March 26: Arnett asserted in the 8:00 a.m. hour on Today: “The Information Minister, Mr. Al-Sahaf complained that the U.S. has started using cluster bombs in the area.” An hour later, he repeated “The Iraqi peoples are complaining that two cruise missiles or cluster bomb units did land in a residential area.”

But Katie Couric alerted viewers “The Pentagon is refuting that cluster bombs have been used in Baghdad.” Pentagon reporter Jim Miklaszewski later maintained that “as far as we know, there were no plans to use cluster bombs inside Baghdad,” and that “if you look at pictures, so far, outside of Baghdad, a cluster bomb would create a Swiss-cheese effect – thousands and thousands of holes in the target – and we don't see that quite yet.” Arnett’s dispatch for the MSNBC Web site revised the line: “Iraqi officials later blamed the attack on two cruise missiles.”

• March 25: Arnett relayed the tender mercies of Saddam toward U.S. prisoners of war on Today: “Now last night we saw on television pictures of the two more American POWs, the pilots of those Apaches, making seven prisoners. And this morning the trade minister, Mohammed Salih, told us in a press conference that President Saddam Hussein had personally ordered that these prisoners be treated well. The Iraqis are aware that there is increasing American concern about the treatment of their people that are being held, a total of I believe seven now. The trade minister said Saddam wants them given the best medicine and the best food.”

• March 19: Arnett told Today co-host Matt Lauer from Baghdad: “The government here maintaining a very strong pugilistic position, you might say. In fact, the National Assembly met this morning in special session and [was] criticizing the U.S. One other aspect, Matt, the Foreign Minister Naji Sabri has called the UN's act of completely leaving Iraq, all its aid workers, he called that ‘shameful' and he suggested it would leave 10 million Iraqis possibly starving in a few weeks if the war does continue.”

• February 28: “Peter Arnett's Baghdad Diary” for National Geographic Explorer aired as part of MSNBC’s Countdown: Iraq. Arnett showcased an Al-Jazeera broad-ast of U.S. and Iraqi students denouncing U.S. treatment of Iraq. One Iraqi student charged that “my mother, sister and brother were burned to death in the Ameriyah shelter. I want to ask the American people is this the human touch and love letter your government has sent to other people?!” After an American student worried about the “pain” the U.S. caused Iraq, Arnett lamented that “it's a pain some Iraqi students might have to suffer again.” At least Americans won’t have to suffer through Arnett’s sloppy and slanted reporting for the war’s duration. -- Tim Graham

textbox0331.gif
 
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Denny Crane @ Jul 28 2008, 10:05 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div><div class='quotemain'>OK, so when the facts aren't in your favor, attack the source. Fine.</div>


Hey Denny, friend, we haven't even been talking to each other about what you have presented for a few posts now. You have been responding with these articles to the other guy that posted. I think you are bit mixed up right now in terms of who you are replying to and what it is we are actually talking about.

I was merely taking the web site link as a stand alone, apart from your discussion with whatshisname. I am reading bits of that site right now and am being entertained by it. That in and of itself has nothing to do with you, so please don't take it that way.

ok?
 
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Denny Crane @ Jul 28 2008, 09:35 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div><div class='quotemain'>I hate to use analogy to try and prove a point. It's poor rhetoric. But a hypothetical isn't a bad way to go.

A well known bad guy is caught with dynamite, wiring, timers, fuses, and all the things needed to make a bomb. They're all laid out on a workbench in his garage ready to be assembled. The police raided his house and found all this, but no actual bomb.

Is he a threat?</div>

Denny, dynamite is already a bomb, so that can't be used in your example. Break all these items you listed down into more basic components, couple that with the fact that all elements are "dual use", add to it that the person could just as easily been building a new battery with patent pending or merely making his home energy self sufficient, I can see it both ways. - and your case won't hold up in court, other than he doesn't have a permit for certain materials.

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE </div><div class='quotemain'>Private companies from Jordan, India, France, Italy, Romania, and Turkey seem to have engaged in possible WMD-related trade with Iraq.
* The Governments of Syria, Belarus, North Korea, former Federal Republic of Yugoslavia, Yemen, and possibly Russia directly supported or endorsed private company efforts to aid Iraq with conventional arms procurement, in breach of UN sanctions.</div>

I think that there are multiple parties to blame here, and the word "possible" is used more than once.

How many WMD's does the US have? What does the UN think about that? Could Iraq, even with the worst possible scenario, actually launch a weapon that could hit the US and do any kind of damage? Could the US do this to Iraq (yes). Who puts the United States in check? We are far more dangerous than any country, and I don't see what we have to worry about.
 
Denny, our country has the power to take whatever we want, when we want. Why are you so afraid of little Iraq? Don't be so scared.
 
ROTR,

Our nation has a sorry history of overthrowing governments and installing and propping up dictators who've been friendly toward our big businesses. Especially in our own hemisphere - google United Fruit Company for some good reading. You seem to realize Saddam was one of those despots. The Shah was another; look at our issues with Iran almost 30 years later.

If we really do want a change in foreign policy, and to be seen in a better light by people around the world, our foreign policy had to change. Instead of propping up the dictator in Iraq, we took him out. Instead of leaving the people there to fend for themselves, we've shared their pain of rebuilding.

Isn't "change" great?
 
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (The Return of the Raider @ Jul 28 2008, 09:28 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div><div class='quotemain'><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Denny Crane @ Jul 28 2008, 09:35 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div><div class='quotemain'>I hate to use analogy to try and prove a point. It's poor rhetoric. But a hypothetical isn't a bad way to go.

A well known bad guy is caught with dynamite, wiring, timers, fuses, and all the things needed to make a bomb. They're all laid out on a workbench in his garage ready to be assembled. The police raided his house and found all this, but no actual bomb.

Is he a threat?</div>

Denny, dynamite is already a bomb, so that can't be used in your example. Break all these items you listed down into more basic components, couple that with the fact that all elements are "dual use", add to it that the person could just as easily been building a new battery with patent pending or merely making his home energy self sufficient, I can see it both ways. - and your case won't hold up in court, other than he doesn't have a permit for certain materials.

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE </div><div class='quotemain'>Private companies from Jordan, India, France, Italy, Romania, and Turkey seem to have engaged in possible WMD-related trade with Iraq.
* The Governments of Syria, Belarus, North Korea, former Federal Republic of Yugoslavia, Yemen, and possibly Russia directly supported or endorsed private company efforts to aid Iraq with conventional arms procurement, in breach of UN sanctions.</div>

I think that there are multiple parties to blame here, and the word "possible" is used more than once.

How many WMD's does the US have? What does the UN think about that? Could Iraq, even with the worst possible scenario, actually launch a weapon that could hit the US and do any kind of damage? Could the US do this to Iraq (yes). Who puts the United States in check? We are far more dangerous than any country, and I don't see what we have to worry about.
</div>

You can't change MY hypothetical because you don't like the answer you might be compelled to give. However, I can change MY hypothetical. The guy not only possessed all the makings of a bomb, but he's been widely known to have used similar bombs to blow up things and kill people for decades.

How many WMDs does the US have? Too many, and for the most part we've gotten rid of them and been the force behind ridding the world of them.
 
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Denny Crane @ Jul 29 2008, 08:44 AM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div><div class='quotemain'>If we really do want a change in foreign policy, and to be seen in a better light by people around the world, our foreign policy had to change. Instead of propping up the dictator in Iraq, we took him out. Instead of leaving the people there to fend for themselves, we've shared their pain of rebuilding.</div>
That sounds lovely, but I don't feel their pain. I would sell tickets to watch Iraq and Israel fight each other.
 
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Denny Crane @ Jul 29 2008, 08:51 AM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div><div class='quotemain'>You can't change MY hypothetical because you don't like the answer you might be compelled to give. However, I can change MY hypothetical. The guy not only possessed all the makings of a bomb, but he's been widely known to have used similar bombs to blow up things and kill people for decades.

How many WMDs does the US have? Too many, and for the most part we've gotten rid of them and been the force behind ridding the world of them.</div>

The guy with the bomb things is half way around the world. Not interested.

The US has had nuclear weapons for many years, among other things. In Bush's second term, he began development on smaller discharge nukes. I think if we used the smaller nukes on countries we wish to take over, everything would be fine.
 
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (The Return of the Raider @ Jul 29 2008, 08:13 AM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div><div class='quotemain'><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Denny Crane @ Jul 29 2008, 08:51 AM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div><div class='quotemain'>You can't change MY hypothetical because you don't like the answer you might be compelled to give. However, I can change MY hypothetical. The guy not only possessed all the makings of a bomb, but he's been widely known to have used similar bombs to blow up things and kill people for decades.

How many WMDs does the US have? Too many, and for the most part we've gotten rid of them and been the force behind ridding the world of them.</div>

The guy with the bomb things is half way around the world. Not interested.

The US has had nuclear weapons for many years, among other things. In Bush's second term, he began development on smaller discharge nukes. I think if we used the smaller nukes on countries we wish to take over, everything would be fine.
</div>

There you go again. Even if the guy is half way around the world, he's on our payroll. His victims are going to come after us because they know it.

And there you go again. Who wants to take over countries? That's the Wilsonian Diplomacy way of thinking of things that has gotten us into this mess in the first place. Change is only a good thing if it's "Change the war to one in Afghanistan" for some reason I don't get.
 

Users who are viewing this thread

Back
Top