How will Obama handle war between Israel and Iran?

[kactus]

You are confused. The majority of Saddams CONVENTIONAL weapons came from the USSR, so no you are inadvertantly not in error...tanks aren't for farming.

Surely you don't think Saddam gassed almost 200,000 kurds?

Are we playing devils's advocate Dancer? This is not the question of who should take the blame for supplying Iraq with chemicals. Fact is Saddam was supplied by some western companies as well as Russia with these weapons percentages in supply remain details. And he used these against his own people and iraninans.

[kactus]

You want a chance to alter that?

Damage is done. It's too late now. What I'd like to see is a quick exit of our troops out of Iraq.

[M.Dancer]

Are we playing devils's advocate Dancer? This is not the question of who should take the blame for supplying Iraq with chemicals.

So why did you erroneously blame the west?

Fact is Saddam was supplied by some western companies as well as Russia with these weapons percentages in supply remain details. And he used these against his own people and iraninans.

Even though you seem to think....

Maybe not peaceful at times but certainly better since US invasion which led to more chaos and sectarian violence.

I take it you are of two minds on this?

[M.Dancer]

Damage is done. It's too late now. What I'd like to see is a quick exit of our troops out of Iraq.

I meant you post. It is factually incorrect.

[M.Dancer]

Damage is done. It's too late now. What I'd like to see is a quick exit of our troops out of Iraq.

We don't have any troops in Iraq.

[kactus]

So why did you erroneously blame the west?

Let there be no mistake! I have always mainatined that the blame rests on the west as well as others for supplying Iraq with chemical weapons.

I take it you are of two minds on this?

Not at all! I will maintain that certain US policies in the middle east and meddling in internal affairs of the countries has not been helpful and infact has backfired. Removal of Saddam was a good step and he did oppress a lot of his own people but the west did certainly have their share of blame for financing Saddam in the eighties to win a war against Iran and subsequently killing many kurds. That is what I have problem with.

[kactus]

We don't have any troops in Iraq.

I meant I advocate for full withdrawal of US troops from Iraq.

[M.Dancer]

Let there be no mistake! I have always mainatined that the blame rests on the west as well as others for supplying Iraq with chemical weapons.

*yawn*

The west never supplied Saddam with chemical weapons...

[kactus]

Coming back to the topic at hands again Israel alone is not capable enough to start a war or destroy the nuclear facilities in Iran which is why they are advocating the US and the rest to take part.

Real question still remains on whether Obama as a president is influential enough to steer the direction of US policy or whether there are others behind the scenes who call the shot. It is unfortunate that Iran's nuclear program seems to cloud all other news positive or negative that comes out from that country. A shift of focus in policy is what is really needed here to mend the bridges and start taking a different path from what that didn't pay any dividend in the past.

http://niemanwatchdog.org/index.cfm?fuseac...askthisid=00328

[dub]

*yawn*

The west never supplied Saddam with chemical weapons...

you sound ridiculous. you need to get yourself informed:

Reports by the US Senate's committee on banking, housing and urban affairs -- which oversees American exports policy -- reveal that the US, under the successive administrations of Ronald Reagan and George Bush Sr, sold materials including anthrax, VX nerve gas, West Nile fever germs and botulism to Iraq right up until March 1992, as well as germs similar to tuberculosis and pneumonia. Other bacteria sold included brucella melitensis, which damages major organs, and clostridium perfringens, which causes gas gangrene.

Classified US Defense Department documents also seen by the Sunday Herald show that Britain sold Iraq the drug pralidoxine, an antidote to nerve gas, in March 1992, after the end of the Gulf war. Pralidoxine can be reverse engineered to create nerve gas.

The Senate committee's reports on 'US Chemical and Biological Warfare-Related Dual-Use Exports to Iraq', undertaken in 1992 in the wake of the Gulf war, give the date and destination of all US exports. The reports show, for example, that on May 2, 1986, two batches of bacillus anthracis -- the micro-organism that causes anthrax -- were shipped to the Iraqi Ministry of Higher Education, along with two batches of the bacterium clostridium botulinum, the agent that causes deadly botulism poisoning.

One batch each of salmonella and E coli were shipped to the Iraqi State Company for Drug Industries on August 31, 1987. Other shipments went from the US to the Iraq Atomic Energy Commission on July 11, 1988; the Department of Biology at the University of Basrah in November 1989; the Department of Microbiology at Baghdad University in June 1985; the Ministry of Health in April 1985 and Officers' City, a military complex in Baghdad, in March and April 1986.

and:

The shipments to Iraq went on even after Saddam Hussein ordered the gassing of the Kurdish town of Halabja, in which at least 5000 men, women and children died. The atrocity, which shocked the world, took place in March 1988, but a month later the components and materials of weapons of mass destruction were continuing to arrive in Baghdad from the US.

The Senate report also makes clear that: 'The United States provided the government of Iraq with 'dual use' licensed materials which assisted in the development of Iraqi chemical, biological and missile-system programs.'

[M.Dancer]

you sound ridiculous. you need to get yourself informed:

You need to learn to read.

The Senate committee's reports on 'US Chemical and Biological Warfare-Related Dual-Use Exports to Iraq'

No where in that article is a report of a weapon sold.....instead....

The Senate committee's reports on 'US Chemical and Biological Warfare-Related Dual-Use Exports to Iraq', undertaken in 1992 in the wake of the Gulf war, give the date and destination of all US exports. The reports show, for example, that on May 2, 1986, two batches of bacillus anthracis -- the micro-organism that causes anthrax -- were shipped to the Iraqi Ministry of Higher Education, along with two batches of the bacterium clostridium botulinum, the agent that causes deadly botulism poisoning

.

Which was supposed to advance the causes of Iraqi agriculture...

According to Saddam Hussein's report to the UN, the know-how and material for developing chemical weapons were learned by Iraq from the United States, West Germany, the United Kingdom, France and the People's Republic of China.[8] Iraqi acquisition of such information and technology from U.S. sources was illegal under export regulations.

In December 2002, Iraq's 1,200 page Weapons Declaration revealed a list of Eastern and Western corporations and countries, as well as individuals, that exported a total of 17,602 tons of "dual use" chemical precursors to Iraq in the past two decades, with potential for both industrial uses and manufacture of chemical weapons. By far, the largest suppliers of precursors for chemical weapons production were in Singapore (4,515 tons), the Netherlands (4,261 tons), Egypt (2,400 tons), India (2,343 tons), and Federal Republic of Germany (1,027 tons). One Indian company, Exomet Plastics (now part of EPC Industrie) sent 2,292 tons of precursor chemicals to Iraq. The Kim Al-Khaleej firm, located in Singapore and affiliated to United Arab Emirates, supplied more than 4,500 tons of VX, sarin, and mustard gas precursors and production equipment to Iraq.[9]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iraq's_ar...e_Iran-Iraq_War

[kactus]

you sound ridiculous. you need to get yourself informed:

and:

Thanks for posting the article!

[M.Dancer]

YEah..an article with Scott Ritter is as funny as it gets.

Seriously, has there been anyone more dicredited than him? His documetary was financed by an iraqi convicted in the oil for food scandal!!!

[kactus]

YEah..an article with Scott Ritter is as funny as it gets.

Seriously, has there been anyone more dicredited than him? His documetary was financed by an iraqi convicted in the oil for food scandal!!!

Well there are normally two scenarios:

1- One doesn't agree with what the article says

2- One tries discredit an article based on the background of the author

In your case it seems to be the latter one. But you also discredited the BBC article posted earlier.

No offence dude but articles on written in wikipedia are not exactly vetted or credible source for reference.

Nevertheless I am always eager to hear both sides of the story.

[M.Dancer]

Well there are normally two scenarios:

1- One doesn't agree with what the article says

2- One tries discredit an article based on the background of the author

In your case it seems to be the latter one. But you also discredited the BBC article posted earlier.

No offence dude but articles on written in wikipedia are not exactly vetted or credible source for reference.

Nevertheless I am always eager to hear both sides of the story.

In this case becasue Ritter is beholden to someone within the Iraqi regime it is appropriate to suspect his accounts.

Are you incapable of shecking the footnotes?

Which BBC article?

[M.Dancer]

In the United States, those listed include Iraqi American businessman Shaker Al-Khaffaji, who put up $400,000 to produce a film by ex-U.N. weapons inspector Scott Ritter, which aimed to discredit weapons inspections in Iraq.

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2004/m...1-101405-2593r/

[dub]

You need to learn to read.

No where in that article is a report of a weapon sold.....instead....

you said that the U.S. did not supply iraq with chemical weapons.

you are wrong.

stop acting like a fool by continuing deny the truth.

Edited March 26, 2009 by dub

[dub]

a reminder:

*yawn*

The west never supplied Saddam with chemical weapons...

you are wrong:

Reports by the US Senate's committee on banking, housing and urban affairs -- which oversees American exports policy -- reveal that the US, under the successive administrations of Ronald Reagan and George Bush Sr, sold materials including anthrax, VX nerve gas, West Nile fever germs and botulism to Iraq right up until March 1992, as well as germs similar to tuberculosis and pneumonia. Other bacteria sold included brucella melitensis, which damages major organs, and clostridium perfringens, which causes gas gangrene.

[M.Dancer]

a reminder:

you are wrong:

Reports by the US Senate's committee on banking, housing and urban affairs -- which oversees American exports policy -- reveal that the US, under the successive administrations of Ronald Reagan and George Bush Sr, sold materials including anthrax, VX nerve gas, West Nile fever germs and botulism to Iraq right up until March 1992, as well as germs similar to tuberculosis and pneumonia. Other bacteria sold included brucella melitensis, which damages major organs, and clostridium perfringens, which causes gas gangrene.

You don't realy know what a weapon is, do you?

[GostHacked]

You don't realy know what a weapon is, do you?

My spoon has a dual purpose. It gets the delicious honey nut cherrios from the bowl to my mouth, or I can use it to gouge your eyes out with a single scoop. Take your pick.

It is how you classify it. Amonia and bleach are dangerous enough as it is. Put them together and you have a deadly mix that can be used as a weapon. All you need to do is go to your local grocery store to find these dangerous chemicals. It can be used as a weapon, but against dirt and grime and kills germs in your kitchen, bathroom, and blah blah blah.

Also if you report certian materials as dual purpose, then you can sell people things but claim you sold the materials for purpose A. eventhough the person you sold them to, used them for purpose B. So you can get around the technicalty of it by claiming the dual purpose. It can work in your favour if it goes good or bad. You know damn well that the materials being sold could be used for A and B. So you trust the person you are selling the items to, to use them for Purpose A.

You can also look at it as a set up. I did not KNOW he was gonna do THAT with those materials !!! So now I guess we gotta invade him because he was bad with the materials.

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

Anthrax spores can be grown in vitro and used as a biological weapon. Anthrax does not spread directly from one infected animal or person to another, but spores can be transported by clothing, shoes etc.; and the body of a mammal that died of anthrax can be a very dangerous source of anthrax spores

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

VX (S-[2-(diisopropylamino)ethyl]-O-ethyl methylphosphonothioate) is an extremely toxic substance whose only application is in chemical warfare as a nerve agent. As a chemical weapon, it is classified as a weapon of mass destruction by the United Nations in UN Resolution 687. The production and stockpiling of VX was outlawed by the Chemical Weapons Convention of 1993.

Chemicals were sold to Iraq up untill 92. Then in 93 the UN resolution deemed them as an outlawed chemical weapon. I will hazard a guess and say that Iraq was not the only one that violated this UN resolution. But it is the one that is concentrated on.

[DogOnPorch]

Chemicals were sold to Iraq up untill 92. Then in 93 the UN resolution deemed them as an outlawed chemical weapon. I will hazard a guess and say that Iraq was not the only one that violated this UN resolution. But it is the one that is concentrated on.

You're correct. Many Third-World crap holes took the opportunity to develop the poor man's atomic bomb. Mustard 'gas' is easy to make out of rather common chemicals and a primitive lab. This was at a time that the US and (supposedly) the Soviet Union were dismantling their chemical/biological weapons programs. Turned out the Russkies were fibbing and went on to weaponize smallpox...but that's another tale.

[kactus]

The problem with the US inteference and meddling of internal affairs of ME countries for decades has proved counterproductive.

Presence in Saudi Arabia with the blessings of the saudi king and prior to the revolution in Iran with the blessings of the Shah (a brutal dictator) and meddling in Iran's domestic affairs...what could be the problem? SAVAK, his bloody secret police?

US has been involved in many countries with the blessings of their dictators and not to spread peace and love. Let's face some historical reality. The US is not blameless...to the contrary.

Then comes the case for the invasion of Iraq which wasn't about liberation. This is clear for a number of reasons:

1- The primary reason for invading Iraq was supposed to be neutralising the threat of Saddam's weapons of mass destruction, which supposedly, constituted an imminent threat. Saddam, supposedly, could attack the US "on any given day" (quoting Bush). The liberation of Iraq from its dictator (who the US had supported during the Iran-Iraq war), was certainly never cited as the primary reason for invasion until after it became clear that the stories about WMD were fabrications and "sexed up"

2- If we look at what happened in Iraq following the invasion, the actual motivation for the invasion become clear. Bush appointed Paul Bremer as the head of the Coalition Provisional Authority, with powers that amounted to that of a dictator. Bremer issued hundreds of decrees, which became law. He used this power to ensure that Iraq, with its massive oil wealth, was ripe for exploitation by foreign (mainly American) corporations. (See here for a brief synopsis: http://www.thebushagenda.net/)

3- Let's look at the history of US foreign policy, we see that the US has no particular desire to foster democracy, especially when it contradicts US interests. For example, the US provided support for the Contra terrorists in Nicaragua, who attempted to overthrow the democratically elected Sandanista government (and, eventually, succeed), while at the same time, supporting brutal regimes in countries like El Salvador.

My main point of contention here is this: Some people here think trying diplomacy to solve problems and conflicts in the world specifically in the case with Iran is hopeless and Obama is an appeaser, and we're in big trouble because he won't be tough enough. Not to forget that Bush actually made the U.S. less safe due to his heavy-handed, go-it-alone approach. Again, it's hard to believe in honestly that Gitmo and Abu Ghrab made US safer.

Spy Agencies Say Iraq War Worsens Terror Threat

http://www.nytimes.com/2006/09/24/world/mi...amp;oref=slogin

Gitmo undercut the US case that represents a set of values that all can admire. It became a symbol for cruelty and a powerful recruiting tool for al Qaeda. Why should the world prefer US to, say, China as the global leader if there are no committments to the rule of law? This in essence makes the US look foolish, since the tactics were so counterproductive.

Is Obama naive and Pollyanish? I have seen no evidence to support that conclusion. But I have every reason to believe he's more rational that George Bush. Of all of Bush's awful legacies, I think losing Afghanistan (unless Obama can turn the disaster around) due to his idiotic crusade in Iraq will be the worst:

http://baghdadbureau.blogs.nytimes.com/200...nd-iraq-what-if

[DogOnPorch]

The ironic part about The Shah was that that his brutal SAVAK police were putting the screws to the very religious douchebags and fanatical jihadi students that are in power today. Say what one likes re: The Shah, he turned Iran into a modern almost 1st World nation with woman's sufferage and other modern perks. Other countries in the area looked like (and still look like) open sewers next to Iran.

Re: The United States of America

Worst country on the planet except for all the rest.

You're free to hate them as many do...but i think even you would prefer them as the "World Policeman" over, say, Red China.

Maybe not...

Re: Gitmo and the US torture issue:

Carlos Mencia sums it up much better than I can...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fQ254Jo4LuU

[jbg]

Are we playing devils's advocate Dancer? This is not the question of who should take the blame for supplying Iraq with chemicals. Fact is Saddam was supplied by some western companies as well as Russia with these weapons percentages in supply remain details. And he used these against his own people and iraninans.

So why did you erroneously blame the west?

The West is always at fault in the minds of many. Of course, the story below didn't happen in Pakistan (the Zionist news media at work), but was in fact a tiff between Jewish lawyers and investment bankers (link):

Suicide attack kills 48 at Pakistani mosque

PESHAWAR, Pakistan – A suicide bomber demolished a mosque packed with hundreds of worshippers attending Friday prayers near the Afghan border, killing at least 48 people and injuring scores more, in the bloodiest attack in Pakistan this year.

The bomber struck at the climax of the service, as the mosque leader was starting the communal prayer, witnesses said.

"As the prayer leader said 'God is Great', the bomb went off with a big bang," said Nadir Shah, a local paramilitary solider attending the mosque. "I felt it was the end of everything. Sometime later when I opened my eyes, I was lying among dead bodies."

[jbg]

Let there be no mistake! I have always mainatined that the blame rests on the west as well as others for supplying Iraq with chemical weapons.

If Sweden had chemical weapons would anyone (except maybe among residents of Malmo) die? Weapons in the hands of dangerous people are different from weapons in the hands of sane people. The carnage is caused not by the weapon but by the people using them.