If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. |
|
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#1
|
|||
|
|||
If Spain leaves the coalition, then who's next?
Gerry Quinn wrote:
In article , Mark Morrison wrote: On Thu, 25 Mar 2004 16:47:58 GMT, (Gerry Quinn) wrote: If you had anything you'd be able to find it easily (you'd remember enough to find links to these reports). How come everyone else has forgotten the name of this company and this observer too? Are you serious ? I read an article in a newspaper months ago, and because I don't have a link to it that you're claiming I'm hallucinating or lying ? If I remember an article well enough to talk about it, I can usually google for it. Okay, you've said it was subscription only. But claims so extraordinary would surely have been picked up and widely reported. I don;t read the Times (I do read the Sunday Times) but I read many reputable papers. if I'd ever seen a credfible claim that the US sold chemical weapons to Saddam I'd have remembered it. (I've heard *claims* of course - for example Tony Benn has claimed twice on Irish radio shows that Donald Rumsfeld visited Saddam in 1983 to sell him chemical weapons that were later used on the Kurds. But that is rather obviously a lie.) - Gerry Quinn http://www.gwu.edu/~nsarchiv/NSAEBB/NSAEBB82/ There is a picture in the above link documenting Rumsfeld's visit to Iraq. Also in the text you'll note - "in February 1982 the State Department removed Iraq from its list of states supporting international terrorism." "The U.S. restored formal relations with Iraq in November 1984, but the U.S. had begun, several years earlier, to provide it with intelligence and military support (in secret and contrary to this country's official neutrality) in accordance with policy directives from President Ronald Reagan. These were prepared pursuant to his March 1982 National Security Study Memorandum (NSSM 4-82) asking for a review of U.S. policy toward the Middle East." So Rumsfeld makes a widely documented visit to Iraq at the same time that the US is supplying military support and you don't think the two have anything to do with one another and that the entire thing is one big lie? |
#2
|
|||
|
|||
Gerry Quinn wrote:
In article , Mark Morrison wrote: On Thu, 25 Mar 2004 16:47:58 GMT, (Gerry Quinn) wrote: If you had anything you'd be able to find it easily (you'd remember enough to find links to these reports). How come everyone else has forgotten the name of this company and this observer too? Are you serious ? I read an article in a newspaper months ago, and because I don't have a link to it that you're claiming I'm hallucinating or lying ? If I remember an article well enough to talk about it, I can usually google for it. Okay, you've said it was subscription only. But claims so extraordinary would surely have been picked up and widely reported. I don;t read the Times (I do read the Sunday Times) but I read many reputable papers. if I'd ever seen a credfible claim that the US sold chemical weapons to Saddam I'd have remembered it. (I've heard *claims* of course - for example Tony Benn has claimed twice on Irish radio shows that Donald Rumsfeld visited Saddam in 1983 to sell him chemical weapons that were later used on the Kurds. But that is rather obviously a lie.) - Gerry Quinn I hate to post twice, but I forgot to add this link - http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp...nguage=printer "Privately, however, the administrations of Reagan and George H.W. Bush sold military goods to Iraq, including poisonous chemicals and deadly biological agents, worked to stop the flow of weapons to Iran, and undertook discreet diplomatic initiatives, such as the two Rumsfeld trips to Baghdad, to improve relations with Hussein. " This took me all of 5 seconds to Google; the fact that you claim not to know any of it is almost as incredulous as the other poster's claim that he didn't have a link. |
#3
|
|||
|
|||
On Wed, 7 Apr 2004 15:19:08 -0500, "Holden" wrote:
Gerry Quinn wrote: In article , Mark Morrison wrote: On Thu, 25 Mar 2004 16:47:58 GMT, (Gerry Quinn) wrote: If you had anything you'd be able to find it easily (you'd remember enough to find links to these reports). How come everyone else has forgotten the name of this company and this observer too? Are you serious ? I read an article in a newspaper months ago, and because I don't have a link to it that you're claiming I'm hallucinating or lying ? If I remember an article well enough to talk about it, I can usually google for it. Okay, you've said it was subscription only. But claims so extraordinary would surely have been picked up and widely reported. I don;t read the Times (I do read the Sunday Times) but I read many reputable papers. if I'd ever seen a credfible claim that the US sold chemical weapons to Saddam I'd have remembered it. (I've heard *claims* of course - for example Tony Benn has claimed twice on Irish radio shows that Donald Rumsfeld visited Saddam in 1983 to sell him chemical weapons that were later used on the Kurds. But that is rather obviously a lie.) - Gerry Quinn I hate to post twice, but I forgot to add this link - http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp...nguage=printer "Privately, however, the administrations of Reagan and George H.W. Bush sold military goods to Iraq, including poisonous chemicals and deadly biological agents, worked to stop the flow of weapons to Iran, and undertook discreet diplomatic initiatives, such as the two Rumsfeld trips to Baghdad, to improve relations with Hussein. " This took me all of 5 seconds to Google; the fact that you claim not to know any of it is almost as incredulous as the other poster's claim that he didn't have a link. No ****. I predict an onslaught of weasel words from his side, shortly... |
#4
|
|||
|
|||
"Holden" writes:
Gerry Quinn wrote: [...] (I've heard *claims* of course - for example Tony Benn has claimed twice on Irish radio shows that Donald Rumsfeld visited Saddam in 1983 to sell him chemical weapons that were later used on the Kurds. But that is rather obviously a lie.) - Gerry Quinn I hate to post twice, but I forgot to add this link - http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp...nguage=printer "Privately, however, the administrations of Reagan and George H.W. Bush sold military goods to Iraq, including poisonous chemicals and deadly biological agents, worked to stop the flow of weapons to Iran, and undertook discreet diplomatic initiatives, such as the two Rumsfeld trips to Baghdad, to improve relations with Hussein. " Here's the headline and subtitle of the article: "Rumsfeld Visited Baghdad in 1984 to Reassure Iraqis, Documents Show" "Trip Followed Criticism of Chemical Arms' Use" The main thrust of the article was that Rumsfeld went to Iraq to (as you quoted) improve relations -- specifically to reassure that despite the US publicly condemning Iraq's use of chemical weapons, the criticism was just because they didn't like *anyone* using chemical weapons, and they still want to be Iraq's friend. Note that Rumsfeld's March 1984 visit *followed* a condemnation of the use of CW by the Iraqis. So if you believe that Rumsfeld's December 1983 visit was for the purpose of selling chemical weapons, that gives three months for the Iraqis to deploy them, use them, and get condemned for it before Rumsfeld's March 1984 visit. That's a ridiculous timescale, even without taking into consideration that the Iraqis started using mustard gas in the war in mid-1983. See http://www.fas.org/nuke/guide/iraq/cw/program.htm. The quoted paragraph does state the administration sold "military goods to Iraq, including poisonous chemicals and deadly biological agents." No evidence is given for this, and except for pathogen samples shared by the CDC, none seems to exist elsewhere. Iraq *did* buy military (dual use) goods from US companies during that time, with permission from the government, and buy chemical agents from US companies without government permission. The Reagan administration was also responsible for part of the flow of weapons to Iran. -- Dale J. Stephenson |
#5
|
|||
|
|||
In article , "Holden" wrote:
Gerry Quinn wrote: (I've heard *claims* of course - for example Tony Benn has claimed twice on Irish radio shows that Donald Rumsfeld visited Saddam in 1983 to sell him chemical weapons that were later used on the Kurds. But that is rather obviously a lie.) - Gerry Quinn http://www.gwu.edu/~nsarchiv/NSAEBB/NSAEBB82/ There is a picture in the above link documenting Rumsfeld's visit to Iraq. Also in the text you'll note - "in February 1982 the State Department removed Iraq from its list of states supporting international terrorism." "The U.S. restored formal relations with Iraq in November 1984, but the U.S. had begun, several years earlier, to provide it with intelligence and military support (in secret and contrary to this country's official neutrality) in accordance with policy directives from President Ronald Reagan. These were prepared pursuant to his March 1982 National Security Study Memorandum (NSSM 4-82) asking for a review of U.S. policy toward the Middle East." So Rumsfeld makes a widely documented visit to Iraq at the same time that the US is supplying military support and you don't think the two have anything to do with one another and that the entire thing is one big lie? QUOTE "Rumsfeld met with Saddam, and the two discussed regional issues of mutual interest, shared enmity toward Iran and Syria, and the U.S.'s efforts to find alternative routes to transport Iraq's oil; its facilities in the Persian Gulf had been shut down by Iran, and Iran's ally, Syria, had cut off a pipeline that transported Iraqi oil through its territory. Rumsfeld made no reference to chemical weapons, according to detailed notes on the meeting [Document 31]. Rumsfeld also met with Iraqi Foreign Minister Tariq Aziz, and the two agreed, "the U.S. and Iraq shared many common interests." Rumsfeld affirmed the Reagan administration's "willingness to do more" regarding the Iran-Iraq war, but "made clear that our efforts to assist were inhibited by certain things that made it difficult for us, citing the use of chemical weapons, possible escalation in the Gulf, and human rights." " END QUOTE Yes, Benn's claim that Rumsfeld went to Iraq to sell chemical weapons to Saddam is quite obviously a lie. Where in your link is such a claim supported? I never claimed that Rumsfeld did not visit Iraq or that the US did not help Iraq. - Gerry Quinn |
#6
|
|||
|
|||
In article , "Holden" wrote:
Gerry Quinn wrote: (I've heard *claims* of course - for example Tony Benn has claimed twice on Irish radio shows that Donald Rumsfeld visited Saddam in 1983 to sell him chemical weapons that were later used on the Kurds. But that is rather obviously a lie.) - Gerry Quinn I hate to post twice, but I forgot to add this link - http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp...nguage=printer "Privately, however, the administrations of Reagan and George H.W. Bush sold military goods to Iraq, including poisonous chemicals and deadly biological agents, worked to stop the flow of weapons to Iran, and undertook discreet diplomatic initiatives, such as the two Rumsfeld trips to Baghdad, to improve relations with Hussein. " This took me all of 5 seconds to Google; the fact that you claim not to know any of it is almost as incredulous as the other poster's claim that he didn't have a link. How exactly does it justify Benn's lie? It quite clearly claims above that the visit was "to improve diplomatic relations", and it is discussed at greater length elsewhere in the link. As for the "poisonous chemicals" and "deadly biological agents" I suspect the article may have its details wrong as my understanding is that various such substances were sold by US companies, not the government. Famously, for example, a medical specimen company honoured a request for anthrax samples coming from Baghdad University. Poisonous organic materials with many industrial uses were also sold at times. There's nothing new here, and again there's nothing that justifies Benn's lie. Saddam was using chemical weapons before Rumsfeld's visit. After spending 5 secs on Google, you also have to take the time reading things to see if they justify your case. - Gerry Quinn |
#8
|
|||
|
|||
Gerry Quinn wrote:
In article , "Holden" wrote: Gerry Quinn wrote: (I've heard *claims* of course - for example Tony Benn has claimed twice on Irish radio shows that Donald Rumsfeld visited Saddam in 1983 to sell him chemical weapons that were later used on the Kurds. But that is rather obviously a lie.) - Gerry Quinn http://www.gwu.edu/~nsarchiv/NSAEBB/NSAEBB82/ There is a picture in the above link documenting Rumsfeld's visit to Iraq. Also in the text you'll note - "in February 1982 the State Department removed Iraq from its list of states supporting international terrorism." "The U.S. restored formal relations with Iraq in November 1984, but the U.S. had begun, several years earlier, to provide it with intelligence and military support (in secret and contrary to this country's official neutrality) in accordance with policy directives from President Ronald Reagan. These were prepared pursuant to his March 1982 National Security Study Memorandum (NSSM 4-82) asking for a review of U.S. policy toward the Middle East." So Rumsfeld makes a widely documented visit to Iraq at the same time that the US is supplying military support and you don't think the two have anything to do with one another and that the entire thing is one big lie? QUOTE "Rumsfeld met with Saddam, and the two discussed regional issues of mutual interest, shared enmity toward Iran and Syria, and the U.S.'s efforts to find alternative routes to transport Iraq's oil; its facilities in the Persian Gulf had been shut down by Iran, and Iran's ally, Syria, had cut off a pipeline that transported Iraqi oil through its territory. Rumsfeld made no reference to chemical weapons, according to detailed notes on the meeting [Document 31]. Rumsfeld also met with Iraqi Foreign Minister Tariq Aziz, and the two agreed, "the U.S. and Iraq shared many common interests." Rumsfeld affirmed the Reagan administration's "willingness to do more" regarding the Iran-Iraq war, but "made clear that our efforts to assist were inhibited by certain things that made it difficult for us, citing the use of chemical weapons, possible escalation in the Gulf, and human rights." " END QUOTE Yes, Benn's claim that Rumsfeld went to Iraq to sell chemical weapons to Saddam is quite obviously a lie. Where in your link is such a claim supported? I never claimed that Rumsfeld did not visit Iraq or that the US did not help Iraq. Sorry, your post was worded obliquely; I realized after reading another post that you were referring to the subjects they discussed, not that he did indeed visit Iraq. Other than that, the point still stands that Rumsfeld knew and did nothing about it.......talk is cheap, it doesn't cost him anything to say that he disapproves, but they didn't actually do anything about it, right? We all know better than to judge a politican by his words over his actions by now. - Gerry Quinn |
#9
|
|||
|
|||
Dale J. Stephenson wrote:
"Holden" writes: Gerry Quinn wrote: [...] (I've heard *claims* of course - for example Tony Benn has claimed twice on Irish radio shows that Donald Rumsfeld visited Saddam in 1983 to sell him chemical weapons that were later used on the Kurds. But that is rather obviously a lie.) - Gerry Quinn I hate to post twice, but I forgot to add this link - http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp...nguage=printer "Privately, however, the administrations of Reagan and George H.W. Bush sold military goods to Iraq, including poisonous chemicals and deadly biological agents, worked to stop the flow of weapons to Iran, and undertook discreet diplomatic initiatives, such as the two Rumsfeld trips to Baghdad, to improve relations with Hussein. " Here's the headline and subtitle of the article: "Rumsfeld Visited Baghdad in 1984 to Reassure Iraqis, Documents Show" "Trip Followed Criticism of Chemical Arms' Use" The main thrust of the article was that Rumsfeld went to Iraq to (as you quoted) improve relations -- specifically to reassure that despite the US publicly condemning Iraq's use of chemical weapons, the criticism was just because they didn't like *anyone* using chemical weapons, and they still want to be Iraq's friend. So in other words, they knew what he was doing and did nothing about it at the time because they wanted to improve relations. Now that dubya is in power, he is claiming that one of the reasons for the war was to stop Saddam from doing these things.....Complete hypocrisy. Words are cheap, and the administrations actions spoke clearly that were not opposing Saddam's use of weapons. Note that Rumsfeld's March 1984 visit *followed* a condemnation of the use of CW by the Iraqis. So if you believe that Rumsfeld's December 1983 visit was for the purpose of selling chemical weapons, that gives three months for the Iraqis to deploy them, use them, and get condemned for it before Rumsfeld's March 1984 visit. That's a ridiculous timescale, even without taking into consideration that the Iraqis started using mustard gas in the war in mid-1983. See http://www.fas.org/nuke/guide/iraq/cw/program.htm. I didn't claim that; another poster did. I referenced the article specifically about the claim that there were no sales of arms to Iraq The quoted paragraph does state the administration sold "military goods to Iraq, including poisonous chemicals and deadly biological agents." No evidence is given for this, and except for pathogen If it agreed with your views, you would say it's ample evidence. The other poster said he had not read anything about this and never heard of it before. I took a few seconds to google it up and only posted 2 of the first articles I came across; there are hundreds more available. samples shared by the CDC, none seems to exist elsewhere. Iraq *did* buy military (dual use) goods from US companies during that time, with permission from the government, and buy chemical agents from US companies without government permission. And here you are not even providing proof of your claims while attempting to dismiss proof of opposing claims. Please provide links. The Reagan administration was also responsible for part of the flow of weapons to Iran. But of course you don't think he would supply arms to Iraq when they flip-flopped sides, do you? |
#10
|
|||
|
|||
Gerry Quinn wrote:
In article , "Holden" wrote: Gerry Quinn wrote: (I've heard *claims* of course - for example Tony Benn has claimed twice on Irish radio shows that Donald Rumsfeld visited Saddam in 1983 to sell him chemical weapons that were later used on the Kurds. But that is rather obviously a lie.) - Gerry Quinn I hate to post twice, but I forgot to add this link - http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp...nguage=printer "Privately, however, the administrations of Reagan and George H.W. Bush sold military goods to Iraq, including poisonous chemicals and deadly biological agents, worked to stop the flow of weapons to Iran, and undertook discreet diplomatic initiatives, such as the two Rumsfeld trips to Baghdad, to improve relations with Hussein. " This took me all of 5 seconds to Google; the fact that you claim not to know any of it is almost as incredulous as the other poster's claim that he didn't have a link. How exactly does it justify Benn's lie? It quite clearly claims above that the visit was "to improve diplomatic relations", and it is discussed at greater length elsewhere in the link. I was speaking in reference to your claim that the sales never happened. As for the "poisonous chemicals" and "deadly biological agents" I suspect the article may have its details wrong as my understanding is that various such substances were sold by US companies, not the government. Famously, for example, a medical specimen company honoured I suspect you may be pulling stuff out of your ass to support your position, and without providing any link or reference to your claims. a request for anthrax samples coming from Baghdad University. Poisonous organic materials with many industrial uses were also sold at times. There's nothing new here, and again there's nothing that justifies Benn's lie. Saddam was using chemical weapons before Rumsfeld's visit. After spending 5 secs on Google, you also have to take the time reading things to see if they justify your case. *sigh* My case was that there is plenty of news reports detailing arms sales to Iraq. If you don't think these links support that, then maybe you should re-read them. And at the same time, take a gander at my name and recognize that I'm not Benn, and I have yet to specifically state that I agree with what Benn has said. Don't confuse our "cases"...regardless of whatever it was he said, I'm not about to sit here and let you get away with pretending that there is absolutely no info about the arms sales available on usenet. |
|
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
Uninterruptible Power Supply in Spain | Neil | General | 3 | December 4th 04 02:11 AM |
Need to find Storage Reseller in Spain | Joe | Storage & Hardrives | 3 | November 22nd 04 07:03 PM |
Panasonic dot matrix leaves ink smears on pages | Clueless in Seattle | Printers | 6 | August 31st 04 10:09 PM |
acer point oficial spain | Premier Hard&Soft S.L. | Acer Computers | 0 | April 20th 04 08:54 AM |
Need Fujitsu hard drive in Spain | Den | General | 0 | June 30th 03 07:32 PM |