Slashdot Mirror

Obviously all media outlets have their agendas, but quoting 4 news sources all with conflicting agendas (i.e. non are all right or all left, they vary and by quite a bit) cannot just be disregarded. They aren't just blatantly making up stories, the facts are there, sure they may sensationalize them a bit, but any source that you would think is "reputable" wouldn't report such occurences because it'd be against their own agenda. The military link was to a declassified document, that is plenty legitimate. Regardless, here are two more links to other sources here(past evidence) and here(present evidence). Here is a disclaimer, and this is going to make you hate me and possibly disregard everything I say but in the interest of full disclosure its best I say this, I used to work for the Department of Defense (I recently left), I have government clearance, I've worked with some of the guys that found one of those bunkers, I also had access to other information. Those stories in the links I sent before are factual, I wish I could give you links to a slew of non-american sources but the fact is that outside of America, pro-american stories don't sell, news sources will rarely run them. Non-american news agencies know that news bad mouthing America sells, and your not likely to hear anything opposing that. CNN though is a pretty good and reliable news source, just as good, if not better, than the BBC. If nothing else, hearing all these sources reporting information contrary to popular belief has to make you at least think twice about the situation... anything else would just be naive.
Regards,
Steve

Stop attatching political affiliations with every idea, and stop treating people with disdain simply because they have opposing views to yours, it simply implies ignorance on your part.

As far as huge underground bunkers go, read this(present evidence) and this(past evidence).

As far as chemical warfare goes, read this(present evidence), this(more present evidence over a year later), and this(past evidence).

If you're still too stubborn to admit that my original response might have an ounce of validity, go read about Iraq's previous tactics in recent wars... the U.N. told them to be good and Iraq ignored them, what made you think that Iraq all of the sudden became this nice little peaceful nation over a decade of time? Saddam had it coming.
Regards,
Steve

Your ignorance of history is on fire.

Imported weapons to Iraq (IRQ) in 1973-2002
Country $MM USD 1990 % Total
USSR 25145 57.26
France 5595 12.74
China 5192 11.82
Czechoslovakia 2880 6.56
Poland 1681 3.83
Brazil 724 1.65
Egypt 568 1.29
Romania 524 1.19
Denmark 226 0.51
Libya 200 0.46
USA 200 0.46

Source (pdf)

But you're right, it was the Americans that armed him! Oh, but wait, maybe we gave the oil rich dictator money... yeah, that must be it.

>While USSR indeed supplied his junk, US paid for it
>with military aid. I will repeat so there is no
>confusion: USA gave Saddam money explicitely to buy
>arms.

Care to cite some FACTS to back up your "repeated" assertion? You can't, because the reality is that the Saddam's financing, like his arms supplies, came from many countries, and in both cases the U.S. was FAR down the list.

Iraq's war debts

Iraqs arms suppliers

>Furthermore, the USA's 0.58% includes the
>precursors, equipment and plans to manufacture
>chemical weapons

In fact, it was by far German & other EUROPEAN firms that happliy sold Saddam the majority of his his chemical weapons precursors. But I guess its more convienient for you to avoid these facts, since they interfere with your ability to paint America as the source of all the world's evil.

I know this is one of those things that "everybody knows", that the US armed Saddam in the 80's, but the facts speak otherwise. Yes, we supplied Iraq with monies and arms, but we were far behind those paragons of International virtue like:

USSR 17503 50.78%
France 5221 15.15%
China 5192 15.06%
Czechoslovakia 1540 4.47%
Poland 1626 4.72%
Brazil 724 2.10%
Egypt 568 1.65%
Romania 524 1.52%
Denmark 226 0.66%
Libya 200 0.58%
USA 200 0.58%

But don't take my word for it. Refer to the report from SIPRI (Stockholm International Peace Research Institute) here: http://projects.sipri.se/armstrade/Trnd_Ind_IRQ_Im ps_73-02.pdf

If you're going to blame the US for something, go ahead, but a least blame us for something legitimate.

"maybe the people of Iraq before *you guys* gave him millions in support, training and, according to some, bological weapons capabilities..."

Bzzzzzzttt!

Thanks for playing: http://dailyablution.blogs.com/the_daily_ablution/ 2003/12/how_the_us_arme.html/

And for the original data: http://projects.sipri.se/armstrade/Trnd_Ind_IRQ_Im ps_73-02.pdf

There are extensive CIA/al Qaida links going back even further.

No there aren't. In the 1980's, we gave support to the mujahedeen through the Pakistani intelligence service, and they decided how to apportion the aid among resistance groups. The mujahadeen != Al Qaeda. And we did this to help in the very worthy cause of defending Afghanistan against the Soviet invasion.

Throw in supplying Saddam his WMD material and expertise and rewarding/protecting him during his worst behaviour while you're at it

More left-wing distortions. We did not supply him with his WMDs. In fact, the chemical weapons that he used were definitely not from the United States, and the United States accounted for less than 1% of Iraq's arms imports between 1973 and 1990 (the USSR, France, China, Czechoslovakia, Poland, Brazil, Egypt, Romania, Denmark, and Libya all exported more arms to Iraq than we did).

And no, we did not reward or protect him. We sent Donald Rumsfeld to Iraq to personally caution Saddam against using chemical weapons, and we voted for 5 UN resolutions condemning Iraq for their chemical weapon use.

And then there's all those Mossad-run al Qaida cells. When are you going to stop paying Israel $10M/day to run those?

Blue light special on tin-foil hats, aisle 3!

There are extensive CIA/al Qaida links going back even further.

No there aren't. In the 1980's, we gave support to the mujahedeen through the Pakistani intelligence service, and they decided how to apportion the aid among resistance groups. The mujahadeen != Al Qaeda. And we did this to help in the very worthy cause of defending Afghanistan against the Soviet invasion.

Throw in supplying Saddam his WMD material and expertise and rewarding/protecting him during his worst behaviour while you're at it

More left-wing distortions. We did not supply him with his WMDs. In fact, the chemical weapons that he used were definitely not from the United States, and the United States accounted for less than 1% of Iraq's arms imports between 1973 and 1990 (the USSR, France, China, Czechoslovakia, Poland, Brazil, Egypt, Romania, Denmark, and Libya all exported more arms to Iraq than we did).

And no, we did not reward or protect him. We sent Donald Rumsfeld to Iraq to personally caution Saddam against using chemical weapons, and we voted for 5 UN resolutions condemning Iraq for their chemical weapon use.

And then there's all those Mossad-run al Qaida cells. When are you going to stop paying Israel $10M/day to run those?

Blue light special on tin-foil hats, aisle 3!

Wrong. Between 1973 and 2002, the US accounted for less than 1% of all Iraqi arms imports. And the WMD that he did use wasn't from us, either. The Stockholm International Peace Research Institute concluded that the weapons used were either from Japan or Germany:

The UN report provides only negative evidence of the origin of the mustard gas sample. The absence in the sample analysed in Sweden and Switzerland of polysulphides and of more than a trace of sulphur indicates that it is not of past US-government manufacture, for all US mustard was made by the Levinstein process from ethylene and mixed sulphur chlorides. That process is also said to have been the one used by the USSR. From similar reasoning, British-made mustard, too, can probably be ruled out, even though substantial stocks were once held at British depots in the Middle East. For more positive evidence other sources of information must be used. Over the years since the mid-1960s quite a lot of information has been published purporting to describe Iraqi chemical weapons, but much of it is contradictory and all of it is of a reliability which SIPRI is in no position to judge. A major caveat must be entered: chemical warfare is such an emotive subject that it lends itself very readily to campaigns of disinformation and black propaganda, campaigns which the politics both of the Gulf War and of the current chemical-weapons negotiations have unquestionably stimulated to no small degree.

Wrong. Between 1973 and 2002, the US accounted for less than 1% of all Iraqi arms imports. And the WMD that he did use wasn't from us, either. The Stockholm International Peace Research Institute concluded that the weapons used were either from Japan or Germany:

The UN report provides only negative evidence of the origin of the mustard gas sample. The absence in the sample analysed in Sweden and Switzerland of polysulphides and of more than a trace of sulphur indicates that it is not of past US-government manufacture, for all US mustard was made by the Levinstein process from ethylene and mixed sulphur chlorides. That process is also said to have been the one used by the USSR. From similar reasoning, British-made mustard, too, can probably be ruled out, even though substantial stocks were once held at British depots in the Middle East. For more positive evidence other sources of information must be used. Over the years since the mid-1960s quite a lot of information has been published purporting to describe Iraqi chemical weapons, but much of it is contradictory and all of it is of a reliability which SIPRI is in no position to judge. A major caveat must be entered: chemical warfare is such an emotive subject that it lends itself very readily to campaigns of disinformation and black propaganda, campaigns which the politics both of the Gulf War and of the current chemical-weapons negotiations have unquestionably stimulated to no small degree.

Why don't you check how many UN resolutions Israel is in violation of

Why don't you compare apples to apples. Iraq was in violation of 17 UNSEC resolutions that specifically cite Chapter VII of the UN Charter. Chapter VII is the only place in the charter that authorizes military action. Guess how many resolutions have been passed against Israel under chapter VII? Zero.

Sure, Saddam was a 'bad guy', but let's not forget we created him.

We did not create Saddam. Saddam rose to power quite independant of our involvement in the middle east.

And if we're going to go after all the 'bad guys', there are many worse than Saddam we should start with.

Like who? Who else was in violation of 17 unanimous UNSEC resolutions, had direct ties to terrorist organizations, known supplies of WMDs, and some of the richest natural resources in the world to finance almost anything that he wanted.

And yes, please show me a link between Saddam and terrorists.

Ok. Here is the Council on Foreign Relations' report on Iraq's terrorist connections. Saddam had known ties to Ansar al Islam, Mujahedeen-e-Khalq, the PKK, the Abu Nidal Organization, and Hamas. He even went on TV and gave money to encourage suicide bombers! Again, George Bush is not the first to claim any of this. This has been the official policy of the US for 15 years.

Bush did lie about Saddam trying to buy plutonium from Africa

Bush said that British intelligence found that he had sought Uranium in Africa, and British intelligence still stands by this claim. There was no lie.

Nevermind that these are weapons that WE (the US) gave him because we didn't like the Iranians.

Those were not the weapons we gave him. Between 1973 and 1990, the US only accounted for 1% of Iraq's arms imports (source). The USSR, France, China, Czechoslovakia, Poland, Brazil, Egypt, Romania, Denmark, and Libya all supplied Iraq with more weapons that we did. And the chemical weapons that Saddam has used are definately NOT from us either (source). You are going to have to find a better reason to hate the US.

Why don't you check how many UN resolutions Israel is in violation of

Why don't you compare apples to apples. Iraq was in violation of 17 UNSEC resolutions that specifically cite Chapter VII of the UN Charter. Chapter VII is the only place in the charter that authorizes military action. Guess how many resolutions have been passed against Israel under chapter VII? Zero.

Sure, Saddam was a 'bad guy', but let's not forget we created him.

We did not create Saddam. Saddam rose to power quite independant of our involvement in the middle east.

And if we're going to go after all the 'bad guys', there are many worse than Saddam we should start with.

Like who? Who else was in violation of 17 unanimous UNSEC resolutions, had direct ties to terrorist organizations, known supplies of WMDs, and some of the richest natural resources in the world to finance almost anything that he wanted.

And yes, please show me a link between Saddam and terrorists.

Ok. Here is the Council on Foreign Relations' report on Iraq's terrorist connections. Saddam had known ties to Ansar al Islam, Mujahedeen-e-Khalq, the PKK, the Abu Nidal Organization, and Hamas. He even went on TV and gave money to encourage suicide bombers! Again, George Bush is not the first to claim any of this. This has been the official policy of the US for 15 years.

Bush did lie about Saddam trying to buy plutonium from Africa

Bush said that British intelligence found that he had sought Uranium in Africa, and British intelligence still stands by this claim. There was no lie.

Nevermind that these are weapons that WE (the US) gave him because we didn't like the Iranians.

Those were not the weapons we gave him. Between 1973 and 1990, the US only accounted for 1% of Iraq's arms imports (source). The USSR, France, China, Czechoslovakia, Poland, Brazil, Egypt, Romania, Denmark, and Libya all supplied Iraq with more weapons that we did. And the chemical weapons that Saddam has used are definately NOT from us either (source). You are going to have to find a better reason to hate the US.

We know he had them, because we gave them to him

We obviously helped Saddam some during the 80's, but he was doing just fine without us. The bulk of his army equipment (tanks, aircraft, guns) were made in Russia. France sold him a freaking nuclear reactor. The chemical weapons he has used were from Germany or Japan, and NOT the US.

But the fact remains that not only was Saddam required to disarm, he was required to prove that he had destroyed the weapons we knew he had. He didn't. He has also helped enough terrorists in the past to earn himself a position on our State Department list of states that sponsor terrorism. He also hates our guts. If you don't consider that a threat to us, then I am glad that you are not in charge of our national security.

The absence in the sample analysed in Sweden and Switzerland of polysulphides and of more than a trace of sulphur indicates that it is not of past US-government manufacture, for all US mustard was made by the Levinstein process from ethylene and mixed sulphur chlorides. That process is also said to have been the one used by the USSR. From similar reasoning, British-made mustard, too, can probably be ruled out, even though substantial stocks were once held at British depots in the Middle East.

Um, all of his tanks, guns, and aircraft were Russian, and the chemical weapons he has used were either German or Japanese, but definately not US or British. It looks to me like he was doing fine getting weapons without our help.

I guess the US liberating Iraq is actually a noble attempt to try and make up for the CIA's sponsorship of Saddam's rise to power in the 1960s....

The US didn't support Saddam's rise to power. That was the Soviets that armed and supplied Iraq when Saddam was killing his way to the top. If you're going to blame the US let's apportion the right amount of blame. The US's total contribution to Iraq's arsenal was less than 1% (in terms of total monetary value according othe Stockholm International Peace Research Institute). Saddam got into power on his own but we did use him when he was in power. We helped him when he was the enemy of our enemy (Iran) by providing satellite and surveillance intelligence but all financial and military aid stopped after he gassed the Kurds (German corps especially - they didn't stop till a couple months before the latest war and also sell to the N Coreans). France played the biggest role in Saddam's personal rise to power. It was Chirac who buddied up to Saddam well before the US got involved. Chirac even personally got the sale of nuclear reactors to Saddam approved. The US isn't the source of every evil in this world. England and France screwed-up the Middle East a whole hell of a lot more severely and longer than the US has even been involved in the region.

But... he killed them because the other George Bush let him.

Bull crap. First of all, Saddam was in power for 10 years before Bush was elected. And during the 80's, the US signed 5 UN security council resolutions condemning Iraq for their actions. And then Bush organized and led a coalition to keep Iraq from illegally expanding their borders into Kuwait. I suppose next you are going to blame Bush for all of the bank robberies or drive by shootings in LA, because he didn't stop that from happening too.

And gave him the weapons.

According to the Stockholm International Peace Research Institute, the weapons Saddam used during the 80's were from either Japan or Germany, but they weren't from the US.

Bet that never comes out at "the trial".

I bet uneducated retards like you will whine either way.

In retrospect, our alliance with Saddam in the 80's was bad- hindsight is always 20-20. But if you look at the situation we were in, it is understandable why we looked to work with Saddam. The Iranian revolution changed the dynamic of the region. Suddenly we had a radical Islamic theocracy that was openly anti-American and had taken hundreds of US citizens hostage. Iran quickly became enemy #1.

So we look next door. Instead of a radical Islamic government, we see a secular leader, and we falsly assume that this means Iraq will not be subject to the same volitility as Iran. We also see a leader that is against the new Islamic government in Iran (our new enemy). We obviously underestimated Saddam.

Its not like we sat back and did nothing about his war crimes. We sent Rumsfeld to Iraq in the early 80's to urge Saddam not to use chemical weapons. We voted for almost a half a dozen UN resolutions condemning Iraq for it's chemical weapons use. And the chemical weapons he was using were not American anyway. Finally it became painfully obvious that we could not trust Saddam, so we started working to disarm him.

Hopefully we can learn from mistakes like this.

WMDs are not limited to nukes. The Stockholm International Peace Research Institute pointed out that Iraq was using chemical weapons twenty years ago.

Fifteen years ago, Hussein used these weapons of mass destruction in a campaign that Human Rights Watch says killed between 500,000 and one million Kurds.

Saddam Hussein was ordered to destroy those stocks in a verifiable manner 12 years ago, as part of the consequences for his unilateral agression against Kuwait. He did not; it was the unanimous judgment of the Security Council and the various UN weapons inspectors that he did not.

Hussein was given twelve years to comply, and refused; it was the judgment of not just the US and UK, but also of Germany and France that Hussein was trying to hide a still-extant WMD program. The only dispute was as to what means to use to end the threat, not over the existence of the threat. Germany in Febrary of 2001 claimed Hussein was a mere three years from having nuclear weapons.

Finally, the U.S. Congress authorized war with Iraq before the 2002 election, well before Bush's 2003 State of the Union speech. Therefore the content of the speech was completely irrelevant to whether the war would go forward or not; nobody died because of the sentence.

1) USA gave weapons to Saddam.

Thats interesting, especially considering his tanks, missiles, and aircraft were all soviet made, and his chemical weapons were either German or Japanese. If we did give him weapons, it wasn't very many I guess.

2) Saddam used weapons on - well, on everyone in range.

The US voted for 5 resolutions in the 80's that condemned Iraq for its chemical weapon use.

3) USA stopped giving saddam weapons. He was a good friend to the people of america, but he didn't need any more weapons.
4) Saddam's weapons were gone, because he used them all

Wow! You have solved the mystery! Now we know where the unaccounted weapons went. He used them all! How silly that we didn't think about that before.

And by the way, am I the only one that remembers that the UN inspectors NEVER FOUND ANYTHING?

You remember incorrectly. The inspectors found and destroyed some weapons shortly after going into Iraq in the early 90's. In 1994, after some defections of high level Iraqis, they discovered a secret nuclear weapons program and that Saddam had restarted some research projects on chemical weapons. When confronted with this evidence, Saddam even admitted to this.

But I guess its ok. No need to worry. I mean, he wouldn't lie about it more than once, would he?

And what about the US's inability to produce even a single chem/bio/nuclear weapon, despite scouring the country for months, and despite capturing and questioning hundreds of iraqis?

Iraq is a big place. I mean, it took us 6 months to find is air force buried in the sand- how long will it take us to find a few drums of chemicals? They could be anywhere.

The whereabouts of the (alleged) iraqi WMDs are not a mystery - there simply aren't any in the country.

You are entitled to that opinion.

PREDICTION: now that saddam is caught, the US will as if by magic produce a large stockpile of weapons that look to be well-hidden and very nefarious.

PREDICTION: People like you won't accept anything found in Iraq no matter what.

Has it occurred to you that if the Bush administration was lying about Iraq's WMD's, we probably wouldn't know about it because they would have immediatly "found" them? I mean, why would they lie about the weapons, then proceed to invade the country when an invasion is the only thing that will finally bring out the truth? It doesn't make any sense to only lie halfway like that. I think the fact that we haven't found any weapons yet is proof that the Bush administration wasn't lying about the WMD's.

Actually, Iraq's chemical weapons are NOT from the United States.

http://projects.sipri.se/cbw/research/factsheet-19 84.html

According to the Stockholm International Peace Research Institute, they are probably German or Japanese. In fact, they explicitly ruled out the possibility of them coming from the US.

Yea, the U.S. did supply weapons to Iraq. Take a look at the numbers. Russia provided 57% of arms to Iraq, France 2nd at 13%, China at 12%. The U.S. was only at 1%. We obviously made mistakes trusting Iraq during the Iran-Iraq War, but we've since learned our lesson and taken care of that.

You said: "France, Russia, China, the USA, and Germany have all provided military equipment to Iraq. The USA has additionally outfitted Iran and several neighbours. The Russians, Germans, and French are owed money largely for infrastructure, electrical generators, sanitation equipment, and the like. But get this straight - no one is innocent in this, and the USA is certainly, far and away, the worst offender."

FUD! Lets get some numbers down. According to SIPRI USSR, France, China, and Czechoslovakia were the largest traders of conventional arms during the period you describe. In fact a nice table summarizes this and shows that the US contributed to about 1% of the arms trade to Iraq from 1973-1990. Looks like the certainly, far and away, worst offender is the USSR.

Tell me, who supplied the chemical weapons's to Iraq that were used to kill those 80,000 Kurd's? Russian? French? Chinese? No. American.

Got something to back that up? According to the Stockholm International Peace Research Institute, the chemicals came from "Japan, FR Germany and other unspecified European countries..." It even states that US manufacture of the mustard gas has been ruled out: "The absence in the sample analysed in Sweden and Switzerland of polysulphides and of more than a trace of sulphur indicates that it is not of past US-government manufacture, for all US mustard was made by the Levinstein process from ethylene and mixed sulphur chlorides. That process is also said to have been the one used by the USSR. From similar reasoning, British-made mustard, too, can probably be ruled out, even though substantial stocks were once held at British depots in the Middle East."

Maybe you need to check your facts a bit. Here is the entire report for your reading pleasure.

German chemical companies did a lot of business with Iraq.

However, the chart only shows data for conventional weapons - and complete conventional weapons systems at that. So actually, the 3 points are still accurate. The supergun isn't counted. More importantly, chemical weapons aren't counted.

Probably the most important thing to say about the chart, however, is that the suggestion that France and Russia opposed the war in Iraq purely because they supported Saddam Hussain and that they supported Saddam because they sold him weapons is ridiculous. Does the US oppose the Intifada because it sells Israel weapons, or because it believes that an armed response against Israel is the wrong thing to do?

I also appear to have written "failed" rather than "fairly". Sorry.

Here's where the numbers most people refer to regarding arming Iraq come from:

http://projects.sipri.se/armstrade/Trnd_Ind_IRQ_Im ps_73-02.pdf.

But in reality the US supplied just as much, if not more, materials to Iraq than the Europeans did.

This is an indefensible claim.

For a nice little table, look here:
http://projects.sipri.se/armstrade/Trnd_Ind_IRQ_Im ps_73-02.pdf

If numbers alone are no fun, read this article here:
http://www.newsmax.com/archives/articles/2003/3/17 /123424.shtml

If you're too lazy to look at either one of them, let me summarize: A grand total of 1% of Iraq's arms imports came from the United States between 1973 and the first gulf war. Alternatively, if you're considering arguing that it was American equipment moved to Iraq through third parties, I suggest you glance at the countries listed above the US in the table and think again.

Please try to refrain from spouting such ignorance in the future. Those of us who try to stay informed thank you in advance.

I call BS. If you are going to have a look at US foreign policy, there are lots of real things to be critical of. So why does every 2-bit critic of this war feel the need to make things up?

helicopters provided by the United States

Wrong. Check out the helicopters on the Iraqi TO&E. Russian. I'd love to find out who started this myth of the US providing the Iraqis weapons. Almost everything they deploy is Russian.

spraying gas provided by the United States

http://projects.sipri.se/cbw/research/factsheet-19 84.html points to the Russians as the most likely supplier, and mentions accusations against the French and Germans too. The US did sell Iraq some biological agents like anthrax in the 1980s, which have civillian uses. Considering Iraq's past use of chemical and biological weapons this was pretty stupid. However, it wan't anthrax that was used on the Kurds - most likely mustard gas that was never supplied by the US.

ordered by a dictator who was placed into power by the United States

More unsubstantied crap. Hussein's rise to power has nothing to do with the US.

Here's an idea: try defending your anti-war beliefs without resorting to outright lies, ok?

I get the worldwide average of 2.6%.