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

[Holden]

Gerry Quinn wrote: In article <acd660hr7c25h686gple49f65f5lh0enhq@4ax.com>, Mark Morrison <drdpikeuk@aol.com> wrote: On Thu, 25 Mar 2004 16:47:58 GMT, gerryq@indigo.ie (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-dyn/A13558-2003Dec18?language=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.

[daytripper]

On Wed, 7 Apr 2004 15:19:08 -0500, "Holden" <nothx@ihatespam.com> wrote:
Gerry Quinn wrote: In article <acd660hr7c25h686gple49f65f5lh0enhq@4ax.com>, Mark Morrison <drdpikeuk@aol.com> wrote: On Thu, 25 Mar 2004 16:47:58 GMT, gerryq@indigo.ie (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 QuinnI hate to post twice, but I forgot to add this link -http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn/A13558-2003Dec18?language=printer"Privately, however, the administrations of Reagan and George H.W. Bush soldmilitary goods to Iraq, including poisonous chemicals and deadly biologicalagents, worked to stop the flow of weapons to Iran, and undertook discreetdiplomatic initiatives, such as the two Rumsfeld trips to Baghdad, toimprove relations with Hussein. "This took me all of 5 seconds to Google; the fact that you claim not to knowany of it is almost as incredulous as the other poster's claim that hedidn't have a link.

No shit.

I predict an onslaught of weasel words from his side, shortly...

[Dale J. Stephenson]

"Holden" <nothx@ihatespam.com> 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-dyn/A13558-2003Dec18?language=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
dalestephenson@mac.com

[Gerry Quinn]

In article <c51nnt$2o6q9m$1@ID-91786.news.uni-berlin.de>, "Holden" <nothx@ihatespam.com> 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 QuinnI hate to post twice, but I forgot to add this link -http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn/A13558-2003Dec18?language=printer"Privately, however, the administrations of Reagan and George H.W. Bush soldmilitary goods to Iraq, including poisonous chemicals and deadly biologicalagents, worked to stop the flow of weapons to Iran, and undertook discreetdiplomatic initiatives, such as the two Rumsfeld trips to Baghdad, toimprove relations with Hussein. "This took me all of 5 seconds to Google; the fact that you claim not to knowany of it is almost as incredulous as the other poster's claim that hedidn'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

[Gerry Quinn]

In article <t2p870t10f1ov5eunjimcbt1bo6oh9mvv7@4ax.com>, day_trippr@REMOVEyahoo.com wrote:On Wed, 7 Apr 2004 15:19:08 -0500, "Holden" <nothx@ihatespam.com> 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-dyn/A13558-2003Dec18?language=printer
This took me all of 5 seconds to Google; the fact that you claim not to knowany of it is almost as incredulous as the other poster's claim that hedidn't have a link.No shit.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

[Holden]

Dale J. Stephenson wrote: "Holden" <nothx@ihatespam.com> 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-dyn/A13558-2003Dec18?language=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?

[Holden]

Gerry Quinn wrote: In article <c51nnt$2o6q9m$1@ID-91786.news.uni-berlin.de>, "Holden" <nothx@ihatespam.com> 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-dyn/A13558-2003Dec18?language=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.

[Dale J. Stephenson]

"Holden" <nothx@ihatespam.com> writes:
Dale J. Stephenson wrote:
[...] 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
You're a bit confused. The original claim being discussed was that the
U.S. Government sold the chemical weapons to Iraq that were used on the
Kurds, and had a representative present to measure their effectiveness.
That was an extraordinary claim, there has been no evidence posted for
it, and the article you referenced does NOT support it.

No one has claimed that Iraq did not get "arms" from the United States
(the country, not the government). Dual-use exports are documented
and were permitted by the administration--and subsequently used for
military purposes by Iraq. (The purchases were not from the government
themselves, but from U.S. firms). Chemical and biological weapons were
*not* sold to Iraq by the U.S. or anyone else--Iraq *made* them. Raw
materials for chemical and biological weapons *were* obtained abroad,
legally in the case of biological weapons. Thiodiglycol (used for
mustard gas) was obtained *illegally* from a U.S. company, shipments
to Iraq were detected by Customs and they were shut down and convicted.
See http://www.mideastfacts.com/cmpnies_soldchmcals2iraq.html. 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.
Whether it agreed with my views or not, an assertion without reference
is not evidence. The link I gave in the preceding paragraph references the
Iraqi's own declarations about their weapons program--where *they* claimed
they got the stuff, and *their* claim to have made the weapons. I can
see where you might want to be skeptical about the claims made by Saddam
Hussien's government, but I fail to see their motive in covering up
the direct involvement of the U.S. government in post-Gulf War documents.

With "hundreds" of articles available, if you wish to support the claim
that the U.S. government sold Iraq chemical weapons, surely you can find
some actual evidence. The article you posted *did* contain evidence, not
evidence of chemical weapons sales, but evidence against Rumsfeld selling
it. The timing was completely wrong for such a purpose.
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.
I provided a link above, if you google for past posts in this thread you'll
see others. In fact, if you had *read* the past posts in this thread you
would have already seen "proof of my claims". You chose to ressurect a
mercifully dead off-topic thread, surely it's not too much for you
to *read previous posts*?
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?
What flip-flop? The Iranian arms flowed *at the same time* they were
approving dual-use sales to the Iraqis (plus providing intelligence).
U.S. policy during the Iran-Iraq war is sordid enough without making
stuff up. The flow of arms to the Iranians did not include any chemical
weapons. But Alcolac, Iraq's U.S. source for thiodiglycol, also illegally
smuggled to Iran.
--
Dale J. Stephenson
dalestephenson@mac.com

[Holden]

Dale J. Stephenson wrote: "Holden" <nothx@ihatespam.com> writes: Dale J. Stephenson wrote: [...] 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 You're a bit confused. The original claim being discussed was that the U.S. Government sold the chemical weapons to Iraq that were used on the Kurds, and had a representative present to measure their effectiveness. That was an extraordinary claim, there has been no evidence posted for it, and the article you referenced does NOT support it.


The claim that there was a rep there is extraordinary, but I didn't make it
or voice any support for it. The claim that weapons were sold to iraq by the
US govt. is well-documented and the links I provided serve as proof of that.
No one has claimed that Iraq did not get "arms" from the United States (the country, not the government). Dual-use exports are documented

And my point was specifically in reference to getting arms by the govt.
and were permitted by the administration--and subsequently used for military purposes by Iraq. (The purchases were not from the government themselves, but from U.S. firms). Chemical and biological weapons were *not* sold to Iraq by the U.S. or anyone else--Iraq *made* them. Raw materials for chemical and biological weapons *were* obtained abroad, legally in the case of biological weapons. Thiodiglycol (used for mustard gas) was obtained *illegally* from a U.S. company, shipments to Iraq were detected by Customs and they were shut down and convicted. See http://www.mideastfacts.com/cmpnies_soldchmcals2iraq.html. 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. Whether it agreed with my views or not, an assertion without reference is not evidence. The link I gave in the preceding paragraph references the Iraqi's own declarations about their weapons program--where *they* claimed they got the stuff, and *their* claim to have made the weapons. I can see where you might want to be skeptical about the claims made by Saddam Hussien's government, but I fail to see their motive in covering up the direct involvement of the U.S. government in post-Gulf War documents.

You think it odd to be skeptical of claims made by the enemy, but expect
people to disbelieve claims made by our fellow americans........it doesn't
take a genius to see who has more credibility.

With "hundreds" of articles available, if you wish to support the claim that the U.S. government sold Iraq chemical weapons, surely you can find some actual evidence. The article you posted *did* contain evidence, not evidence of chemical weapons sales, but evidence against Rumsfeld selling it. The timing was completely wrong for such a purpose. 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. I provided a link above, if you google for past posts in this thread you'll see others. In fact, if you had *read* the past posts in this thread you would have already seen "proof of my claims". You chose to ressurect a mercifully dead off-topic thread, surely it's not too much for you to *read previous posts*?

I read every post (and woes you for choosing to read more posts in a thread
you thought was finished. I'll send you a Whitman's Sampler and a box of
tissues and we'll call it even, ok?). You yourself just said your evidence
was that of the Iraq regime, and there is plenty of evidence otherwise.
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? What flip-flop? The Iranian arms flowed *at the same time* they were approving dual-use sales to the Iraqis (plus providing intelligence).

You all but blatantly state here that they were supplying weapons to Iraq.
U.S. policy during the Iran-Iraq war is sordid enough without making stuff up. The flow of arms to the Iranians did not include any chemical weapons. But Alcolac, Iraq's U.S. source for thiodiglycol, also illegally smuggled to Iran.

Making stuff up? the US clearly favored Iran during the initial conflict,
but then changed sides and supported Saddam when it looked like Iran was
getting too powerful. you admit that they were supplying "dual-use" items
during the conflict (how very PC - it's like saying weapons without saying
weapons, I wonder who is fooled by that?) , but you don't think they were
supplying Iraq with arms.......and to top it off, you apparently think the
term "arms" doesn't include the resources necessary to wage war. A bullet is
an example of arms, chemical agents that can be loaded into missiles are
also considered arms.

And if the administration knew that these "dual-use" items were being
supplied to Iraq and could be used to make weapons, why did they continue to
supply them? Iraq was waging a war with Iran, it's money and resources were
going completely to the war effort, but you would have us believe that the
US was selling them chemicals for Saddam's midnight raves, huh?

[Gerry Quinn]

In article <c53ra8$2nd1n5$1@ID-91786.news.uni-berlin.de>, "Holden" <nothx@ihatespam.com> 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.)
"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.

I made a specific claim: that Donald Rumsfeld did not go to Iraq to sell
chemical weapons. (More precisely, I said that Benn's assertion that he
did was a lie.)

I am also unaware of any sales of chemical weapons to Iraq whatsoever by
the US government.
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 honouredI suspect you may be pulling stuff out of your ass to support your position,and without providing any link or reference to your claims.

For heaven's sake, these things have been discussed and referenced
repeatedly in this very thread. Anyone who wants to take any position
on the issue should be aware of them.
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 salesto Iraq. If you don't think these links support that, then maybe you shouldre-read them. And at the same time, take a gander at my name and recognizethat I'm not Benn, and I have yet to specifically state that I agree withwhat Benn has said. Don't confuse our "cases"...regardless of whatever itwas he said, I'm not about to sit here and let you get away with pretendingthat there is absolutely no info about the arms sales available on usenet.

You are responding specifically to my assertion that Benn was lying. If
you admit that my assertion was true, as you now seem to, I suggest you
stop trying to confuse the issue with irrelevant crap and lies about
what I am supposed to be claiming. Yes, your links DID completely fail
to support Benn's allegation that Rumsfeld wrent to Iraq to sell
chemical weapons to Iraq, and they even fail to support any claim that
the US ever sold chemical weapons to Iraq.

If you have information about such sales of chemical weapons I suggest
you post it. So far you have not. You have referred to some sales by
US companies of materials that could be used in development of
bacteriological or chemical weapons, or could have had legitimate
purposes. You have not shown that Rumsfeld's visit was to arrange such
sales, or even to facilitate them. I am well aware of such sales, as i
said.

If you want to post about sales of other weapons to Iraq or whatever,
feel free to do so, but don't post it as an apparent response
contradicting something I said about a different matter.

- Gerry Quinn

[Gerry Quinn]

In article <c53r29$2niuvk$1@ID-91786.news.uni-berlin.de>, "Holden" <nothx@ihatespam.com> wrote:Dale J. Stephenson wrote: "Holden" <nothx@ihatespam.com> 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.)http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn/A13558-2003Dec18?language=printer
I didn't claim that; another poster did. I referenced the articlespecifically about the claim that there were no sales of arms to Iraq

I made no such claim. I challenge you to point out where I am alleged
to have made it.
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 pathogenIf it agreed with your views, you would say it's ample evidence. The otherposter said he had not read anything about this and never heard of itbefore. I took a few seconds to google it up and only posted 2 of the firstarticles I came across; there are hundreds more available.

I have NOT heard of the administration selling dual-use items of the
above kind (there may have been some helicopters, though). I have heard
of certain US companies doing so, and I stated this.

- Gerry Quinn

[Gerry Quinn]

In article <c543ah$2obq17$1@ID-91786.news.uni-berlin.de>, "Holden" <nothx@ihatespam.com> wrote:Dale J. Stephenson wrote:
U.S. policy during the Iran-Iraq war is sordid enough without making stuff up. The flow of arms to the Iranians did not include any chemical weapons. But Alcolac, Iraq's U.S. source for thiodiglycol, also illegally smuggled to Iran.Making stuff up? the US clearly favored Iran during the initial conflict,but then changed sides and supported Saddam when it looked like Iran wasgetting too powerful. you admit that they were supplying "dual-use" itemsduring the conflict (how very PC - it's like saying weapons without sayingweapons, I wonder who is fooled by that?) , but you don't think they were

It's not at all the same thing. IF the US government had deliberately
connived at allowing US firms to supply materials with multiple uses but
which they thought would be used to make chemical weapons, then you
would have a case for saying the US government supplied chemical
weapons, even if technical quibbles could be made. But you haven't come
close to showing anything of the kind.

These materials have perfectly normal and legitimate uses. For example,
anthrax samples can be used in medical research, and this was the
purpose for which Baghdad University asked for them. Many other
universities got such samples too.
supplying Iraq with arms.......and to top it off, you apparently think theterm "arms" doesn't include the resources necessary to wage war. A bullet isan example of arms, chemical agents that can be loaded into missiles arealso considered arms.

Certainly, but your arguments are in response to a statement of mine
that specifically referred to chemical weapons.
And if the administration knew that these "dual-use" items were beingsupplied to Iraq and could be used to make weapons, why did they continue tosupply them? Iraq was waging a war with Iran, it's money and resources weregoing completely to the war effort, but you would have us believe that theUS was selling them chemicals for Saddam's midnight raves, huh?

Please show some evidence that the US government did deliberately supply
or allow such WMD precursors to be supplied. The previous poster gave a
reference to two firms that supplied these chemicals: one was convicted
of violating federal export violations, and the other was owned by an
Iraqi who denies the claim.

- Gerry Quinn

[Dale J. Stephenson]

WARNING: This post is off-topic, and filled with lots of dry details to boot.

"Holden" <nothx@ihatespam.com> writes:
Dale J. Stephenson wrote: "Holden" <nothx@ihatespam.com> writes: Dale J. Stephenson wrote: [...] 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 You're a bit confused. The original claim being discussed was that the U.S. Government sold the chemical weapons to Iraq that were used on the Kurds, and had a representative present to measure their effectiveness. That was an extraordinary claim, there has been no evidence posted for it, and the article you referenced does NOT support it. The claim that there was a rep there is extraordinary, but I didn't make it or voice any support for it. The claim that weapons were sold to iraq by the US govt. is well-documented and the links I provided serve as proof of that.
You dropped the world *chemical* from my paragraph, and the post you
responded to (reviving the thread) specifically addressed a claim of
the U.S. Government selling *chemical* weapons. I haven't seen any proof
of weapons, ordinary weapons, being sold to Iraq from the U.S. Government
(the government usually doesn't sell weapons to anybody, since for the
most part the government *buys* weapons it comissioned from private firms.
Even military aid to other nations often consists of money paid to them
to buy weapons from firms in our nation).

Here's the links you posted (from Google):

Mar 25 (1) -- none.
Mar 25 (2) -- http://www.law.cornell.edu/constitution/constitution/articlevi.html
Mar 25 (3) -- none.
[last non-Holden post before yesterday, Mar 26th]
Apr 2 -- none.
Apr 7 (1) -- http://www.gwu.edu/~nsarchiv/NSAEBB/NSAEBB82/
Apr 7 (2) -- http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn/Al3558-2003Dec18?language=printer

Unless I've missed one of your posts, the only link you provided before
yesterday was to the constitution, and had nothing to do with arm sales at
all. Yesterday's links did -- but were followups to a message that discussed
*chemical* weapons sales, and *only* chemical weapons sales. Gerry Quinn
wrote "If I'd ever seen a credifiable claim that the US sold chemical weapons
to Saddam I'd have remembered it." and "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."

And after a couple of weeks, you come back with a couple of links proving
convincingly... that Rumsfeld visited Saddam in 1983, something that was
never in doubt. *Neither* link provides evidence for Rumsfeld visited for
the purpose of selling chemical weapons, *neither* link provides evidence
that the U.S. government sold chemical weapons to Iraq.

But what about the weaker claim that the government sold arms, something
the article you responded to did NOT deny or address? The first link
says:

"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." You make the jump from "military support" to
"sold them weapons" without a shred of evidence in the article to support
it. (And if you'd read all my posts, as you claim, you would have already
seen that the U.S. was providing intelligence from AWACS to the Iraqis
from earlier in the war--that by itself constitutes "intelligence and
military support".)

The article goes on to provide many details about assistance to the Iraq,
including weapons:

Bell Helicopter Textron sold helicopters to the Iraqi Ministry of Defense.
Their Italian subsidiary and the South Korean government had both
received requests to militarize Hughes helicopters.

2,000 heavy trucks approved for export by the State Department (note to
the clueless: the State Department neither manufactures nor sells heavy
trucks). The State Department justified allowing the sale by saying
that although they presumed Iraq would use it for military purposes, they
did not ask. [see Document 39 and 44] It's not clear who the actual
manufacturer of the trucks is, though the congressional testimony says
"components of the trucks are manufactured in IL, IN, OH, PA, NY, MI."

In fact, Document 39 [a State Department memo arguing for relaxed export
controls with Iraq] is quite illuminating relative to the policy for regular
arms sales. This was not prepared for public consumption, it came to
light via the Freedom of Information Act.

"In blocking [in 1982] the truck exports to Iraq, apart from dissatisfying
Iraq and the supporters, we have sacrificed U.S. employment opportunities
and foreign earnings amounting to several hundred million dollars over the
past three years in order to maintain a strict and inactive neutrality.
Lack of the trucks probably had a neglible effect on Iraq's military
capabilities.... Licensing a pending $224 million export of 2,000 heavy
trucks (and potential future truck exports) to Iraq would require no
regulatory changes [Dept. of Commerce approves or disapproves exports in
trucks and three categories of heavy machinery on a case-by-case basis,
State Department had been making recommendations of denial for all requests
in this category to Iran or Iraq] but would have significant commercial and
political benefits. This export likely would attract Congressional
attention [it did], but Congressional critics of Iraq, even by those who
might still wish to restore it to the terrorism list, has been muted as
members are becoming defensive about appearing to support Iran. Moreover,
several members whose constituents stand to gain employment had questioned
our denial of the truck sale in 1982, and would strongly support it now.
We do not now advocate permitting exports to Iraq of the three categories
of machinery designed to manufacture weapons because they could be a direct,
substantial and durable contribution to Iraq's military capabilities."

"We need your approval to make more consistent our present practice of
selectively discouraging exports to Iraq of military useful equipment not
subject to controls."

"The office of Munitions Control effectively denies by returning without
action all applications for licenses to export Munitions List items to
Iraq and Iran. (The only exception was for a 1982 export to Iraq of
communications equipment.) Our blanket denial is the exception among the
NATO allies, most of whom at least nominally share our policy of not
licensing arm sales to either Iran or Iraq. For example, the British
consider each application for military exports to Iran and Iraq, and have
licensed exports of such "non-lethal" equipment as Centurion tank parts
and a naval fleet-tending ship to Iran, and Nimrod aircraft to Iraq. The
Swiss also bar arms sales to countries at war, but train both Iranian
and Iraqi military pilots, and sell Iran "trainer" aircraft designed for
adaption to combat use."

The document then notes a practical objection to permitting exports on
the Munitions List to Iraq -- the U.S. was refusing to release millions
of dollars worth of Iran-owned munitions list items (presumably purchased
by the Shah), and allowing exports of the same items to Iraq would force
them to release them to Iran.

"A case by case approach would permit us to consider whether U.S. interests
would best be served by permitting certain selected non-lethal Munitions
List exports to Iraq.... U.S. firms are interested in exporting to Iraq
such Munitions List items as an electronic device to protect VIP aircraft
from missiles, armored ambulances, and communications, navigation, and
surveillance systems. This proposal is particularly controversial and
has both advantages and disadvantages. [Listed under disadvantages was
"Would not contribute significantly to Iraq's military effectiveness,
which does not suffer for a lack of equipment"]"

So add U.S.-origin armored ambulances, communications gear, and electronic
equipment for the protection of Saddam Hussein's personal aircraft.
[see Document 38] (Note to the clueless, the U.S. government does not
manufacture and sell ambulances or aircraft enhancements.)

Document 56 is about a U.S. firm that bought uniforms from Romania for
export to Iraq.

Document 61 (a court case affadavit from a former NSC staffer) is your
best hope for proving a direct weapons connection to the government. The
web's page summary says "Director of Central Intelligence William Casey
personally led efforts to ensure that Iraq had sufficient weapons,
including cluster bombs, and that the U.S. provided Iraq with financial
credits, intelligence, and strategic military advice. The CIA also provided
Iraq, through third parties that included Israel and Egypt, with military
hardward compatible with its Soviet-origin weaponry."

Looking at the document itself shows how the CIA "provided" Iraq with
weaponry. "The United States approved, assisted and encouraged Egypt's
manufacturing capabilities. The United States approved, assisted, and
encouraged Egypt's sale of weaponry, munitions and vehicles to Iraq."
Similar language is used for Cardoen Industries' sale of cluster bombs
and munitions to Iraq. [The court case was a company being prosecuted
for supplying proscribed materials to Cardoen. Cardoen had also been
convicted of supplying night vision goggles to Libya and Cuba in 1983,
according to the staffer the CIA was "aware" of the conviction. Cardoen
is a citizen of Chile, and currently a fugitive.] The nature of the
assistance is not detailed, but it's clear from the affadavit that the
sales of weapons involved are by third parties, and the weapons themselves
are of non-U.S. origin.

And for good reason. Iraq was armed out of the Soviet arsenal. It was *Iran*
that needed Western supplies, and one of the biggest favors the U.S. did
during the Iran-Iraq War was to pressure other governments to clamp down on
exports of spare parts to Iran. Iran's desparation for spare parts was
a factor in leading to the Iran-Contra scandal. Iraq needed Soviet-style
spare parts. There's a reason the U.S. "arms" are small potatoes --
helicopters, trucks, armored ambulances. Iraq didn't need our weapons
and couldn't use our spare parts. I think you could argue that IF
the American Government was in the arms-selling business, and IF Iraq had
a need for American munitions, a deal would have happened. Neither seemed
to be the case.

By the way, this detailed and well-documented webpage also shows an
exception to the general trend of loosening restrictions to Iraqi-exports,
that of precursors for chemical weapons. While the government went to
great lengths to reassure the Iraqis that our CW declarations didn't mean
we didn't like them, they also consistently told Iraq we didn't like CW,
and prevented exports of materials for chemical weapons. The post
*you* responded to dismissed a claim that Rumsfeld had visited Iraq in
1983 to sell Iraq chemical weapons later used on Kurdish insurgents. Here's
what Rumsfeld told Deputy Prime Minister Tariq Aziz on his visit in 1983 (from
FOIA declassified State Department cable, Document 32).

"I made clear that our efforts to assist [Iraq] were inhibited by certain
things that made it difficult for us citing theuse of chemical weapons,
possible escalation in the gulf, and human rights."

Rumsfeld's second visit was to smooth the waters after a public condemnation
of Iraq's use of Chemical weapons. That was precipitated by the detection
(and stoppage) of a 22,000 pound shipment of phosphorous flouride to Iraq.
Iraq was given advance warning of the public condemnation, as shown
by Document 42, a State Department cable by George Shultz to the U.S.
Interests Section in Iraq. "Washington asks the U.S. interests section in
Baghdad to remind Iraq's ministry of Foreign Affairs of the U.S.'s grave
concern about chemical weapons, and to inform it that the U.S. will publicly
condemn their use in the near future. The interests section is to reiterate
the request that Iraq not use chemical warfare, and to say that the U.S.
opposes Iraq's attempts to acquire chemical weapons related material from
the U.S.: 'When we become aware of attempts to do so, we will act to prevent
their export to Iraq.'"

The second link, the far less detailed Washington Post article focuses on
Rumsfeld's visit. It does claim "the administrations of Reagan and George
H.W. Bush sold military goods to Iraq, including poisonous chemicals and
deadly biological agents" but gives no evidence. The detailed treatments
of the war don't have any evidence to back up the poisonous chemicals,
and the CDC pathogens were hardly sold as military goods. If you'd *read*
the first link you gave, you would have known better.
No one has claimed that Iraq did not get "arms" from the United States (the country, not the government). Dual-use exports are documented And my point was specifically in reference to getting arms by the govt.
Why revive a dead off-topic thread to knock down a strawman of your own
construction? FWIW, here's what Aziz himself said for a 1996 show:
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/saddam/interviews/aziz.html

"We received many delegations, congressional and individuals.... But we
didn't have any fantasies about America supporting Iraq in the war against
Iran.... And we didn't buy any arms from the United States. There was one
deal in 1982.... He promised that he will bring 150 five-millimeter guns,
and we said, we need those guns, why not. Before the shipment was loaded
on the ship to bring to Iraq, the American government stopped it. That was
in 1982, 1983. So we knew that America would not go too far in their
support or supposed support to Iraq. Of course, they didn't want Iran to
win, because that was a great threat to their interests. But they were
also not enthusiastic to get Iraq to win. Kissinger was very frank in
describing the American position at that time, although he was not in
power. He said, 'We would like both parties to lose.' That was a frank
and clear description of the real American position."

Aziz doesn't appear very grateful for the pro-Iraqi tilt, and found the
Iran-Contra deal outrageous. He's hardly an objective, trustworthy
observer--but he was in an ideal position to expose any complicity of the
U.S. government in arming Iraq, and had excellent motives to do so.
What interest does post-Gulf War Iraq have in protecting the reputation
of the Bush and Reagan administrations?

[...] Whether it agreed with my views or not, an assertion without reference is not evidence. The link I gave in the preceding paragraph references the Iraqi's own declarations about their weapons program--where *they* claimed they got the stuff, and *their* claim to have made the weapons. I can see where you might want to be skeptical about the claims made by Saddam Hussien's government, but I fail to see their motive in covering up the direct involvement of the U.S. government in post-Gulf War documents. You think it odd to be skeptical of claims made by the enemy, but expect people to disbelieve claims made by our fellow americans........it doesn't take a genius to see who has more credibility.
Let's see -- a claim made without evidence in a throwaway paragraph of
a Washington post article, *contradicted* by the much more detailed,
well-documented, and equally critical first link you gave. "Fellow
Americans" or not, a claim is not evidence. And where chemical weapons
are concerned, I believe the Iraqis have more credibility than American
intelligence at the moment....

But it's not just a matter of believing "claims" by the enemy, it's that
the enemy claims have been corroborated. Iraq claimed to make their own
mustard gas, that's supported by their use of mustard gas *and* the fact
that they imported raw materials used to make mustard gas. Iraq claimed
to get thiodiglycol from Alcolac, this is supported by the U.S. customs
service *catching* Alcolac smuggling thiodiglycol to Iraq and convicting
them of it. The Iraqi claims are not made in a vacuum, they are supported
by such evidence that exists. The Iraqi claims were closely scrutinized
by a group of people looking for an excuse to smack the Iraqis down. The
Iraqi's claims about *recent* chemical capacity were also openly doubted
by western intelligence, but after fighting a war over the matter have
yet to find any compelling evidence the Iraqis were wrong.

I did not find it odd to be skeptical, I acknowledged that you might want
to be skeptical. Your reading comprehension apparently is as bad as your
research skills. I did and do fail to see the *motive* for the Iraqis
to cover up for the U.S. government.

If you wish to show that the U.S. Government sold chemical weapons (or
even regular weapons) to the Iraqis, you need to post something like
this:

The U.S. Government sold X to the Iraqis on date Y for Z dollars, as
documented <here>.

That's evidence.

[...] And here you are not even providing proof of your claims while attempting to dismiss proof of opposing claims. Please provide links. I provided a link above, if you google for past posts in this thread you'll see others. In fact, if you had *read* the past posts in this thread you would have already seen "proof of my claims". You chose to ressurect a mercifully dead off-topic thread, surely it's not too much for you to *read previous posts*? I read every post (and woes you for choosing to read more posts in a thread you thought was finished. I'll send you a Whitman's Sampler and a box of tissues and we'll call it even, ok?). You yourself just said your evidence was that of the Iraq regime, and there is plenty of evidence otherwise.
Yet somehow you fail to provide *any* of the "plenty of evidence" that
you say exists.
> 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? What flip-flop? The Iranian arms flowed *at the same time* they were approving dual-use sales to the Iraqis (plus providing intelligence). You all but blatantly state here that they were supplying weapons to Iraq.
Only because you fail to understand what you read. The government is in
the export business as a regulator, it permits (or does not permit) the
export to occur. The exporter is the seller, not the government.
"Dual use" items are items that *could* be used or made into a weapon, but
that also have civilian uses. "Heavy trucks" are not intrinsically a weapon,
nor are they sold by the government.
U.S. policy during the Iran-Iraq war is sordid enough without making stuff up. The flow of arms to the Iranians did not include any chemical weapons. But Alcolac, Iraq's U.S. source for thiodiglycol, also illegally smuggled to Iran. Making stuff up? the US clearly favored Iran during the initial conflict, but then changed sides and supported Saddam when it looked like Iran was getting too powerful.

Saying the US "clearly favored" Iran during the initial conflict is an
excellent example of making stuff up. When the Iraq-Iran war started, Iran
was holding American hostages and was the #1 nation on our enemies list.
We were content to be "strictly neutral" (which itself favors Iraq, as Iran
had a U.S-origin arsenal and Iraq did not) as long as Iraq was winning, then
tilted to Iraq when it looked like they would lose.
you admit that they were supplying "dual-use" items during the conflict (how very PC - it's like saying weapons without saying weapons, I wonder who is fooled by that?) ,

I said they (the government) were *approving* dual-use exports during the
conflict. They did not supply it, they merely *permitted* the sale.
"Dual use" is a term used to describe potential weapons that have a dual
use. Its motive is not "PC", but to distinguish between things that are
only weapons (the Munitions List) and things that could be used as weapons
or not.

I don't think anyone was "fooled" into believing that the heavy trucks sold
to Iraq would be used for civilian purposes. I do think they correctly
believed that its military impact would be pretty insignificant.
but you don't think they were supplying Iraq with arms.

Because I recognize the difference between a regulator and a manufacturer.
Do you know anything about the arms trade at all?
.......and to top it off, you apparently think the term "arms" doesn't include the resources necessary to wage war. A bullet is an example of arms, chemical agents that can be loaded into missiles are also considered arms.
True. And if the U.S. government had supplied bullets or weapon-ready
chemical agents to Iraq, I'd agree that they had supplied Iraq with arms.
Bullets are on the Munitions List, their export was not allowed. Chemicals
used to *make* the chemical agents that could be loaded onto missles were
also not allowed. If you'd *read* your own *link* you'd have known this
already.
And if the administration knew that these "dual-use" items were being supplied to Iraq and could be used to make weapons, why did they continue to supply them? Iraq was waging a war with Iran, it's money and resources were going completely to the war effort, but you would have us believe that the US was selling them chemicals for Saddam's midnight raves, huh?
The US government did not sell chemicals to Saddam's government. The US
government did not permit precursors for chemical weapons to be sold to Iraq.
The U.S. government prevented precursors from reaching Iraq on at least two
occasions during the war. The two U.S. firms that supplied chemicals for
Iraq's war program did so illegally and secretly. If you'd *read* this
thread, or even your own links, you should know that already.

The administration *did* approve (some) "dual-use" items to be supplied to
Iraq, and pretty much acknowledged that they knew what was going to happen
to them. But the administration was NOT the supplier. The administration
did not sell Saddam 2,000 heavy trucks because the administration does not
*make* heavy trucks. If you want to argue that they WOULD have sold them
if they had made them, I won't dispute your opinion. But there's a large
difference between permitting heavy trucks to be sold and selling mustard
gas.

I'm sorry I rose to your bait.
--
Dale J. Stephenson
dalestephenson@mac.com

[Holden]

Dale J. Stephenson wrote: WARNING: This post is off-topic, and filled with lots of dry details to boot.

Jesus christ, I know I'm long-winded but even I know when enough is enough.
I'm going to go ahead and aquiesce to whatever point it is that your book is
trying to make for no other reason than that I'm not going to waste my time
trying to read all of that. Next time try a little brevity for christ's
sake.

Oh, and as far as not responding for a while to this thread; my daughter was
born a few weeks ago and I've been pretty busy. I have no idea what sort of
tool complains about usenet posts not being followed up on immediately after
they are written, but a little thing called life prevents some of us from
being so anal, so I'm afraid you'll just have to find way to forgive me for
not giving a damn.

That said, I will make one honest apology. I should have been more clear in
separating what I was trying to say from what the other poster said. The
resulting confusion on your end is understandable and I apologize for not
making a more clear case. Since everyone, including yourself, is ready for
this thread to end (and because I'm not sure if you can withstand the carpal
tunnel that will inevitably result from another post on your part) then I'll
be happy to move this to alt.politics.