ParadigmShifter
Random Nonsense Generator
Hmm, not for me to argue against my own viewpoint but I'd be VERY suspicious of a wiki that says there was an over 100% enrollment rate. Sounds like Ronglish to me.
Do you support the Iraq war TODAY??? NOTE: READ ARGUMENT FIRST! THEN vote
- Thread starter Emperor2
- Start date
brennan
Argumentative Brit
It said over 100% 'gross'; I assumed it was some weird number accountancy thingy.
""Where does it say that? Funny, because I read the key word "duel use." The UN published all kinds of reports stating that nothing we ever gave them could be directly tied to the US. Except for helicopters that were used often dispatch chemical weapons in the Iran-Iraq war.
It's funny that anthrax has all kinds of legitimate uses in the medical industry...
Anyhow, do I think we should have even given Saddam dual use stuff? No. Are our hands nearly as dirty in Saddam's WMD programs than others? No, not even close. Does giving them dual use materials mean we can't correct wrongs made in the past now and in the future? Well, I honestly don't understand how.""
we sure are not the only guilty ones
""According to Iraq's report to the UN, the know-how and material for developing chemical weapons were obtained from firms in such countries as: the United States, West Germany, the United Kingdom, France and the People's Republic of China.
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 chemical precursors to Iraq in the past two decades. 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.
According to Iraq's declarations, it had procured 340 pieces of equipment used for the production of chemical weapons. More than half came from Germany, the remainder mostly from France, Spain, and Austria. In addition, Iraq declared that it imported more than 200,000 munitions made for delivering chemicals, 75,000 came from Italy, 57,500 from Spain, 45,000 from China, and 28,500 from Egypt.
Declassified U.S. government documents indicate that the U.S. government had confirmed that Iraq was using chemical weapons "almost daily" during the Iran-Iraq conflict as early as 1983. The chairman of the Senate committee, Don Riegle, said: The executive branch of our government approved 771 different export licenses for sale of dual-use technology to Iraq. I think its a devastating record. According to the Washington Post, the CIA began in 1984 secretly to give Iraq intelligence that Iraq used to "calibrate" its mustard gas attacks on Iranian troops. In August, the CIA establishes a direct Washington-Baghdad intelligence link, and for 18 months, starting in early 1985, the CIA provided Iraq with "data from sensitive U.S. satellite reconnaissance photography...to assist Iraqi bombing raids." The Posts source said that this data was essential to Iraqs war effort.
In May 2003, an extended list of international companies involvements in Iraq was provided by The Independent (UK). Official Howard Teicher and Radley Gayle, stated that 31 Bell helicopters that were given to Iraq by U.S. later were used to spray chemical weapons.
Iraq's chemical weapons program was mainly assisted by German companies such as Karl Kobe, which built a chemical weapons facility disguised as a pesticide plant. Iraqs foreign contractors, including Karl Kolb with Massar for reinforcement, built five large research laboratories, an administrative building, eight large underground bunkers for the storage of chemical munitions, and the first production buildings. 150 tons of mustard were produced in 1983. About 60 tons of Tabun were produced in 1984. Pilot-scale production of Sarin began in 1984. Germany also supplied reactors, heat exchangers, condensors and vessels. France, Austria, Canada, and Spain provided similar equipment.
The Al Haddad trading company of Tennessee delivered 60 tons of DMMP, a chemical used to make sarin, a nerve gas implicated in so-called Gulf War Syndrome. The Al Haddad trading company appears to have been an Iraqi front company. The firm was owned by Sahib Abd al-Amir al-Haddad, an Iraqi-born, naturalized American citizen. Recent stories in The New York Times and The Tennessean reported that al-Haddad was arrested in Bulgaria in November 2002 while trying to arrange an arms sale to Iraq. Al-Haddad was charged with conspiring to purchase equipment for the manufacture of a giant Iraqi cannon. In 1984, U.S. Customs at New York's Kennedy Airport stopped an order addressed to the Iraqi State Enterprise for Pesticide Production for 74 drums of potassium fluoride, a chemical used in the production of Sarin. The order was placed by Al-Haddad Enterprises Incorporates, owned by an individual named Sahib al-Haddad.
The U.S. firm Alcolac International supplied one mustard-gas precursor, thiodiglycol, to both Iraq and Iran in violation of U.S. export laws for which it was forced to pay a fine in 1989. Overall between 300-400 tons were sent to Iraq""
we sure are correcting the wrongs we made in the past by arming sunni militants and trying to go after iran and hezbollah which are shia... which means they are against al qaeda as they are sunni extremists...
no no we dont have a agenda here at all, no worries
i like how this daily show clip sums it up
http://www.crooksandliars.com/Media/Play/18385/2/TDS-Iraq-ArmingSunnis.mov/
lets stay in iraq forever and help the different fractions all kill each while we lose some of our boys in the process
sounds great!
It's funny that anthrax has all kinds of legitimate uses in the medical industry...
Anyhow, do I think we should have even given Saddam dual use stuff? No. Are our hands nearly as dirty in Saddam's WMD programs than others? No, not even close. Does giving them dual use materials mean we can't correct wrongs made in the past now and in the future? Well, I honestly don't understand how.""
we sure are not the only guilty ones
""According to Iraq's report to the UN, the know-how and material for developing chemical weapons were obtained from firms in such countries as: the United States, West Germany, the United Kingdom, France and the People's Republic of China.
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 chemical precursors to Iraq in the past two decades. 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.
According to Iraq's declarations, it had procured 340 pieces of equipment used for the production of chemical weapons. More than half came from Germany, the remainder mostly from France, Spain, and Austria. In addition, Iraq declared that it imported more than 200,000 munitions made for delivering chemicals, 75,000 came from Italy, 57,500 from Spain, 45,000 from China, and 28,500 from Egypt.
Declassified U.S. government documents indicate that the U.S. government had confirmed that Iraq was using chemical weapons "almost daily" during the Iran-Iraq conflict as early as 1983. The chairman of the Senate committee, Don Riegle, said: The executive branch of our government approved 771 different export licenses for sale of dual-use technology to Iraq. I think its a devastating record. According to the Washington Post, the CIA began in 1984 secretly to give Iraq intelligence that Iraq used to "calibrate" its mustard gas attacks on Iranian troops. In August, the CIA establishes a direct Washington-Baghdad intelligence link, and for 18 months, starting in early 1985, the CIA provided Iraq with "data from sensitive U.S. satellite reconnaissance photography...to assist Iraqi bombing raids." The Posts source said that this data was essential to Iraqs war effort.
In May 2003, an extended list of international companies involvements in Iraq was provided by The Independent (UK). Official Howard Teicher and Radley Gayle, stated that 31 Bell helicopters that were given to Iraq by U.S. later were used to spray chemical weapons.
Iraq's chemical weapons program was mainly assisted by German companies such as Karl Kobe, which built a chemical weapons facility disguised as a pesticide plant. Iraqs foreign contractors, including Karl Kolb with Massar for reinforcement, built five large research laboratories, an administrative building, eight large underground bunkers for the storage of chemical munitions, and the first production buildings. 150 tons of mustard were produced in 1983. About 60 tons of Tabun were produced in 1984. Pilot-scale production of Sarin began in 1984. Germany also supplied reactors, heat exchangers, condensors and vessels. France, Austria, Canada, and Spain provided similar equipment.
The Al Haddad trading company of Tennessee delivered 60 tons of DMMP, a chemical used to make sarin, a nerve gas implicated in so-called Gulf War Syndrome. The Al Haddad trading company appears to have been an Iraqi front company. The firm was owned by Sahib Abd al-Amir al-Haddad, an Iraqi-born, naturalized American citizen. Recent stories in The New York Times and The Tennessean reported that al-Haddad was arrested in Bulgaria in November 2002 while trying to arrange an arms sale to Iraq. Al-Haddad was charged with conspiring to purchase equipment for the manufacture of a giant Iraqi cannon. In 1984, U.S. Customs at New York's Kennedy Airport stopped an order addressed to the Iraqi State Enterprise for Pesticide Production for 74 drums of potassium fluoride, a chemical used in the production of Sarin. The order was placed by Al-Haddad Enterprises Incorporates, owned by an individual named Sahib al-Haddad.
The U.S. firm Alcolac International supplied one mustard-gas precursor, thiodiglycol, to both Iraq and Iran in violation of U.S. export laws for which it was forced to pay a fine in 1989. Overall between 300-400 tons were sent to Iraq""
we sure are correcting the wrongs we made in the past by arming sunni militants and trying to go after iran and hezbollah which are shia... which means they are against al qaeda as they are sunni extremists...
no no we dont have a agenda here at all, no worries
i like how this daily show clip sums it up
http://www.crooksandliars.com/Media/Play/18385/2/TDS-Iraq-ArmingSunnis.mov/
lets stay in iraq forever and help the different fractions all kill each while we lose some of our boys in the process
sounds great!
Merkinball
Deity
Have you ever heard of oil for aid scandal? The sanctions didn't do it. Saddam did.
I read that article above, and it all becomes so clear why China, Germany, and France voted against the war...
brennan
Argumentative Brit
Things were going fine until sanctions as far as these sources show. You go ahead and call it a coincidence if you like...
FriendlyFire
Codex WMDicanious
As it is being fought as this moment ? No
the US has to go LARGE, go LONG or go home currently though it seems that we've gone for the go long option but with the stratergies and tactic which would be employed with the go large. As Esienhower put it beware the 7 battalion stratergy that requires 8 battalions.
At least the general now in charge general Petrauses know this very well and has stated that hes strategy of COIN will take decades to complete (publicly) while hes asides has made it know that this "surge" is mearly to create a small breathing space where the US position is strengthend so a poltical solution can be forced. A very limited objective.
the US has to go LARGE, go LONG or go home currently though it seems that we've gone for the go long option but with the stratergies and tactic which would be employed with the go large. As Esienhower put it beware the 7 battalion stratergy that requires 8 battalions.
At least the general now in charge general Petrauses know this very well and has stated that hes strategy of COIN will take decades to complete (publicly) while hes asides has made it know that this "surge" is mearly to create a small breathing space where the US position is strengthend so a poltical solution can be forced. A very limited objective.
I have always opposed this imperialist bloodbath war. The US may have thought Saddam a monster, but he was a monster that the US openly supported in the 1980's (and sent weapons to), when he was committing numerous barbaric acts.
Even after the Gulf War, the US let Saddam keep his post as dictator. And the US imposed the brutal set of sanctions to kill an estimated 500,000 Iraqis.
The US has shown repeatedly that it will happily support dictators to advance its own goals. Just look at Iran in 1953, Guatemala in 1952, Chile in 1973, Nicaragua in 1970's and 80's, South Korea up to 1987, South Vietnam while it existed, Suharto's Indonesia, so on. The US DOESN'T WANT DEMOCRACY ANYWHERE.
More in a later post.
Even after the Gulf War, the US let Saddam keep his post as dictator. And the US imposed the brutal set of sanctions to kill an estimated 500,000 Iraqis.
The US has shown repeatedly that it will happily support dictators to advance its own goals. Just look at Iran in 1953, Guatemala in 1952, Chile in 1973, Nicaragua in 1970's and 80's, South Korea up to 1987, South Vietnam while it existed, Suharto's Indonesia, so on. The US DOESN'T WANT DEMOCRACY ANYWHERE.
More in a later post.
Iraq has nothing to do with the war on terror, and everything to do with the war for oil profits.
The National Intelligence Council said in 2002 that an invasion of Iraq would lead to an increase in support for al-Qaida. And it has. But the US doesn't give a crap.
The National Intelligence Council said in 2002 that an invasion of Iraq would lead to an increase in support for al-Qaida. And it has. But the US doesn't give a crap.
Merkinball
Deity
I'm not saying it isn't coincidence. I'm saying the sanctions are not the reason. You didn't answer my question. I asked you if you had ever heard of the oil for aid scandal. Do you know about the oil for aid program? Just a heads up, the oil for aid scandal is probably, monetarily speaking, larger than every corporate fraud scandal that America has seen combined. It went all the up to the number three man in the UN, the man involved with administering the program itself, Kofi Annan's son, people in Chirac's cabinet, people within Putins cabinet, and Schroeders cabinet. There's no telling how much was actually involved, but it's at least into the tens of BILLIONS of dollars. Money that was meant for education, health, and rebuilding infrastructure.
Which, coincidentally, is a primary reason 500,000 children died from preventable disease over the course of a decade.
The US didn't impose these sanctions either. The UN did. The US didn't let Saddam keep his dictatorship. The UN did. Iraq was a state sponsor of Israeli terrorism. How does that not qualify for being in the war on terror? Why does the War on Terror need to be synonomous for "war on Al Queda?" How morally bankrupt is that stance?
The war was not for oil. We have plenty of oil. We have ANWR. We have plenty of allies that have tons of it. Even approached dynamically, Qatar has enough natural gas to run the entire planet for forty years alone. The kicker? Iraq belongs to OPEC. "No War for Oil" is nothing but a lexicon, the dream of conspirators, but not founded upon much fact at all.
Desmond Hawkins
Deity
- Joined
- Aug 8, 2002
- Messages
- 9,922
The bestest dream I ever had (honest to God a real dream): I was on a winter vacation to beautiful Mesopotamia. The newly constructed Halliburton Highway brought me into Baghdad, where I swiftly took the off-ramp onto the Cheney Expressway. Even to this day, the grateful Iraqis are throwing flowers and confetti at my car, as they can see I look like one of the liberators. After viewing some nicely intact Shia Mosques, where several Sunni leaders were negotiating with Shias and sharing a prayer, I took a spin to the newly created al-Arab Freedomland: A Disney Experience. Tired from all the travel, I stopped to enjoy a pound of freedom fries (the new national food).
The worstest nightmare I ever had: An intractable situation in Iraq, where the only reasonable course of action is for the Americans is to withdraw in a timely manner. Wait, that is the real world... *duh NUH duh NUH*
The worstest nightmare I ever had: An intractable situation in Iraq, where the only reasonable course of action is for the Americans is to withdraw in a timely manner. Wait, that is the real world... *duh NUH duh NUH*
god forbid other nations have thier self interest at heart! like the U.S. does all the time!
Desmond Hawkins
Deity
- Joined
- Aug 8, 2002
- Messages
- 9,922
Could it be that the motivations of countries such as France, China, and Germany may have been a bit more complex than merely oil for food? I can never understand why people can only comprehend one source or reason for a decision, rather than having it be a dynamic interaction of various interests and information?
Like perhaps France was thinking, "wow, this may expose our oil-for-food scandal, but FAR more importantly, it will destabilize the whole bloody middle east, cause an American retreat from international engagement, and create a terrorist haven were there previously was none. Primarily for these latter reasons, it would be a very bad thing for the Americans to invade Iraq."
Sort of like American motivations. They didn't invade for just the oil; they didn't invade just for the precedent of showing the world the size of America's balls and thus providing a warning to potential future rivals; they didn't invade just to settle a family vendetta between the Bushes and Saddam; they didn't invade just to create a forward base for the U.S. military in the Middle East; they didn't just invade to create a playground for well-connected American corporations, where they could receive lucrative, government-funded contracts with little legal oversight. They invaded for all of those reasons.
Like perhaps France was thinking, "wow, this may expose our oil-for-food scandal, but FAR more importantly, it will destabilize the whole bloody middle east, cause an American retreat from international engagement, and create a terrorist haven were there previously was none. Primarily for these latter reasons, it would be a very bad thing for the Americans to invade Iraq."
Sort of like American motivations. They didn't invade for just the oil; they didn't invade just for the precedent of showing the world the size of America's balls and thus providing a warning to potential future rivals; they didn't invade just to settle a family vendetta between the Bushes and Saddam; they didn't invade just to create a forward base for the U.S. military in the Middle East; they didn't just invade to create a playground for well-connected American corporations, where they could receive lucrative, government-funded contracts with little legal oversight. They invaded for all of those reasons.
500,000 will continue to die from preventable disease. how morally bankrupt is it to conduct an entire war on terror on iraq for the protection of israel? also, why should the war on terror not target MOSTLY if not SOLELY entities THAT ACTUALLY HAVE KILLED PEOPLE IN OUR COUNTRY?
you think an american would want to hear that? Americans are far too proud and stupid to accept that idea.
Stapel
FIAT 850 coupé
For a long time I've said that pulling out is simply not an option. The US started this process and the only decent way to go is to finish the job and deliver a new stable Iraq.
So, emperor2, in this I agree with you.
However, we should raise the question whether the US troops are capable of doing this (stabalising Iraq). To be fair, I think they are not. The US Armed Forces have proven to be a perfect organisation to swiftly bring a regime change, but they also have proven to be a louzy organisation to stabilise a country like Iraq.
I have supported the Iraq invasion in 2003, assuming there would be a post-war plan. I remember the 2003 CFC-discussions where I wondered what would be the post-war plan.... I also think any imbecile can understand a post-war stabilising effort takes up to 5-10 times the number of troops as an invasion force.
Yet, in the US administration, nobody seems to understand this..... Quite unbelievable. Anyway, it's too late now. Pulling out and letting the chaos search its own ways, is the only option now.
So, emperor2, in this I agree with you.
However, we should raise the question whether the US troops are capable of doing this (stabalising Iraq). To be fair, I think they are not. The US Armed Forces have proven to be a perfect organisation to swiftly bring a regime change, but they also have proven to be a louzy organisation to stabilise a country like Iraq.
I have supported the Iraq invasion in 2003, assuming there would be a post-war plan. I remember the 2003 CFC-discussions where I wondered what would be the post-war plan.... I also think any imbecile can understand a post-war stabilising effort takes up to 5-10 times the number of troops as an invasion force.
Yet, in the US administration, nobody seems to understand this..... Quite unbelievable. Anyway, it's too late now. Pulling out and letting the chaos search its own ways, is the only option now.
Princeps
More bombs than God
- Joined
- Aug 22, 2004
- Messages
- 5,265
I remember the best sex reference was made by Bill Maher... it was something like this...
"First we penetrated Iraq, trying to bring it to a euphoric climax... but its clear that's not going to happen, yet we're still bounding and bounding, causing the whole area to become inflamed with passion and in that situation, the kindest thing you can do -- is just pull out."
Merkinball
Deity
Oh yeah, protecting their self interests on the back of Saddam Hussein. Such noble nations
Please don't tell me you're justifying their pre-war stance.I doubt it. What could it have possibly been. Germany was hiding what Karl Kobe had contributed. France had ironed out deals with Saddam to end the sanctions in exchange for contracts to Total/Fina lube. Iraq and Saddam had nothing to offer the western world except oil. The countries that voted against the war had no reason to vote against upholding the resolutions than oil, and hiding their own misdeeds. Unless you can come up with something else. What's even scarier, is that once we found Saddam and started interrogating, he told us that he was gonna restart his bio and chemical weapons programs.
I strongly doubt it. Since when have wars created vacuums for terrorism in the middle east that didn't already exist. There were terror groups already in Iraq. There are terror groups in stable middle eastern nations already, and plenty of instability as well. If the members of the security council had upheld their obligations like they should have, there would have been no outctry, and no driving of Muslims into extremism. It wasn't America retreating from international engagement, it was the detractors. If the war would have had the backing and support from the entire security council, things would have turned out much better. It wouldn't have had this "illegal war" stigma that's been associated with it. The perception of it would have chagned drastically. There would have been more international cooperation and duty to keep Iraq secure. And it would have saved the world from Bush taking a cowboy attitude and rejecting outside help. The UN has stated time and again, that they'd go into Iraq now to help out, but everyone is so polarized at this point that it won't happen.
Anything to support that 500,000 will die from preventable disease? Or is that just lunatic conjecture? Just curious. I would say that's not morally bankrupt at all to conduct a war on terror against Iraq because of Israel. I think it would be morally bankrupt to DO NOTHING against a state sponsor of terror in any regard. Why should the war on terror target others? Because if you're going to make a catch phrase like..."the war on terror." Then it needs to be all encompassing. Which is why we've not just focused our efforts on Al Queda and those that have targeted us, but other terror groups as well. Just one quick example, the LRA in Uganda, a Christian terrorist group. America can walk and chew gum at the same time, and avoid international criticism.
hmmmm, 500,000 will die from preventable disease because the health care of the nation went from mediocre to terrible or worse.
the problem is it isnt all encompasing and it goes after a fairly small and circumstansial problem and there is no clearly defined way to claim victory.
also we cant walk and chew gum and avoid international criticism. have you looked at the war in iraq(its not going swimmingly and doesnt look like it will for some time), have you looked at the war on terror(terrorism still happens), have you heard other countries badger us?
the problem is it isnt all encompasing and it goes after a fairly small and circumstansial problem and there is no clearly defined way to claim victory.
also we cant walk and chew gum and avoid international criticism. have you looked at the war in iraq(its not going swimmingly and doesnt look like it will for some time), have you looked at the war on terror(terrorism still happens), have you heard other countries badger us?
Similar threads
- Locked
