** Weapons - MaDe in teh USA **

[JudgeDredd]

TheEvilOne (a war-mongering 19 y/o) has asked me for my sources on WMD info.

Firstly, let me say this; I'm 32 years old, and to be honest, HE, like most of you weren't even born, yet alone old enough to have watched and fully understood the Iran - Iraq War in all it's gory detail as it was broadcast on daily TV News for many years, and which subsequently cost MILLIONS of lives - not to mention billions of nightmares too!!

..So here is the TRUTH from 20 years ago; (UPDATED)

It's the fall of 1983. Michael Jackson is riding high with Thriller; Ronald Reagan is obsessed with a RED menace in the jungles of Central America; humiliated U.S. troops have just retreated from Beirut; and America's newest nemesis, Iran's Ayatollah Khomeini, is locked in a vicious conflict with America's soon-to-be ally, the secular "socialist" dictator Saddam Hussein.

In November, U.S. Secretary of State George Shultz receives an intelligence report describing how Hussein's troops are resorting to "almost daily use of chemical weapons" against the Iranians. Undeterred, Reagan signs a secret order instructing his charges to do "whatever was necessary and legal" to prevent Iraq from losing the war. A month later, the president dispatches a special envoy to Baghdad on a secret mission. The identity of the envoy is intriguing. He's not a diplomat or a member of Reagan's cabinet - he's a private citizen, the CEO of a Fortune 500 company.

On December 20, the envoy meets with Saddam Hussein. He is not there to lecture the dictator about his use of weapons of mass destruction or the fine print of the Geneva Conventions. He is there to talk business.
The envoy informs the Iraqi leader that Washington is ready for a resumption of full diplomatic relations, according to a recently declassified State Dept. report of the conversation, and that Washington would regard "any major reversal of Iraq's fortunes as a strategic defeat for the West." Iraqi leaders later describe themselves as "extremely pleased" with the visit.

The envoy was Donald H. Rumsfeld, then the CEO of pharmaceutical giant Searle. The meeting is widely considered to be the trigger that ushered in a new era of U.S.-Iraq relations, one that opened the door to shipments of dual-use munitions, chemical, biological agents and other dubious technology transfers. But for years what exactly was discussed in that now infamous meeting has been shrouded in secrecy.

..UNTIL LAST WEEK!

[Jimsween]

Now how exactly do you know what the meeting was about? You cant. Most of what you wrote was just proof that Iraq had used chemical weapons, and the last time I checked it wasnt against the rules to look the other way when another country disobeyed the geneva convention.

[JudgeDredd]

hahaha [this topic still says zero replies] -- i win!!

you click that link, at the bottom of the page is another link with the report in brief and at the bottom of that page are all the recently released internal memos and other corroborating correspondance AND a PDF of the entire "Crude Vision" document ...but here's a snippet;

"There was an independent investigation into Edwin Meese, who was made the Attorney General under Reagan in 1985, and his relationship with E. Robert Wallach, who was one of the pipeline agents. He owed money to Wallach, who was an attorney, from a past defense. Wallach, once hired, went straight to Meese and said can you get your boys and get the ball rolling on this pipeline? And Meese did get the ball rolling in the National Security Council."

.

[TheEvilOne]

I have a few things to say. I have never claimed to be an expert on the Iran-Iraq war. If I recall, I just said that I had never heard anything about US weapons sales to Iraq. I do not deny that they may have happened (though some on this board have shown evidence that France, Russia, and China were the main suppliers of Iraq's weapons, but I digress). But the main thing to understand about US weapons sales to Iraq is that IT IS IRRELEVANT. As it has been said here before, common enemies lead to strange partnerships. And after the end of the Iran-Iraq war, when the US and Iraq no longer had a common enemy, they became enemies with each other during the 1991 Gulf War. After the US victory in that conflict, the UN passed resolutions that banned Iraq from carrying weapons of mass destruction. The US may have made the mistake of providing weapons to Iraq, but does that mean that we don't have the right to correct that mistake by disarming Iraq now?

I'm well aware that my age precludes me from having a good understanding of certain things that happened during that time. But I try to keep well-informed, and I think I have a fairly good understanding of the current situation. And it is my opinion that the current situation calls for the disarmament/removal of Saddam Hussein.

[Commander-K25]

This is not proof. This is 'interpretation' of back-channel memos and conversations about an oil deal twenty years ago.

[Jimsween]

At 4/8/03 09:23 PM, Judge_DREDD wrote: hahaha [this topic still says zero replies] -- i win!!

Sniff, NG didnt recognize me when I posted...

you click that link, at the bottom of the page is another link with the report in brief and at the bottom of that page are all the recently released internal memos and other corroborating correspondance AND a PDF of the entire "Crude Vision" document ...but here's a snippet;

You do realize that website is about as biased as you can get.

"There was an independent investigation into Edwin Meese, who was made the Attorney General under Reagan in 1985, and his relationship with E. Robert Wallach, who was one of the pipeline agents. He owed money to Wallach, who was an attorney, from a past defense. Wallach, once hired, went straight to Meese and said can you get your boys and get the ball rolling on this pipeline? And Meese did get the ball rolling in the National Security Council."

Huh? From what I read taht was about oil, not chemical weapons.

[TheShrike]

Heheheh

The Reagan Years....
With Bush part I as the vice-pres. Rummy meeting with the Iraqi leadership.

Unfinished buisness, indeed.

The American government is great and good. But I think there is a clear display of foul intentions in that article.

[JudgeDredd]

First i'll answer the "biased information" comment.

What is more biased than journalists "IN BED" with the front-line troops, as they launch missiles into city hotels, or flattening a restauant on the off chance that Saddam went in there - how the hell do you prove you killed him when there's literally nothing left to find?

At 4/8/03 09:37 PM, TheEvilOne wrote: The US may have made the mistake of providing (certain) weapons to Iraq, but does that mean that we don't have the right to correct that mistake by [recovering them] now?

Considering the endless denials coming from miliary of any wrong doing, do you think it's likely that we'll see WHO made these WMD if and when they are found? Do you think there will be a camera right there beaming it world-wide .."Made in Russia" or whatever.

If you say, Germany, China and Russia sold the worst technology - why did they propose to veto the second resolution, in favour of continued inspections.

Chemically they can trace most every WMD back to a source origin. So if we NEVER hear the origin of these WMD then you'll have your answer; "Made in the USA"

(QED; planned invasion - or "we have evidence of WMD" ..but we can't tell the UN inspectors what evidence we have !!! )

[TheEvilOne]

That report went into great detail about the proposed oil deal, mentioning companies and people involved.

Why didn't it go into detail about companies and people involved in selling chemical weapons to Iraq? All it seemed to say is that "the US was providing weapons to Iraq" and a memo saying that they didn't want Iraq to say that the US provided them weapons.

Is there any harder proof that there was a link between the oil deals and the weapons deals?

I'm just playing devil's advocate here. I'm still not denying that deals may have happened, and I stand by my statement that if they did happen, they are irrelevant.

[JudgeDredd]

At 4/8/03 10:37 PM, TheEvilOne wrote:
Why didn't it go into detail about companies and people involved in selling chemical weapons to Iraq?

National Security - we'll may never know that.

All it seemed to say is that "the US was providing weapons to Iraq" and a memo saying that they didn't want Iraq to say that the US provided them weapons.

why was it afraid to be known when we knew Donald Rums went there - deals were done. Compare a modern example - we could all see the US Apache helicopters used by Israel to destroy Arafats private helicopters.

Is there any harder proof that there was a link between the oil deals and the weapons deals?

Only that Iraq had no other way to pay for weapons, and why else would America give a damn if either the Ayatollah or Saddam won a war over religious sentiment and oil-laden desserts?

[NJDeadzone]

a man amongst boys....

[Jimsween]

At 4/8/03 10:32 PM, Judge_DREDD wrote:

What is more biased than journalists "IN BED" with the front-line troops, as they launch missiles into city hotels, or flattening a restauant on the off chance that Saddam went in there - how the hell do you prove you killed him when there's literally nothing left to find?

What does that have to do with chemical weapons?

[fourdaddy]

you know, all of this arguing could have been avoided if krusty the clown didnt boink the chick who was supposed to blow up saddam with an RPG in the first gulf war......

[bumcheekcity]

At 4/9/03 01:32 AM, fourdaddy wrote: you know, all of this arguing could have been avoided if krusty the clown didnt boink the chick who was supposed to blow up saddam with an RPG in the first gulf war......

you have to make a difference between the simpsons and real life. but lets not be mean to Krusty, sdaddam was almost his whole career.

[fourdaddy]

At 4/10/03 12:25 PM, bumcheekcity wrote: you have to make a difference between the simpsons and real life. but lets not be mean to Krusty, sdaddam was almost his whole career.

you mean....*sniff*...the simpsons...arent real?

*sniff*

[bumcheekcity]

At 4/10/03 01:24 PM, fourdaddy wrote: you mean....*sniff*...the simpsons...arent real?

*sniff*

im sorry man, i just dont know what to say. i rember the hard time i had, but i got over it, and you will too.

[Jiperly]

though some on this board have shown evidence that France, Russia, and China were the main suppliers of Iraq's weapons, but I digress

i have seen that chart-here it is, in fact:

http://members.toast.net/eyeofthestorm/arming_saddam.jpg

but does it mention WMD or just weapons?

[bumcheekcity]

At 4/10/03 04:11 PM, Jiperly wrote: but does it mention WMD or just weapons?

it wont mention WMD cos america would never admit to selling them cos its illegal to do so.

[Jimsween]

At 4/10/03 05:54 PM, bumcheekcity wrote:

it wont mention WMD cos america would never admit to selling them cos its illegal to do so.

I find it funny that you, and so many other anti war people, are reluctant to believe Iraq has chemical weapons when there is so much proof but when it comes to America giving them weapons you dont think twice.

[bumcheekcity]

At 4/10/03 06:42 PM, jimsween wrote: I find it funny that you, and so many other anti war people, are reluctant to believe Iraq has chemical weapons when there is so much proof but when it comes to America giving them weapons you dont think twice.

not quite. i believe they definately have chem/biologicl weapons, but not nukes. i do tend to group these under WMD which could cause some confusion. and there wasnt really much proof, as soon as Hans Blix made a report the US and UK dammed it to hell.

[JudgeDredd]

At 4/8/03 11:27 PM, NJDeadzone wrote: a man amongst boys....

i wish when a user makes a provocative statement, they would elaborate just a little [sarcasm] because a 19y/o is hardly a boy, and a 32 y/o who still rollerblades everyday and wastes his time on PC's in NG is hardly a man ^_^

..so what's your point there DeadZone? Do you mean we're not allowed to have even [B]1[/B] adult in the political forum, and no-one over the age of 30 allowed on the internet...???