h2g2 The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy: Earth Edition

"sure you can blueshark,I would NEVER go of subject unless inticed by provocaters"

I'm sorry about the thread going off-topic (I hate topic drifts myself ) but I have strong feelings about certain subjects and felt the need to answer.

"The majority of Saddam's armoury came from the USSR. He was equipped with some Western equipment when he was at war with Iran but his greatest supplier has always been Russia and Eastern Europe."



http://www.cursor.org/stories/burying_news_on_iraq.htm

"Department of Defense documents that confirmed U.S. and British sales of chemical and biological weapons agents to Iraq during the successive administrations of Ronald Reagan and George Bush, Sr."

"According to the Sunday Herald, Donald Riegle, Chairman of the Senate committee that made the report, said, "UN inspectors had identified many United States manufactured items that had been exported from the United States to Iraq under licenses issued by the Department of Commerce, and [established] that these items were used to further Iraq's chemical and nuclear weapons development and its missile delivery system development programs." "


I'd like to see the original articles referred to above.

"He was equipped with some Western equipment"

I referred to it there. The mainstay of his army was Soviet-built. That's why you used to see waves of Soviet T-55 and T-72 tanks, Soviet BMP Armoured Personelle Carriers and Soviet Hind Helicopters when the Iraqi's paraded their military before the UN forces blew it up.

"The mainstay of his army was Soviet-built. That's why you used to see waves of Soviet T-55 and T-72 tanks, Soviet BMP Armoured Personelle Carriers and Soviet Hind Helicopters when the Iraqi's paraded their military before the UN forces blew it up."


No one is mentioning the tanks, helicopters, or any other aircraft. It's the biological, chemical and (apparent) nuclear capability combined with missle delivery systems that is front-row center in Bush's rhetoric.

""Department of Defense documents that confirmed U.S. and British sales of chemical and biological weapons agents to Iraq during the successive administrations of Ronald Reagan and George Bush, Sr."

I remember a time when arms supply by america to iraq was a freely admitted to thing. Now there seems to be a campaign to appear almost innocent

"I remember a time when arms supply by america to iraq was a freely admitted to thing. Now there seems to be a campaign to appear almost innocent"


I don't get that. If there's enough reports and documents that detail the sale of these weapons to Iraq, and if Iraq still has the alleged equipment, why doesn't Iraq simply say: "yes we have this equipment because Regan and Bush Snr gave it to us". It would then seem politically impossible then to justify invading a country after you sold it the equipment you object to!?

"A very swift reminder from this mornings Grauniad about the man who *really* stands to gain from any war in Iraq"

First off, the article is written by George Galloway who is a friend of Saddam Hussein (or "the Iraqi people" as he likes to put it) even going to the rather bizarre lengths of sharing a box of Quality Street with him (Saddam apparently told George what his fave Quality Street sweetie is but sadly I don't have this information). Mr Galloway is hardly going to present a balanced argument.

Secondly, this argument was trotted out before the evil Western imperialists enslaved the Afghans by kicking out their peace-loving and popular Taliban rulers (did anyone spot the sarcasm?) and the Muslim world completely failed to explode into mass acts of terrorism and the slaughter of Westerners. The Bali bomb could have happened invasion of Afghanistan or not. For that reason you'll forgive me for being a wee bit sceptical of the "American invasion of Iraq will be WWIII" line.

Many of the chemical and Biological weapons that the US gave Irag no longer exist. Most of these weapons have a limited shelf life. A large part of the problem is that he was given chemical and biological agents that he could produce at the time. He has the capabilities to produce his own weapons. So we do not know specifically what he has. He has gotten more dangerous chemical and biological weapons from other people. Not to mention what his nuclear capabilities are.

Another point is that everyone loves to mention that the US sold chemical and biological weapons to Iraq. No distinction is made to the type of weapons sold. He was not given (and this starts sound odd) the more dangerous types of these weapons. The US has always exported things to countries that used them against us the Japanese had a few thousand DC-9's that used as transport throughout WWII


In response to an earlier comment I made about the WTC I was asked what it had to do with Iraq. Iraqi intellegince officers met with a couple of the 9/11 highjackers prior to the attack. Also there are numerous reports of training camps that have been attended by Al Queda members, the most reliable of these reports comes from an Iraqi defector. So there is a link.

>Could you please explain what relevance the twin towers attack has to this thread? Has Saddam been reliably implicated? If not then stop clouding the issue.

And if the war goes ahead (I say 'war', but let's face it, it's going to be as much of a war as the Afghanistan turkey-shoot) then in a few years time you may well find Iraqis having conversations about smoking ruins, and the US getting what's coming. Open your minds, fools, war is not a solution.<

I never said the attack on the twin towers had anything to do with this thread. I have never said war is a soloution to anything. I was not clouding any issue. What I was doing was telling a fellow human being that I understood how he felt about a tragedy that occured and affected both our lives. It might be appropiate to take your own advice frogbit and open your mind and see if you can find a civial way to respond to a fellow researcher.

"Iraqi intellegince officers met with a couple of the 9/11 highjackers prior to the attack. Also there are numerous reports of training camps that have been attended by Al Queda members, the most reliable of these reports comes from an Iraqi defector. So there is a link."

I've not heard any of this. Do you have a link to a reliable website that could substantiate this?

"He has the capabilities to produce his own weapons. So we do not know specifically what he has. He has gotten more dangerous chemical and biological weapons from other people. Not to mention what his nuclear capabilities are."

You know something that weapons experts don't? seems like starbirth has a twin.

There is one thing that Saddam and the people responsible for the twin towers have in common beyond dispute. They are both enemy's of the US.

Saddam also encourages suicide bombers in the middle east by making financil payments to the bombers familys.

so you're saying. p1ss off the US and/or Israel and we'll kill thousands of your civilians.

I guess all those afghanistan civilians had it comming.

""Iraqi intellegince officers met with a couple of the 9/11 highjackers prior to the attack. Also there are numerous reports of training camps that have been attended by Al Queda members, the most reliable of these reports comes from an Iraqi defector. So there is a link."

I've not heard any of this. Do you have a link to a reliable website that could substantiate this?"


The only source I've heard this from is the Bush administration based on intelligtence reports that, wait for it,.....cannot be made available to the public for security reasons.

So although this bit of intelligence is still being kept by Bush, the fact that his father had business dealings with the Bin Ladins is not. If you are looking to implicate someone based on "meetings" (which, btw, freedom of assembly is still a constitutional right in the US), then you have more evidence against Bush's father then Iraq.

Here is the link to info on the Iraqi intelligence operatives, the traingin camp and the defector.

http://politics.guardian.co.uk/archive/article/0,,4296646,00.html

I will add a link about Iraq making it's own weapons.

ApparÏtÏon all you need to do is watch the news and hear things about the mobile labs that Saddam has and if the weapons inspectors can find them.

Jolly

ApparÏtÏon do you have an article or anything else comparing civilian casualties between 9/11 and the whole Afgan "war"? I am willing bet more innocent civilians died on 9/11 then in 6 months plus of bombing.

Posted a ways back.

http://www.fair.org/activism/afghanistan-casualties.html
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/south_asia/1740538.stm
http://www.comw.org/pda/0201oef.html

"hat causes the documented high level of civilian casualties -- 3,000 - 3,400 civilian deaths -- in the U.S. air war upon Afghanistan? The explanation is the apparent willingness of U.S. military strategists to fire missiles into and drop bombs upon, heavily populated areas of Afghanistan." from: http://www.cursor.org/stories/civilian_deaths.htm

------------------

As for your suggesting watching "news". All I've seen american news show is an echo of what your government is saying. Computer animations and old grainy photos.

>As for your suggesting watching "news". All I've seen american news show is an echo of what your government is saying. Computer animations and old grainy photos.<

Most people I know now have satellite. This gives them access to an incredible amount of news and info. I have access to besides the standard network news nbc,cbs,abc and other american based channels cnn,msnbc,cnbc,fnl,fnc,pbs,npr. I also have access to canadian{nwi}
uk {bbc} and {link}, austraila, japaneese,russian, india, german, spain {in english or translated. Also depending on satlite service you want to pay for you can access just about any nation news and entertainment 200 to over 1000 channels.

>so you're saying. p1ss off the US and/or Israel and we'll kill thousands of your civilians.

I guess all those afghanistan civilians had it comming.<

No afgan civilians did not have it coming. However the goverment {which were arabs not afgani} were providing safe harbor to terrorist who had and were planning attacks on civilians.

Maybe because those civilians were not poor third world persons, in your eyes they did not warrant your empathy. After all you could not invoke your "apologistic,anti bush,oh those evil american agenda."

Is there something you won't accuse me of thinking?

doesn't mean anything next to what you say to me.