Mr. Beacon-of-Hope, some of us "assuming bags of hormones" may take offense to your comments.

And I would like to comment that I am a middle wing youth. Who created my beliefs mr. Boh?

How blind to assume that the title of one's beliefs obviously means that they prescribe to the generalized image of that title. And how naive. It seems you prescribe to your own title.

HAVE A NICE DAY!

~Aeras

Well talk for yourself. I for one have always been accused of being a conservative, mindless, drooling Bible-basher, simply because I let it slip that I was Christian...oops, did it again!

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
And Im a Million Different People
From One Day to the Next
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

quote:

---

From 1985 to 1990, the United States Government approved 771 licenses for the export to Iraq of $1.5 billion worth of biological agents and high-tech equipment with military application. The United States spent virtually an entire decade making sure that Saddam Hussein had almost whatever he wanted The Administration has never acknowledged that it took this course of action, nor has it explained why it did so. In reviewing documents and press accounts, and interviewing knowledgeable sources, it becomes clear that United States export-control policy was directed by U.S. foreign policy as formulated by the State Department, and it was U.S. foreign policy to assist the regime of Saddam Hussein.
-- Samuel Gejdenson, Democrat of Connecticut, chairman of a House subcommittee investigating "United States Exports of Sensitive Technology to Iraq", quoted by William Blum in "Anthrax for Export"
THANK YOUTHANKYOUTHANKYOUTHANKYOUTHANKYOU. Yay, I don't have to hunt down the documentation anymore! THanks a TON!

---

LINK. REFRENCE. This was neither. I can show you the dictated conversations between American and Iraq in about a week when I am at home, or you can browse the debate forum topics for it, as the links to them are in one of these threads. These are not purely from the American side but also from the Iraqi. It states undeniably that there was never any exchange of weaponry. If you want to prove otherwise, give me a real refrence not an unrefrenced quote.

I can quote websites that show "concrete evidence" that there are pyramids on mars and on the Moon that match the patterns of the pyramids on Earth. Of course it's all BS if you spend any time researching it.

I have seen the movie. I have read up on Moore. That was NOT a documentary, it was extremely biased and politicaly/financially/egostically motivated.

took me an hour due to my low bandwidth out here :-( but here it is

http://www.gwu.edu/~nsarchiv/NSAEBB/NSAEBB82/iraq31.pdf

Read what it has to offer. It shows the communication between Iraq and the U.S. You will see we were FAR from being Allies. Our relations were improving for a while, for a 3 year period. That's about it. These are from 4 different sources/perspectives. Read what they have to offer. I doubt you will find a more valid source than this. Then after you have read through them and gathered what really happened between the U.S. and Iraq, point out what America did wrong. If you do, than you are more open minded than the last people I tried to debate this with. Read the articles, not the review of the articles, but read the actual articles. There is about 40 of them if I rememebr correctly, not terribly long, shouldn't take you more than a few hours. A lot of it is kind of dry but you will learn a bit more of the truth about the diplomatic relations between Iraq and the U.S.

Actually I don't trust Wikipedia, and anyone who does is a fool. Wikipedia is full of opinions, and if they are presented quasi- objectively, they will not be deleted. If anyone added the many inaccracies and fallacies of the movie, they would be seen more as defacing the article. I could not bear to watch 5 minutes of the film without finding fallacies. he doesn't use logic, just pulls out facts and makes blatant accusations. And, Michael Moore himself admitted that his film wasn't so much a documentary as an "op-ed". Michael Moore's stand isn't at all intelligent or logical, it's emotional.

Oh, and I would like to quote the blog "Everything I Know Is Wrong", regarding WMDs in Iraq:

quote:

---

MSM finds WMD in Iraq--again.

When I first saw this article in the New York Times I figured it was just another attempt to rehash the story the left pushed so hard a week before the 2004 presidential election. But no...

Looting at Weapons Plants Was Systematic, Iraqi Says.
BAGHDAD, Iraq, March 12 - In the weeks after Baghdad fell in April 2003, looters systematically dismantled and removed tons of machinery from Saddam Hussein's most important weapons installations, including some with high-precision equipment capable of making parts for nuclear arms, a senior Iraqi official said this week in the government's first extensive comments on the looting.

Did you see it? The New York Times has discovered WMD in Iraq. Nukes, no less. One wonders how they will square this with their "Bush lied" meme. Certainly they will retract it, n'est pas?

I won't hold my breath, I hate turning purple and passing out.

This isn't even the first time MSM has found WMD in Iraq (even though they're not there). Just over a year ago, in a similar effort to embarrass the Bush administration, NBC found that al Quaeda (who wasn't in Iraq before the US attack) was in Iraq before the attack, and they were making WMD (which weren't there either). It's all very confusing--I can't follow their logic at all.

The article from a year ago had no legs--I'm not sure why--no doubt MSM will stick with this new story until it's completely explained to the public; no stone left unturned.

---

source: http://www.everythingiknowiswrong.com/2005/03/msm_finds_wmd_i.html

A funny source

"www.everythingiknowiswrong.com"

So if "everything I know is wrong" then what makes this one right?

If you claimed that "nothing is absolute" then I have to ask you ... are you absolutely sure?


"Nunc Scio Quit Sit Amor"
But always remember - it's still not a premarital sex
if you don't plan on getting married

For starters, how about a Washington Post article. here

Here are some of the salient points:
According to a sworn court affidavit prepared by Teicher in 1995, the United States "actively supported the Iraqi war effort by supplying the Iraqis with billions of dollars of credits, by providing military intelligence and advice to the Iraqis, and by closely monitoring third country arms sales to Iraq to make sure Iraq had the military weaponry required." Teicher said in the affidavit that former CIA director William Casey used a Chilean company, Cardoen, to supply Iraq with cluster bombs that could be used to disrupt the Iranian human wave attacks. Teicher refuses to discuss the affidavit.

Although U.S. arms manufacturers were not as deeply involved as German or British companies in selling weaponry to Iraq, the Reagan administration effectively turned a blind eye to the export of "dual use" items such as chemical precursors and steel tubes that can have military and civilian applications. According to several former officials, the State and Commerce departments promoted trade in such items as a way to boost U.S. exports and acquire political leverage over Hussein.

When United Nations weapons inspectors were allowed into Iraq after the 1991 Gulf War, they compiled long lists of chemicals, missile components, and computers from American suppliers, including such household names as Union Carbide and Honeywell, which were being used for military purposes.

A 1994 investigation by the Senate Banking Committee turned up dozens of biological agents shipped to Iraq during the mid-'80s under license from the Commerce Department, including various strains of anthrax, subsequently identified by the Pentagon as a key component of the Iraqi biological warfare program. The Commerce Department also approved the export of insecticides to Iraq, despite widespread suspicions that they were being used for chemical warfare.

Although U.S. export controls to Iraq were tightened up in the late 1980s, there were still many loopholes. In December 1988, Dow Chemical sold $1.5 million of pesticides to Iraq, despite U.S. government concerns that they could be used as chemical warfare agents. An Export-Import Bank official reported in a memorandum that he could find "no reason" to stop the sale, despite evidence that the pesticides were "highly toxic" to humans and would cause death "from asphyxiation."

Get Curious!

A chemical weapon does not make it a wmd. It has to have an effective means of mass delivery, which is the only reason it is complicated.

Also, private corporations selling something to Iraq is NOT the American government selling something to Iraq. Also, we did NOT provide them with those loans, we simply put pressure on the loans to be approved as we prefered Iraq to win vs. Iran at that time. No weapons were sold or given to Iraq.

The one I liked was finding dozens of warheads with recent traces of chemical weapons BUT since they were emptied prior to finding it, we couldn't claim them as wmd :-/

I didn't mention wmd. However, isn't there a contradiction between your first and third paragraphs?

Ok, now I have to make an apology. I thought that when we were debating American involvement in Iraq that included American corporations. I did not realise that we were discussing only the American government's manufacture and exporting of weapons. You are absolutely right Dogsi: the American government does not manufacture and export weapons.

However, could I just point out that the American government, in the form of the Commerce department, knew that said weapons were being exported and permitted their export. Does that not suggest involvement?

Get Curious!

Windex will kill you. Should that be illegal?

Show me a refrence, something that says EXACTLY what they did wrong please. If you say they gave weapons to Iraq and are lying about it, prove it.

I can show you strong evidence that say they DID NOT, from the Iraqi government. Of course it did pass through british and American hands so maybe it was altered or you can come up with your own conspiracy :-/

What has Windex got to do with anything?

Dogsi, I'm not saying that your government is lying about it. The evidence is so overwhelming that there's no way they could deny it.

quote:

---

I can show you strong evidence that say they DID NOT, from the Iraqi government.

---

Funnily enough the Sunday Herald reports the opposite here. This is a part of the article:The companies were named by Iraq in a 12,000 page dossier submitted to the UN in December. The Security Council agreed to US requests to censor 8000 pages -- including sections naming western businesses which aided Iraq's weapons of mass destruction programme.

I guess you believe that the Washington Post simply publishes lies.
Perhaps the Los Angeles Times does as well:
A 1994 US Senate report revealed that US companies were licenced by the commerce department to export a “witch's brew” of biological and chemical materials, including bacillus anthracis (which causes anthrax) and clostridium botulinum (the source of botulism). The American Type Culture Collection made 70 shipments of the anthrax bug and other pathogenic agents.

Also, whilst the American policy of guranteeing loans allowed Iraq to borrow money from other nations, Iraq's defaulting on those loans cost American taxpayers $2 billion.

You might like also to read the NSArchive on the all of the above here.

Finally, (for the moment) there is the case of Matrix-Churchill Corporation, an Ohio company. Their parent company also owned Matrix-Churchill Limited, based in the U.K. MCC was involved in the BNL-Atlanta affair (see the NSArchive) and MCL was the subject of a fascinating court case where three of its directors were prosecuted in the U.K. for selling arms to Iraq. The case was dropped after the directors provided evidence of British Government approval! (Just to say that It's okay to cast Britain in the same sorry light.)
Try this BBC link.

Get Curious!

Iraq has the ability to produce chemical warfare (CW) agents within its chemical industry, although it probably depends on external sources for some precursors. Baghdad is expanding its infrastructure, under cover of civilian industries, that it could use to advance its CW agent production capability. During the 1980s Saddam had a formidable CW capability that he used against Iranians and against Iraq's Kurdish population. Iraqi forces killed or injured more than 20,000 people in multiple attacks, delivering chemical agents (including mustard agent[1] and the nerve agents sarin and tabun[2]) in aerial bombs, 122mm rockets, and artillery shells against both tactical military targets and segments of Iraq's Kurdish population. Before the 1991 Gulf war, Baghdad had a large stockpile of chemical munitions and a robust indigenous production capacity.

Although precise information is lacking, human rights organizations have received plausible accounts from Kurdish villagers of even more Iraqi chemical attacks against civilians in the 1987 to 1988 time frame—with some attacks as late as October 1988—in areas close to the Iranian and Turkish borders.

http://www.cia.gov/cia/reports/iraq_wmd/Iraq_Oct_2002.htm

quote:

---

Funnily enough the Sunday Herald reports the opposite here. This is a part of the article:The companies were named by Iraq in a 12,000 page dossier submitted to the UN in December. The Security Council agreed to US requests to censor 8000 pages -- including sections naming western businesses which aided Iraq's weapons of mass destruction programme.

---

How do they know what it contained? This is also talking about the UK, not the US :-/

quote:

---

Finally, (for the moment) there is the case of Matrix-Churchill Corporation, an Ohio company. Their parent company also owned Matrix-Churchill Limited, based in the U.K. MCC was involved in the BNL-Atlanta affair (see the NSArchive) and MCL was the subject of a fascinating court case where three of its directors were prosecuted in the U.K. for selling arms to Iraq. The case was dropped after the directors provided evidence of British Government approval! (Just to say that It's okay to cast Britain in the same sorry light.)
Try this BBC link.

---

It's listed as a UK company. The parent company is an UK company. Read the link. It implicates the UK, not the US.

Either way, how does American businesses selling things to Iraq mean the American government sold things to Iraq? There is a difference. In fact America put a lot of sanctions on Iraq to prevent them from getting weaponry.

quote:

---

guess you believe that the Washington Post simply publishes lies.
Perhaps the Los Angeles Times does as well:

---

Well, I believe that they manipulate the truth as it benefits them. They make stories where there really are none. You know this as well as I do. You pick and choose which stories you believe :-P

quote:

---

A 1994 US Senate report revealed that US companies were licenced by the commerce department to export a “witch's brew” of biological and chemical materials, including bacillus anthracis (which causes anthrax) and clostridium botulinum (the source of botulism). The American Type Culture Collection made 70 shipments of the anthrax bug and other pathogenic agents.

---

Ever heard of VACINES? THAT is what was shipped. Sorry we shipped medical supplies to Iraq.

quote:

---

Also, whilst the American policy of guranteeing loans allowed Iraq to borrow money from other nations, Iraq's defaulting on those loans cost American taxpayers $2 billion.

---

This is news to me... new one... I'll have to look it up...

From the link you provided

quote:

---

Iraq’s economic difficulties resulted in part from its commitment to intensive and expensive civilian and military industrialization programs, a commitment which was maintained throughout and after the war with Iran (1980-1988). To support these programs, it was most interested in obtaining western technology, and was therefore eager to expand trade with the U.S. The U.S. government, fully aware that Iraq had active programs in the areas of chemical and biological warfare and missile development, was concerned about providing it with U.S. technology. (Available documents seem to reflect some disagreement regarding the aggressiveness of Iraq’s nuclear weapons programs, and the level of sophistication of these efforts.) The U.S. had a system of export controls and an export review policy intended to prevent countries like Iraq from obtaining technology useful for nonconventional weapons programs. In addition, the official U.S. policy of neutrality disallowed the export of weapons to either protagonist in the Iran-Iraq war (a policy not always followed, as the Reagan administration’s attempts to exchange weapons with Iran in return for American hostages in Lebanon demonstrated).

Nevertheless, a great deal of dual-use equipment and technology made its way to Iraq from the U.S. throughout the 1980s. Commerce Departments records, disclosed as a result of Iraqgate investigations, confirmed this. The investigations revealed that exports had been approved for military recipients and others involved in military research and development, including the Iraqi Air Force, Iraq’s Ministry of Defense, the Saad General Establishment (missile research), the State Organization for Technical Industries (military production), and al-Qaqaa Stater Establishment (explosives and propellants research and production). 1 Further evidence of this became available after the Persian Gulf war, when U.N. teams inspecting Iraqi sites found U.S. dual-use technology, along with that of other western countries, at facilities involved in Iraq’s nuclear weapons programs.2

---

Do you understand what this means? The government put an embargo on Iraq for all military weapons and technology. HOWEVER some NONMILITARY technology CAN be used for weaponry. HP sent mostly IC chips to Iraq. That's not military technology, however, if you really wanted to, you COULD use it in weaponry, which is what Iraq did. The government did NOT support selling weapons to Iraq. In fact, we stopped trade with 3 of our trading partners and slapped fines on them because THEY traded weapons we traded to them, to Iraq. We not only did not trade weapons to Iraq we did not let our trade partners trade our weapons to Iraq. Some corportations found some items that could be used for weaponry (although that was not the purpose of those items) that were allowed (allowed because they were not intended for weaponry).

Now for what America did do that was kind of wrong... it's dealing with what you mentioned above...

quote:

---

Iraq continued its use of chemical weapons against Iranian forces throughout the war. The issue became more problematic for the Reagan administration, however, in the spring and summer of 1988, when Iraq engaged in chemical attacks against Iraqi Kurds in the village of Halabja and at other locations. As early as September 2, the State Department confirmed an attack against Kurdish insurgents that had taken place on August 25, while a memorandum to the secretary of state commented that "the failure of the international community to mobilize an effective response has lowered the inhibitions on use of these weapons in the region and elsewhere."5 Nevertheless, the Reagan administration opposed congressional efforts to respond by imposing economic sanctions, arguing that they would be contrary to U.S. interests. Among the possible negative results cited were the endangerment of contracts for "massive postwar reconstruction" in Iraq.6 The administration succeeded in blocking the legislation.

Chemical weapons use remained an issue that was contentious but evidently of secondary importance in the U.S.-Iraq relationships, for the Reagan administration. In late December 1988, the State Department prepared a review for Secretary of State George Shultz concerning the possible provision by U.S. of medium-term Eximbank export guarantees. Eximbank had been willing to provide only short-term financing to Iraq, because that country’s deteriorating economic situation, high indebtedness and history of repayment problems made providing medium – or long-term cover too risky. But Richard Murphy of the Bureau of Near Eastern and South Asian Affairs and Allen Wallis of the Bureau of Economic and Business Affairs both argued that longer term financing was necessary in order to enable U.S. companies to compete for contracts for Iraq’s post-war reconstruction. They also maintained that this financing would lead to expanded commercial ties, which would in turn result in improved political relations with Iraq’s leadership.

Richard Schifter of the Bureau of Human Rights and Humanitarian Affairs, however, vehemently opposed increasing Iraq’s credit facility only four months after its use of chemical weapons against the Kurds. He described the government of Saddam Hussein as " on e of the most brutal and repressive in the world" adding that "its actions in 1988 outdid its previous performance. They probably constitute the most serious violations of the 1980’s." Measure taken against Kurds "were ordered from the very top, in a cold calculated manner….If the general American public were aware of Iraq’s human rights violations, as it is aware of human rights violations in countries covered more fully by the media, there would indeed be a great public outcry against U.S. assistance to that country. Even though the facts about Iraq’s deplorable human rights record are not generally known, they are known top us and should be taken into full account.

Murphy disagreed, suggesting that this characterization of Iraqi conduct was based on biased sources, and pointed out that Iraq’s attacks had been against Kurds who had allied themselves with Iraq’s enemy, Iran. Arguing that the U.S. should be "hard-headed" in its estimation of what it could achieve through economic pressures, and noting a "competitive position increasingly challenged around the world," he recommended that medium-term export credit guarantees be offered to Iraq. The Bureau of Economic Affairs agreed. But Schultz put off a decision, saying the matter should be left to the incoming Bush administration.7

---

Our greed got the better of us.

As for the loans, read up more on that, that was almost entirely for food(agriculture, what ever you want to call it). Less than 1% of it went to non-food related loans. I do not see this as being wrong however since so many people were starving due to a devastated agriculture industry from a multi-decade war with Iran.

So, other than our position on loans for food for Iraq... what did the US do wrong?

quote:

---

How do they know what it contained?

---

They read it.

quote:

---

This is also talking about the UK, not the US

---

I'm talking about both UK and US.

quote:

---

It implicates the UK, not the US.

---

It implicates both. The parent company is British but a subsidiary is American. This is important - read on.

quote:

---

how does American businesses selling things to Iraq mean the American government sold things to Iraq? There is a difference.

---

Please understand that anything exported by an American company MUST have an export licence. That licence is only granted if the export conforms to certain guidelines. These guidelines are decided by the government. If an illegal export is made it has to be done with the government's knowledge.
Of course the government doesn't sell things - that is not the function of a government. (I'm sorry my point was misinterpreted in a previous post).

quote:

---

In fact America put a lot of sanctions on Iraq to prevent them from getting weaponry.

---

The point is that the government was saying one thing and allowing another thing to happen.

quote:

---

Ever heard of VACINES? THAT is what was shipped. Sorry we shipped medical supplies to Iraq.

---

Now this is a good one. Back to the dual purpose argument. I guess Anthrax and Botulism could be made into medicine! Should I concede that? Probably not since, after the first Gulf War, America blocked shipments of penicillin and other bona fide medicines on the basis that they might be made into a chemical weapon.

quote:

---

In fact, we stopped trade with 3 of our trading partners and slapped fines on them because THEY traded weapons we traded to them, to Iraq. We not only did not trade weapons to Iraq we did not let our trade partners trade our weapons to Iraq.

---

Reference please.

quote:

---

(allowed because they were not intended for weaponry).

---

There you go then. Didn't intend (ha!) but turned into a weapon anyway (surprise, surprise). Thanks for conceding that.

quote:

---

Nevertheless, the Reagan administration opposed congressional efforts to respond by imposing economic sanctions, arguing that they would be contrary to U.S. interests.

If the general American public were aware of Iraq’s human rights violations, as it is aware of human rights violations in countries covered more fully by the media, there would indeed be a great public outcry against U.S. assistance to that country.

---

The above you have quoted from my source. I'm not sure why. It does point out that, contrary to evidence of atrocities, the American government opposed economic sanctions.

quote:

---

As for the loans, read up more on that, that was almost entirely for food(agriculture, what ever you want to call it).

---

Where is your reference? And don't tell me to google it.

quote:

---

Well, I believe that they manipulate the truth as it benefits them. They make stories where there really are none. You know this as well as I do. You pick and choose which stories you believe

---

Actually, I'm not picking and choosing. I haven't seen any stories that defend your government.
There are newspapers that talk about pyramids on Mars and we all have a good laugh. We don't laugh at the Washington Post, the LA Times or the Sunday Herald. Don't you think that, if they had written lies, the government would close them down? Shout about it? Sue them?

I have to say that this is one of the most striking examples of cognitive dissonance that I have ever come across.
Is it your patriotic duty to refute the evidence if that evidence shows your government in a bad light? I must be missing something because I cannot fathom your stand.

Perhaps we have a different perspective in Europe. We do not believe that our governments can do no wrong. We accept that every country's government has broken the law at some point in their history. It's simply a matter of fact.

Get Curious!

Asa,

quote:

---

I have to say that this is one of the most striking examples of cognitive dissonance that I have ever come across.
Is it your patriotic duty to refute the evidence if that evidence shows your government in a bad light? I must be missing something because I cannot fathom your stand.

---

I'll have to agree Asa. There are those who still believe that the holocaust never took place, and heck, there are probably those who still believe that the earth is flat!

Ok, how about I just pull s*** from your own d*** refrences that you apparently only poor out things that look bad for America.

quote:

---

Economic Assistance Programs and Exports to Iraq

In 1982, the Reagan administration removed Iraq from the State Department’s list of countries regarded as supporters of international terrorism (despite doubts that Iraq had created its relationships with terrorist groups). This action eliminated legal restrictions that would otherwise have prevented Iraq from receiving credit guarantees from the Export-Import Bank (Eximbank), enabling it to obtain credit for the purchase of U.S. products and technology. Eximbank began to provide short-term cover to Iraq in 1985. In December 1982, the Agriculture Department (USDA) authorized Iraq’s participation in Commodity Credit Corporation (CCC) export credit guarantee programs. (These programs were set up to help expand the U.S. agriculture market, by offering credit to countries otherwise lacking in sufficient resources to import U.S. commodities.) The authorization enabled Iraq to obtain financing to import U.S. food products, a significant benefit for a country that experienced growing financial difficulties throughout the 1980s, and encountered increasing problems in obtaining credit from private banks.

---

I will quote it again for you "The authorization enabled Iraq to obtain financing to import U.S. food products, a significant benefit for a country that experienced growing financial difficulties throughout the 1980s, and encountered increasing problems in obtaining credit from private banks"

UNDERSTAND?

What do you NOT understand about the term "dual use" as it is used in this respect? It means NON-MILITARY crap that COULD be used for military. Laptops are used in the military but are not DESIGNED to be used by the military, they would be called "dual use" in this respect. So if Dell had sold 1,000 laptops to Iraq and Iraq then used them for military purposes, would you say that Dell was selling military technology to Iraq? This is basically what they are saying.

quote:

---

Secretary of State James Baker personally intervened to promote strong ties with Baghdad. A briefing paper prepared for a March 1989 meeting between Baker and Iraqi Foreign Ministry Under Secretary Nizar Hamdoon discussed Iraq’s active involvement in chemical and biological warfare and missile programs, and recommended stressing the sensitivity of Iraq’s chemical weapons use for U.S.-Iraq relations.9 Hamdoom and Baker discussed Iraq’s wish for medium-term Eximbank export credit guarantees, and Baker assured him that he would take a personal interest in the question. (The State Department later warned Baker that moving forward with the credits would be problematic, given strong congressional opposition to Iraq’s recent chemical weapons use.)10 In June, Baker wrote to Secretary of Agriculture Clayton Yeutter to ask him to increase the size of the CCC’s GSM-102 program by $1 billion, to solve a problem "that has consequences for both U.S. foreign policy and agricultural exports."11 Soon thereafter, the Agriculture Department informed the National Advisory Council on International Monetary and Financial Policies (NAC), an interagency group responsible for approving economic programs involving foreign countries, that Agriculture planned to offer Iraq $1 billion in export credit guarantees for FY 1990.

---

Hm... so we loaned them money for food... that some how equates to loans for military weaponry? The policy was reviewed by the Regan administration to expand it, however they put it off for the bush administration, so already in to the 90's and still nothing but food loans...

quote:

---

The administration pursued this goal despite already circulating reports of widespread misuse of the CCC-covered loans that BNL-Atlanta had handled. The allegations involved kickbacks, prices inflated for unknown purposes, and funds diverted for weapons purchases. Investigators knew that BNL-Atlanta had provided a number of loans to the Matrix-Churchill Corporation (MCC), an Ohio company which had been purchased by Technology Development Group, Ltd. (TDG) of the United Kingdom (through an intermediary, TMG Engineering, Ltd.). TDG was owned by agents of the government of Iraq. MCC served as an intermediary to locate U.S. companies to construct manufacturing facilities in Iraq, and had arranged for a number of such contracts. Investigators believed that these facilities, which included a glass fiber manufacturing concern a brass reprocessing factory, and a machine tool plant, could be used to produce equipment wit both civilian and military applications.

---

It was owned by the UK, just in the US, it was a UK company, not a US company. Thanks though. Once again this refers to the DUAL USE concept. Almost ANYTHING can be used to for military purposes. Food can even be used for military purposes.

quote:

---

Matrix-Churchill Corporation’s parent company, TDG, also owned the British machine tool manufacturer Matrix-Churchill, Ltd., which exported sophisticated equipment to Iraq during the late 1980s. Three of its managers were put on trial in Great Britain in the fall of 1992 on charges of illegally exporting machinery with military applications to Iraq, but the case was dismissed after documents and testimony showed the British government officials had approved the exports, knowing that they would be used for weapons manufacture. Matrix-Churchill, Ltd. had also sold equipment to Chilean arms manufacturer Carlos Cardoen, who exported cluster bombs and other materiel to Iraq, and had been in contact with another weapons manufacturer, the Space Research Corporation, about providing equipment for Gerald Bull’s controversial "supergun" project.

---

This is the UK, not the US.

America allowed Iraq to receive loans for food, Iraq illegally allocated them to be "questionable" products that he used for military purposes.

please read your own d*** sources.

Edited for profanity

[This message was edited by Katelyn on 09-18-05 at 11:04 AM.]

http://www.bionewsonline.com/p/2/bacillus_anthracis_b.htm

When we had shipped "anthrax" to Iraq, it was not even developed in to a biological weapon yet. The only need for it was as a vaccine and medical research. The dates start from the bottom and move up, read away and you will learn the history of anthrax.

America approved loans for food (that were undeniably abused, which came to the American governments attention in 1989, last loans approved in 1989 for the fisc. year 1990, during the period of investigation, no loans approved after that) and send shipments of medical supplies, containing vaccines.

Yep, we really sent them stock piles of weapons.

First of all, your link above takes me to a 46,287 word document. I will not read it in its entirety because a scan suggests that it is in some way concerned with the history of anthrax, its uses and the development of vaccines. Jolly good. Why am I to read it?

quote:

---

When we had shipped "anthrax" to Iraq, it was not even developed in to a biological weapon yet.

---

I guess not. The Iraqi's did that. By the way, in shipping anthrax to Iraq (thanks for conceding that point) and knowing that Iraq was making chemical weapons, don't you think it would have seemed a bit suspicious that the Iraqis said that they wanted to develop a vaccine?

quote:

---

This is the UK, not the US.

---

Actually it is both. I'm sorry that I raised the fact that the UK was also involved, it seems to have confused the issue.
Just because a company has a parent corporation that resides in another country does not make it exempt from its own country's laws.

quote:

---

Hm... so we loaned them money for food... that some how equates to loans for military weaponry?

---

Because, as you say,"America approved loans for food (that were undeniably abused,"


The quote that you throw back at me:
"In 1982, the Reagan administration removed Iraq from the State Department’s list of countries regarded as supporters of international terrorism (despite doubts that Iraq had created its relationships with terrorist groups)." They did that, why? America was very worried about the influence of Iran in the region and felt Iraq had to be supported. A case of the lesser of two evils? Eye of the beholder perhaps.

Now an extract from:
UNITED STATES DUAL-USE EXPORTS TO IRAQ AND THEIR IMPACT ON THE HEALTH OF THE PERSIAN GULF WAR VETERANS

WEDNESDAY, MAY 25, 1994
U.S. Senate, Committee on Banking, Housing, and Urban Affairs,
Washington, DC.
The Committee met at 10:10 a.m., in room SD 106 of the Dirksen Senate Office Building, Senator Donald W. Riegle, Jr. (Chairman of the Committee) presiding.

DR. GORDON C. OEHLER, DIRECTOR, NONPROLIFERATION CENTER, CENTRAL INTELLIGENCE AGENCY

Dr. Oehler. I would like to now give you a sense of Iraq's procurement efforts and patterns. The Iraqi program was developed gradually over the course of the 1980's. By the time of the invasion it had become deeply entrenched, flexible, and well orchestrated.
Project managers for the weapons of mass destruction programs went directly to vended European suppliers for the majority of their needs. Throughout the 1980's, German companies headed the list of preferred suppliers for machinery, technology, and chemical precursors.
German construction companies usually won the contracts to build the CW facilities in Iraq, and Iraqi procurement agents were sophisticated in exploiting inconsistencies in local export laws by targeting countries for substances and technologies that were not locally controlled.
In the pre-war years, the dual-use nature of many of these facilities made it easier for Iraq to claim that the chemical precursors, for example, were intended for agricultural industries. European firms, arguing that the facilities in Iraq were for production of pesticides, built a Samarra chemical plant, including six separate chemical weapons manufacturing lines between 1983 and 1986.
European middlemen brokered -- --
The Chairman. Now, may I ask just a question here?
Dr. Oehler. Sure.
The Chairman. This is all extraordinarily important and valuable information. Am I to understand that the CIA would have had the knowledge of this going on contemporaneous when it was actually happening? In other words, this was not learned later, and this is not a retrospective construction? We were tracking this, or we had knowledge of this, and knowledge of this would have been at the other high levels of Government at the time it was occurring?
Dr. Oehler. That is right. What I am running through here is what we knew at the time, and what we had reported to our customers at the time. We had been quite aware of Iraq's chemical weapons development program from its very early inception.
The Chairman. I take it the CIA must have had a concern about it to have kind of zeroed in on it to that degree?
Dr. Oehler. Very much so. And that was reported to our customers, and our customers attempted to take actions.
The Chairman. It would have been reported also to the President, to the Secretary of Defense, the Secretary of State, I assume, as a matter of course?Dr. Oehler. Yes, sir. Those are our customers, sir.
The Chairman. All right.
................................

Dr. Oehler. This is not to say that we did not occasionally come across information on a U.S. person that was collected incidentally to our foreign intelligence target overseas; we did. But when we did, and when there was a possibility of a violation of U.S. law, we were obligated to turn our information over to the Justice Department.
The Chairman. Do we have any reason to believe or know that there were such firms founded by foreign nationals incorporated in the United States that, in fact, did ship items like this to Saddam Hussein?
Dr. Oehler. As I say here, we did provide what we call alert memos to Commerce, Justice, Treasury, and the FBI on a number of possible questionable instances. It is not up to us to make the legal judgment, but to point out that there is information that they need to look at.
The Chairman. I see.
Dr. Oehler. These memos resulted whenever this incidentally collected information indicated that U.S. firms had been targeted by foreign governments of concern, or were involved in possible violations of U.S. law.
Between 1984 and 1990, CIA's Office of Scientific and Weapons Research provided 5 memos covering Iraqis' dealings with United States firms on purchases, discussions, or visits that appear to be related to weapons of mass destruction programs.
The Chairman. Are those classified documents?
Dr. Oehler. Yes, they are.

Get Curious!

Just a little more information on that 'Witch's Brew':

According to a Senate Committee Report of 1994 {1}: From 1985, if not earlier, through 1989, a veritable witch's brew of biological materials were exported to Iraq by private American suppliers pursuant to application and licensing by the U.S. Department of Commerce. Amongst these materials, which often produce slow, agonizing deaths, were:
Bacillus Anthracis, cause of anthrax.
Clostridium Botulinum, a source of botulinum toxin.
Histoplasma Capsulatam, cause of a disease attacking lungs, brain, spinal cord and heart.
Brucella Melitensis, a bacteria that can damage major organs.
Clotsridium Perfringens, a highly toxic bacteria causing systemic illness.
Clostridium tetani, highly toxigenic.
Also, Escherichia Coli (E.Coli); genetic materials; human and bacterial DNA.
Dozens of other pathogenic biological agents were shipped to Iraq during the 1980s. The Senate Report pointed out: "These biological materials were not attenuated or weakened and were capable of reproduction." {2}
"It was later learned," the committee revealed, "that these microorganisms exported by the United States were identical to those the United Nations inspectors found and removed from the Iraqi biological warfare program."{3}
These exports continued to at least November 28, 1989 despite the fact that Iraq had been reported to be engaging in chemical warfare and possibly biological warfare against Iranians, Kurds, and Shiites since the early 80s.
NOTES
{1} "U.S. Chemical and Biological Warfare-Related Dual Use Exports to Iraq and their Possible Impact on the Health Consequences of the Persian Gulf War," Senate Committee on Banking, Housing and Urban Affairs with Respect to Export Administration, reports of May 25, 1994 and October 7, 1994.
{2} Ibid., May 25 report, pp. 36-47
{3} Ibid., October 7 report, p. 3

Also this makes interesing reading:
Sen. Robert C. Byrd, D-W.Va., posed this question to the Senate on Thursday 26 September 2002, based on documents obtained from different federal agencies. "We have a paper trail," Byrd said. "We not only know that Iraq has biological weapons, we know the type, the strain, and the batch number of the germs that may have been used to fashion those weapons. We know the dates they were shipped and the addresses to which they were shipped.
"We have in our hands the equivalent of a Betty Crocker cookbook of ingredients that the U.S. allowed Iraq to obtain and that may well have been used to concoct biological weapons."
Those shipments included:
Between 1985 and 1988, the nonprofit American Type Culture Collection made 11 shipments to Iraq that included a "witches' brew of pathogens," including anthrax, botulinum toxin and gangrene. All shipments were government-approved.
Between January 1980 and October 1993, the federal Centers for Disease Control shipped a variety of toxic specimens to Iraq, including West Nile virus and Dengue fever.
The U.S. Commerce Department and CDC provided lists of these shipments. "The Defense Department ought to have the same lists, so that the decision-makers will know exactly what types of biological agents American soldiers may face in the field," Byrd said.
"At last week's Armed Services Committee hearing, Secretary [Donald] Rumsfeld said he had no knowledge of any such shipments and doubted that they ever occurred. He seemed to be affronted at the very idea that the United States would ever countenance entering into such a deal with the devil.
"Secretary Rumsfeld should not shy away from this information. On the contrary, he should seek it out," Byrd said.
In its Sept. 23 edition, Newsweek magazine published an article discussing the viruses, poisons and gases that the U.S. sent to Saddam Hussein in the mid-1980s. At that time, the U.S. regarded Iraq as a potential ally against Iran's Ayatollah Khomeni.


Get Curious!

[This message was edited by Asa on 09-18-05 at 12:52 PM.]

[This message was edited by Asa on 09-18-05 at 12:53 PM.]

America gave loans for food, after learning that they had been abused, no other loans were approved and only half of one was issued (it had been approved prior to the beggining of the investigation) and waited on the results of the investigation of abuse before issuing the other.

We also sent medical supplies to Iraq. Do you know enough about medicine to judge what is justifiable and what is not? Is anyone here an actual doctor and if so could you tell us if any of those things were unjustifiable.

No biological weapon was used in warfare between Iraq and Iran or against the kurds, that was CHEMICAL weapons that Iraq produced themselves. Yes they got the means to produce those chemicals from supplies they acquired for "agriculture" purposes (part of the abuse that is talked about in your own articles).

You are LOOKING for fault. It is like statistics, if you look at numbers trying to prove your point, you will find some that do, however you are ignoring everything else in the process.

I quoted what I thought America DID do wrong and I sated that I thought it was wrong. We continued our economic support (allowing loans for agricultural purposes) despite disapproving of Iraq's current policies due to the possible economic gains.

We did NOT make Iraq. We did NOT fund Iraq. You do know that Iraq had a higher standard of living than the US (at least a higher GNI per capita) prior to the Iraq/Iran war? Iraq was a wealthy country prior to the war with many resources.

We did not sell weapons to Iraq. That was the USSR/Russia, with some from Germany and France and a small ammount from the UK.

Have you ever looked at the number of people that starved every year after we stopped providing those food loans to Iraq?