Even if they know that the person they're selling to gun is a psychotic mass killer? And they sell them the gun only because they think it will be used on their own enemies?
It is horribly complicated, i can see that. I just feel the goverment at the time, did not set out to sell or hand out licences to let them end up killing people. To be fair. It says here http://www.iraqwatch.org/suppliers/ 'we' were 3.5% 'responsible'. http://www.iraqwatch.org/government/UK/Scott%20Report/d8.htm
Good point, maybe i should have said: i do not think the goverment at the time set out to sell or give licences to companies, in the express intent of allowing another state to kill it's own citizens or engage in illegal warfare. And i'm not going to get into 'illegal warfare' *cough*. Not today anyway.
Considering that the use of toxic chemical agents in warfare is contrary to the Geneva protocol, there is no way Iraq could have used them legally. There is no way to dress this up!
I think the key is ''Dual use'' . I think they could have used them for 'research', within universities. I'm not attempting too ''dress up'' anything. I don't think the UK or US 'gave' Iraq any chemicals, so that they could be used in chemical warfare. I'll happily concede to your greater appreciation of the facts, if you show me. I did say: i do not think the goverment at the time set out to sell or give licences to companies, in the express intent of allowing another state to kill it's own citizens or engage in illegal warfare. That to my knowledge is true, again: I'll happily concede to your greater appreciation of the facts, if you show me. http://www.casi.org.uk/info/usdocs/usiraq80s90s.html http://www.estherandjonathanpollard.com/2002/123002a.htm I did say: It is horribly complicated, i can see that. I think it is a classic case of ''Read what is below the headline''. I did also add a little about the tooling supplied by the UK More: The Scott Inquiry was set up in 1992 following the collapse of the Matrix Churchill trial. Matrix Churchill was a Coventry firm involved in exporting machine tools, which could be used for making military equipment, to Iraq. http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/programmes/bbc_parliament/3631539.stm I'm not going to 'defend' any other countries behaviour.
Oh, please. Providing Saddam with military grade nerve agents and biological warfare agents in the quantities we did, and you're suggesting the companies and governments involved had no clue these would be put to military use? We are not talking about research quantities, we are not talking about borderline "dual use" materials, but weapons grade CBW agents in industrial quantities. Only a fool could possibly buy the line that these were being supplied for "research" or any reason other than use in chemical and biological warfare. The companies concerned and governments which signed the licences knew precisely what these were being supplied for.
http://www.nti.org/e_research/profiles/Iraq/Chemical/3883_3895.html http://www.commondreams.org/headlines02/1230-04.htm The assertion that we had *no idea* that Saddam would use the weapons grade CBW agents we supplied to him throughout this period (along with the equipment and know-how to use them) for his military WMD buildup, given our strategic military, commercial and diplomatic co-operation with Saddam Hussein (including providing intelligence assistance in targeting these WMDs at Iranian troops), and our knowledge that he was producing and using CBW munitions at the time, is naive in the extreme.
What you do not know, you do not know. It was contary to what i had seen. The information that supported my 'assertions' were clearly not as joined up as the above. I had read snippets of that information before, the problem was it was not specific and eluded to more activity, than the details they gave. What troubled me: military grade nerve agents biological warfare agents in the quantities we did [what were the quantities] We are not talking about research quantities, we are not talking about borderline "dual use" materials, but weapons grade CBW agents. I'm still in the dark about that. Nothing i have read or heard about, has clarified that. I should have been more specific, i just ran out of time. I appreciate it is unlikely i will see manifests, i just need convincing [i'll get there in the end]. When the picture is clear in my head, i'm not one for perpetutating information, i clearly don't believe in anymore. That to me is just wrong. More shit has come out of my eyes, so i thank you. My main point from the start, was about the CIA and the UK. US information, you just get swamped with. It is more difficult to assertain what is fact and what is speculation. Thank you.
I wasn't as precise as I could have been - "military grade" refers to the biological weapons agents and seed-stock we supplied. Stuff developed for military application, provided undiluted in the strengths necessary for it to be used to create further quantities of biological warfare agents and pathogens. I have seen no evidence that actual end product nerve agents were supplied - but plenty that precursor chemicals for the production of mustard, sarin and other CW agents were shipped to Iraq in industrial quantities. My abilities stop short of providing manifests, but there are lots of mentions of thousands of tons of this stuff being supplied - hundreds of millions of dollars worth. This in the full knowledge that Saddam was using them to create chemical weapons. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iraq_and_weapons_of_mass_destruction#Program_development_1960s_-_1980s Interesting article about Britain's role in producing a chemical weapons factory in Fallujah:
Same here, apart from the 'industrial quantities'. Iraq had an effective system for the procurement of items that Iraq was not allowed to acquire due to sanctions. ISG found no evidence that this system was used to acquire precursor chemicals in bulk; however documents indicate that dual-use laboratory equipment and chemicals were acquired through this system. <LI>we have no credible indications that Iraq acquired or attempted to acquire large quantities of these chemicals through its existing procurement networks for sanctioned items. http://www.globalsecurity.org/wmd/library/report/2004/isg-final-report/isg-final-report_vol3_cw_key-findings.htm You are only human, right ?. I have seen 'lots of mentions' , the problem was it was usually if not always to further the agenda of the writer. Plus 'after the fact' as in after he had produced it. http://www.fas.org/news/un/iraq/s/s1997-774.htm http://www.fas.org/nuke/guide/iraq/cw/unscom.htm I had read that, i'm not going to question your interpretation or it's interpretation. I respect your opinion, to further my awareness, i don't think we need to nit pick [well i don't wish too].
The ISG report deals with the alleged attempts of Iraq to resume its CBW programs after 1991, under UN sanctions. The period we have been discussing here is Saddam's build up of WMD throughout the 80s up to the 1991 invasion. The thousands of tons of precursor chemicals are what Saddam used to build up his CBW arsenal right through the 80s. That these were supplied in industrial quantities by the West throughout this period is not in doubt. This came to an abrupt end after 1991.
The irony is that our politicians try desperately to demonstrate that Saddam was a WMD threat and generally a bastard in the period after 1991 - when he really wasn't - and for some reason forget to mention that when Saddam actually was stockpiling and using WMD and committing his crimes against humanity he was 'our friend' and was being armed with the stuff by us. I wonder why.
I do get the feeling i'm going to be involved in a revelatory experiance. I imagine you do not mind if i let all of this settle in my head, over the next few days or so. See how i feel and think. I don't want you brainwashing me *cough*.
Used to watch these and find them amusing, now they leave me with a bitter taste in my mouth. There is something fundamentaly wrong in taking someones words and using them in a different context to those which they were intended. Fine to disagree with a politicians perspective and argue a case but this stuff is tountamount to brainwashing.
