Getbig Bodybuilding, Figure and Fitness Forums
Getbig Main Boards => Politics and Political Issues Board => Topic started by: Tre on February 20, 2007, 03:10:22 PM
-
Q: How did Bush know that Iraq had WMDs?
A: Because the U.S. had supplied them to Iraq during the Iran-Iraq war.
-
Q: How did Bush know that Iraq had WMDs?
A: Because the U.S. had supplied them to Iraq during the Iran-Iraq war.
Wrong. I've already posted extensively on this issue - The US NEVER provided Iraq with weapons of any sort. Do some research.
-
Wrong. I've already posted extensively on this issue - The US NEVER provided Iraq with weapons of any sort. Do some research.
bruce, although i agree with alot of your posts, i respectfully disagree.
they did supply saddam with weapons during the iran/iraq war. it was only to stop the fanatical aiatola in iran from invading the oil fields. at the time it was the right thing to do.
-
bruce, although i agree with alot of your posts, i respectfully disagree.
they did supply saddam with weapons during the iran/iraq war. it was only to stop the fanatical aiatola in iran from invading the oil fields. at the time it was the right thing to do.
I appreciate your respectful debate, MM, but they didn't. I can again prove using the US Sentate inquiry, a UN report and one from the Stockholm International Peace Research Institute that this is indeed the case.
The US did not support Iraq in its unjust war against Iran.
-
Wrong. I've already posted extensively on this issue - The US NEVER provided Iraq with weapons of any sort. Do some research.
we gave deadly strains of things like bubonic plague, mustard gas, and I think smallpox, to Iraqi universities.
Saddam was waiting to take them from the universities and then used to to kill rebels in his nation and Iranians they were at war with.
-
The US did not support Iraq in its unjust war against Iran.
Huh?
Maybe 'they' were just lying to us at the time, but back then, the U.S. was very pro-Iraq after what had happened in Iran in 1979.
But it wasn't so much about supporting Iraq, it was about access to oil fields and testing out new weapons. The U.S. has *always* conducted its weapons testing on foreign soil (such as the recent Israel-Hezbollah conflict).
-
http://www.iranchamber.com/history/articles/iran_iraq_war_american_interest.php
-
we gave deadly strains of things like bubonic plague, mustard gas, and I think smallpox, to Iraqi universities.
Saddam was waiting to take them from the universities and then used to to kill rebels in his nation and Iranians they were at war with.
The US did not, Rob. I've proven this to you already. You're right to say some bacteria strains were given to Iraqi universities, but these were to help people, not kill them. The US was simple 'naive' as the UN weapons inspectors were quoted as saying.
Bottom line, Saddam made his own weapons and used them accordingly, the US never supported him in doing so.
The mustard gas allegation is a horrendous lie.
-
The US did not, Rob. I've proven this to you already. You're right to say some bacteria strains were given to Iraqi universities, but these were to help people, not kill them. The US was simple 'naive' as the UN weapons inspectors were quoted as saying.
Bottom line, Saddam made his own weapons and used them accordingly, the US never supported him in doing so.
The mustard gas allegation is a horrendous lie.
1) How did Saddam get the mustard gas?
2) Who was the irresponsible jackass who gave Saddam (losing a war to iran and control of his own nation) access to THE BUBONIC PLAGUE for research?
Shit man, if there's a clearer case of "we'll deliver all the shit to this address on this date - hope nobody steals it ;)", I've yet to see it.
-
1) How did Saddam get the mustard gas?
2) Who was the irresponsible jackass who gave Saddam (losing a war to iran and control of his own nation) access to THE BUBONIC PLAGUE for research?
Shit man, if there's a clearer case of "we'll deliver all the shit to this address on this date - hope nobody steals it ;)", I've yet to see it.
The first part; I don't know, but it wasn't the US. Perhaps look at his close ties with the Russians, French and Germans.
Your bubonic plague statement is false, the US didn't give anything to Saddam.
-
http://www.iranchamber.com/history/articles/iran_iraq_war_american_interest.php
Mighty the way I read this is we provided guns and bullets. It doesn't say we gave him chemical or biological weapons (unless I just missed that part). It sounds you're saying we gave them conventional weapons and Bruce is saying we never gave the WMDs?
-
Mighty the way I read this is we provided guns and bullets. It doesn't say we gave him chemical or biological weapons (unless I just missed that part). It sounds you're saying we gave them conventional weapons and Bruce is saying we never gave the WMDs?
I'm saying we gave them neither, and can prove it too, BB.
But you're right to point out these weapons in question aren't WMD, proving again the frivolity of these claims.
-
Mighty the way I read this is we provided guns and bullets. It doesn't say we gave him chemical or biological weapons (unless I just missed that part). It sounds you're saying we gave them conventional weapons and Bruce is saying we never gave the WMDs?
this is from the same article:
A US Senate inquiry in 1995 accidentally revealed that during the Iran-Iraq war the US had sent Iraq samples of all the strains of germs used by the latter to make biological weapons. The strains were sent by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention [sic] and the American Type Culture Collection to the same sites in Iraq that UN weapons inspectors later determined were part of Iraq’s biological weapons programme (Times of India, 2/10/02).
i have seen two seperate shows on the history channel stating the US help saddam.
of course he used these against the kurds not long after but people try to tie these two together.
-
I'm saying we gave them neither, and can prove it too, BB.
But you're right to point out these weapons in question aren't WMD, proving again the frivolity of these claims.
You've convinced me earlier that we did not provide the weapons Saddam used on the Kurds. I had previously accepted this as a fact.
-
this is from the same article:
A US Senate inquiry in 1995 accidentally revealed that during the Iran-Iraq war the US had sent Iraq samples of all the strains of germs used by the latter to make biological weapons. The strains were sent by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention [sic] and the American Type Culture Collection to the same sites in Iraq that UN weapons inspectors later determined were part of Iraq’s biological weapons programme (Times of India, 2/10/02).
i have seen two seperate shows on the history channel stating the US help saddam.
of course he used these against the kurds not long after but people try to tie these two together.
He used gas (i.e., chemical weapons) on the Kurds, not biological weapons, no?
-
You've convinced me earlier that we did not provide the weapons Saddam used on the Kurds. I had previously accepted this as a fact.
You did, BB - and I thank you for your open-mindedness on this issue.
Keep in mind that I was using it in the context of Saddam's gassing of the Kurds in that thread, however I do extend it to the Iran/Iraq war also.
-
this is from the same article:
A US Senate inquiry in 1995 accidentally revealed that during the Iran-Iraq war the US had sent Iraq samples of all the strains of germs used by the latter to make biological weapons. The strains were sent by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention [sic] and the American Type Culture Collection to the same sites in Iraq that UN weapons inspectors later determined were part of Iraq’s biological weapons programme (Times of India, 2/10/02).
i have seen two seperate shows on the history channel stating the US help saddam.
of course he used these against the kurds not long after but people try to tie these two together.
Yep, but that sure as hell isn't giving Saddam WMD.
-
He used gas (i.e., chemical weapons) on the Kurds, not biological weapons, no?
i believe he used mustard gas on the kurds, but i could be wrong
-
Yep, but that sure as hell isn't giving Saddam WMD.
no, we didn't say "here saddam, go mutilate your own people".
i've heard people try to bridge us giving him weapons and the killing of the kurds.
simply not true.
although anyone can wrap their own political spin around why we sold him weapons, the truth is the aiatola in iran was the real issue.
-
no, we didn't say "here saddam, go mutilate your own people".
i've heard people try to bridge us giving him weapons and the killing of the kurds.
simply not true.
although anyone can wrap their own political spin around why we sold him weapons, the truth is the aiatola in iran was the real issue.
In my experience, people (the Left) will always try and put the worst spin on any geopolitical issue involving The US, regardless of how delightfully ignorant their view is.
-
In my experience, people (the Left) will always try and put the worst spin on any geopolitical issue involving The US, regardless of how delightfully ignorant their view is.
see, now this is where you and i agree.
the lefties will take info like i provided and run with it like forrest gump.
-
i believe he used mustard gas on the kurds, but i could be wrong
It has been many moons since I "studied" this, but chemical and biological weapons are not the same. I think chemical agents kill you pretty quickly, while biological agents (germs, etc.) work more slowly. Mustard gas would be a chemical agent. Don't quote me on any of this. :)
-
It has been many moons since I "studied" this, but chemical and biological weapons are not the same. I think chemical agents kill you pretty quickly, while biological agents (germs, etc.) work more slowly. Mustard gas would be a chemical agent. Don't quote me on any of this. :)
Mustard Gas = chemical weapon
Anthrax = biological
Saddam used chemical WMD on the Kurds.
-
It has been many moons since I "studied" this, but chemical and biological weapons are not the same. I think chemical agents kill you pretty quickly, while biological agents (germs, etc.) work more slowly. Mustard gas would be a chemical agent. Don't quote me on any of this. :)
chemical weapons eat your flesh and organs. you would die in a few hours.
biological weapons is also known as germ warfare. spreading major diseases.
sorry, i quoted you. :)
-
In my experience, people (the Left) will always try and put the worst spin on any geopolitical issue involving The US, regardless of how delightfully ignorant their view is.
So you're telling me that Iran was wrong to hate Britain and the U.S. so much after they overthrew the king that WE had installed there in Iran??
-
In my experience, people (the Left) will always try and put the worst spin on any geopolitical issue involving The US, regardless of how delightfully ignorant their view is.
The ignorant ones are those who wear the 'America can do no wrong' badge. You have no clue how unbelievably short-sighted that viewpoint is.
-
The ignorant ones are those who wear the 'America can do no wrong' badge. You have no clue how unbelievably short-sighted that viewpoint is.
I do, actually, but I see far fewer people like you have described above than Leftists as I have described. Both are ignorant, but one group far outnumbers the other.
-
Mustard Gas = chemical weapon
Anthrax = biological
Saddam used chemical WMD on the Kurds.
So why are people saying the biological germs we gave to Iraq were used as chemical weapons on the Kurds? Sounds impossible.
-
So why are people saying the biological germs we gave to Iraq were used as chemical weapons on the Kurds? Sounds impossible.
It is, BB. 240 has tried to tell me before that Anthrax is a chemical weapon - it's all quite humorous really.
-
bruce, do you believe reagan thought the biological agents he was sending to iraqi universities might be used for evil purposes?
-
bruce, although i agree with alot of your posts, i respectfully disagree.
they did supply saddam with weapons during the iran/iraq war. it was only to stop the fanatical aiatola in iran from invading the oil fields. at the time it was the right thing to do.
It was not to stop the Ayotollahs from invading any oil fields. The purpose was to cause strife, instability, and to be a general pain in the Ayatollahs tush, preventing them from making any progress within their newly reclaimed nation. Despite their apology, their admission of wrong doing, their agreement to pay huge financial restitution to Iran, and blocking any lawsuits from Embassy hostages against Iran, ...the Republican administration of Reagan/Bush (which included the unholy cabal of Cheney, Rumsfeld, & Rice -- yep they were knee deep in it then just as now) was not content to lick it's wounds, accept American defeat in Iran, and start fresh. They wanted to ensure Iran was further destabilized after their boy's departure. So while they charged Rumsfeld with ensuring Iraq had plenty of weapons with which to attack Iran, and anyone else he chose, ...they ALSO supplied IRAN with weapons as well. A quick defeat at the hands of Saddam wouldn't do... the war had to be so drawn out, bloody and protracted, that it robbed both nations of a generation of fighting men, and set both countries back decades. The money from the illegal & illicit arms sales to Iran (which was hidden from Congress) was used to fund terrorists ...umm, "Freedom Fighters" in South America. (At least Freedom Fighters is what Reagan, Bush Snr, and Ollie North called them... despite the fact that these 'freedom fighters' waged a campaign of terror attacking civilians with death squads, murdering & raping nuns, blowing up schools, hospitals, and attacking other infrastructure in an attempt to topple a democratically elected, populist government acting responsibly in the interests of their own country, and unwilling to enslave it's own population. Please see: http://video.google.com/googleplayer.swf?docId=673946929268570136&hl=en (http://video.google.com/googleplayer.swf?docId=673946929268570136&hl=en)
Saddam was a tool, used to occupy Iran, keep it busy. When a nation's focus is on war and destruction, ...it has no time to better itself as a nation or provide for the needs of it's citizenry. The Iran/Iraq war existed to ensure the mutual destruction and debilitation of the economies and infrastructures of both countries, thereby preventing either one from progressing. And who was sitting pretty while all this was going on... the Saudi Arabians of course. However once, the war was over, and Iraq had all this weaponry courtesy of the USA, SA didn't feel so comfortable anymore, ...but how do you get rid of a tool like this, once he's fulfilled his purpose? Simple... you encourage him to invade and reclaim what was historically a part of his own country. The part the British partitioned in order to destabilized the region when they themselves were forced to leave. You encourage him to invade with assurances you will look away and turn a blind eye to his actions. Then the minute he does... you lead a multi-national coalition against him, bomb his already decimated country into the stone ages, and pile crippling worldwide economic sanctions against his country for over a decade. And when finally you realize that despite all the careful preparation, groundwork and laser precise execution of your plans, ...this guy still isn't going down, ...that he has not only hit rock bottom, and survived, ...but to your horrors... you realize he has nowhere to go from there except up, ...you launch a massive psych-op against your own citizens to traumatize them enough so that their critical thinking skills temporarily cease to function optimally. You bombard them with graphic nightmares, evoking all kinds of anxieties which you exploit with relish, as they overload the frontal lobes, leaving only primitive primal responses of fear, void of rational critical thought, responses malleable to your desire to aggressively and illegally invade a sovereign nation of no threat to yourself, ...and get rid of the guy yourself. At least, that's what I would have done, "...if I did it" :P
(http://platinum.funpic.org/images/WorldTelevisionDaycompressed.gif)
So... in summary, ...then as know... the war between Iraq & Iran was not intended to produce a clear winner, ...but infact to ensure both sides were losers. It has been quite plausibly argued elsewhere, the same fate is immediately intended for both Iran as well as the American public.
"Our enemies are innovative and resourceful, and so are we. They never stop thinking about new ways to harm our country and our people, and neither do we." -- GWBush
-
bruce, do you believe reagan thought the biological agents he was sending to iraqi universities might be used for evil purposes?
You're assuming the President presides over every piece of aid that is sent to third-world counties. I don't believe anyone in the US believed that they were sending weapons to Iraq.
-
You're assuming the President presides over every piece of aid that is sent to third-world counties. I don't believe anyone in the US believed that they were sending weapons to Iraq.
LOL!
Monster denial dude. iraq was in the midst of a serious war with one of our enemies, plus civil unrest.
If NO ONE in the US believed sending their universities these chem/bio agents might result in weaponization, they are the most irresponsible set of fvcks ever to control deadly agents.
Your premise that people who manage these deadly resources DON'T CONSIDER POTENTIAL ABUSES WHEN SENDING DEADLY AGENTS INTO WARZONES is flawed.
-
LOL!
Monster denial dude. iraq was in the midst of a serious war with one of our enemies, plus civil unrest.
If NO ONE in the US believed sending their universities these chem/bio agents might result in weaponization, they are the most irresponsible set of fvcks ever to control deadly agents.
Your premise that people who manage these deadly resources DON'T CONSIDER POTENTIAL ABUSES WHEN SENDING DEADLY AGENTS INTO WARZONES is flawed.
Have I not already admitted it was naive? Any chance of you perhaps damning those in this thread that have said we sent WMD to Saddam, as you have?
-
Have I not already admitted it was naive? Any chance of you perhaps damning those in this thread that have said we sent WMD to Saddam, as you have?
blaming it on naivety is naive.
believing that we're capable of building and protecting deadly weapons, but NEVER CONSIDERING THE POSSIBILITY THEY WILL BE ABUSED BY A NATION AT WAR is naive.
believing we never considered Saddam might use them against iran is naive.
Seriously dude, what you say is unrealistic. Blaming things on incompetence or naivety is exactly how people do bad shit then get away with it. You're telling me the entire US govt was too naive to believe the materials might be abused? come on dude.
-
blaming it on naivety is naive.
believing that we're capable of building and protecting deadly weapons, but NEVER CONSIDERING THE POSSIBILITY THEY WILL BE ABUSED BY A NATION AT WAR is naive.
believing we never considered Saddam might use them against iran is naive.
Seriously dude, what you say is unrealistic. Blaming things on incompetence or naivety is exactly how people do bad shit then get away with it. You're telling me the entire US govt was too naive to believe the materials might be abused? come on dude.
You call me naive and unrealistic and yet it was you that claimed the US gave Saddam WMD until recently. It was you that said the US gave Saddam mustard gas in this thread. It was you that thought anthrax is a chemical weapon. I could go on.
And you still claim that the US acted improperly despite the US Senate and the UN telling you you're dead wrong.
-
You call me naive and unrealistic and yet it was you that claimed the US gave Saddam WMD until recently. It was you that said the US gave Saddam mustard gas in this thread. It was you that thought anthrax is a chemical weapon. I could go on.
And you still claim that the US acted improperly despite the US Senate and the UN telling you you're dead wrong.
It's a word game you play.
We gave materials to IRAQ during a time of war which were weaponized and used on domestic and foreign enemies resulting in the deaths of thousands.
Period.
You can tell us "we were tricked into giving it to universities!" and my favorite "nobody imagined he'd use for for evil!" (paraphrased of course) all you want. In reality, anyone with half a brain knows what we did.
-
We gave materials to IRAQ during a time of war which were weaponized and used on domestic and foreign enemies resulting in the deaths of thousands.
Period.
That's utter garbage, Rob. Prove this claim or move on from this thread.
-
That's utter garbage, Rob. Prove this claim or move on from this thread.
what's garbage about that quote?
-
what's garbage about that quote?
Come on, Rob - get serious.
-
We gave materials to IRAQ
We gave materials to universities in the dictatorship nation of Iraq. You disagree?
during a time of war
Check.
which were weaponized
Check!
and used on domestic and foreign enemies
Kurds and Iraniains, check.
resulting in the deaths of thousands
Check.
-
We gave materials to IRAQ
We gave materials to universities in the dictatorship nation of Iraq. You disagree?
during a time of war
Check.
which were weaponized
Check!
and used on domestic and foreign enemies
Kurds and Iraniains, check.
resulting in the deaths of thousands
Check.
Sigh, we've been over this.
-
Sigh, we've been over this.
Why do you refuse to believe that America weaponry is field-tested on foreigners?
-
Why do you refuse to believe that America weaponry is field-tested on foreigners?
Let's see, well, because I use facts, such as the ones I provided to you in this thread.
You, on the other hand, make statements like this:
Q: How did Bush know that Iraq had WMDs?
A: Because the U.S. had supplied them to Iraq during the Iran-Iraq war.
And have absolutely no evidence to back up your claim. This probably explains why you made yourself scarce while it was being debated.
-
And have absolutely no evidence to back up your claim.
It's very naive of you think that anyone in that part of the world is as advanced as the U.S. when it comes to CBR warfare.
This probably explains why you made yourself scarce while it was being debated.
Nah - I pretty much do GetBig early in the morning and late at night (like now). I watch other message boards and have to work in between.
-
It's very naive of you think that anyone in that part of the world is as advanced as the U.S. when it comes to CBR warfare.
Uh huh, and your rebuttal of the evidence I have provided through the work of both the UN and the US senate is?
-
Yep, but that sure as hell isn't giving Saddam WMD.
so you can give someone a gun as long as you don't give them the bullets...Sounds like sematics to me
-
so you can give someone a gun as long as you don't give them the bullets...Sounds like sematics to me
Uh, right, and you would give a university a gun for the purpose of saving lives?
And is a gun a WMD?
It's much more like me giving your doctor some antibiotics to heal your wounds, and then having your local political identity steal it from him and use it to culture biological weapons to kill his enemies. I may have been naive to provide your doctor with it, but I did it to save your life, and without the intention of harming anyone.
Your analogy is horrendously inaccurate.
-
so you would not have a problem with us giving a university of say North Korea bacteria strains (that could) be used in weapons? As long as its a university right? And as long as they say it is only to save people?
-
so you would not have a problem with us giving a university of say North Korea bacteria strains (that could) be used in weapons? As long as its a university right? And as long as they say it is only to save people?
hahahahaha
seriously, my favorite line was when bruce said something like "NO ONE IN THE US GOVT BELIEVED SADDAM WOULD TAKE THEM AND USE THEM AGAINST HIS ENEMIES"
Classic BRUCE. ;)
-
so you would not have a problem with us giving a university of say North Korea bacteria strains (that could) be used in weapons? As long as its a university right? And as long as they say it is only to save people?
I'd absolutely have a problem with that, even if we have the intentions of saving lives. It's not the same situation at all though.
-
hahahahaha
seriously, my favorite line was when bruce said something like "NO ONE IN THE US GOVT BELIEVED SADDAM WOULD TAKE THEM AND USE THEM AGAINST HIS ENEMIES"
Classic BRUCE. ;)
And is classic 240 to invent a quote and then deem it to be classic 'member x' material?
-
*something like, i clarified.
Definitely summarize it better for us!
-
*something like, i clarified.
Definitely summarize it better for us!
;D Must I? I've spent lunch getting drunk, so I'm in a pleasant mood.