A computer components & hardware forum. HardwareBanter

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.

Go Back   Home » HardwareBanter forum » Processors » General
Site Map Home Register Authors List Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read Web Partners

If Spain leaves the coalition, then who's next?



 
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #1  
Old April 7th 04, 09:15 PM
Holden
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default 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  
Old April 7th 04, 09:19 PM
Holden
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

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  
Old April 7th 04, 09:28 PM
daytripper
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

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  
Old April 7th 04, 09:52 PM
Dale J. Stephenson
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

"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  
Old April 8th 04, 11:56 AM
Gerry Quinn
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

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  
Old April 8th 04, 12:03 PM
Gerry Quinn
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

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
  #7  
Old April 8th 04, 12:05 PM
Gerry Quinn
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

In article , wrote:
On Wed, 7 Apr 2004 15:19:08 -0500, "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.)


http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp...nguage=printer

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...


I have little time for any words, weasel or otherwise, but as I've
pointed out that link directly contradicts Benn's claim!

- Gerry Quinn


  #8  
Old April 8th 04, 04:21 PM
Holden
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

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  
Old April 8th 04, 04:28 PM
Holden
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

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  
Old April 8th 04, 04:32 PM
Holden
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

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

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump

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


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 10:20 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004-2024 HardwareBanter.
The comments are property of their posters.