Author Topic: Reagan/BushDaddy gave him these weapons!! (Read 1257 times)

Mr. Blonde · « **Reply #15 on:** October 01, 2002, 04:32:34 PM »

On Sept. 6, 1620 the Pilgrims set sail for the New World on a ship called the Mayflower!

Sikboy · « **Reply #16 on:** October 01, 2002, 05:28:44 PM »

that's funny, none of us even noticed that this has more to do with Biological weapons than Chemical weapons. So the Biological Weapons convention (ratified by the US in 1975) is probably the best legal case.

By this treaty, 10bears actually HAS a case! It could be a violation of Article III of that convention which states:

Quote

Each State Party to this Convention undertakes not to transfer to any recipient whatsoever, directly or indirectly, and not in any way to assist, encourage, or induce any State, group of States or international organizations to manufacture or otherwise acquire any of the agents, toxins, weapons, equipment or means of delivery specified in article I of the Convention.

Ok, it's a story

-Sikboy

Wlfgng · « **Reply #17 on:** October 01, 2002, 05:42:11 PM »

soooo like if we give/sell say medicine, electricity, fuel oil, or any technology to a country to aid them in healthcare, quality of life, etc..
it's ok for them to use it for attacking the US ?

I think we need to look deeper than the surface statements of "oh my God.. we gave this xxx to them ???"

"It's OUR fault!!!"

puhleaze

it isn't WHAT you have it's HOW you use it...

gofaster · « **Reply #18 on:** October 01, 2002, 05:57:17 PM »

You call that news?

Now THIS is news!

http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&u=/ap/20021001/ap_on_hi_te/cell_phones_cancer_15

Kieran · « **Reply #19 on:** October 01, 2002, 06:12:04 PM »

I'd simply like to know what Dowding, 10bears, et al think we should do at this point. Since apparently there is nothing being done right, tell us what right would look like.

Cobra · « **Reply #20 on:** October 01, 2002, 07:34:47 PM »

You'll be waiting a very long time, Kieran.

Cobra

Kieran · « **Reply #21 on:** October 01, 2002, 08:19:57 PM »

hehe(sp?).(sp?)

Toad · « **Reply #22 on:** October 01, 2002, 08:50:34 PM »

Oh, the devil is always in the details, now isn't he?

Quote

Dowding:

You guys knew he was a shrecking nutcase, but you happened to hate Iran more, so you didn't give a damn. And besides, who cares about the Kurds when Turkey's support is at stake?

You don't give a serial child molester the keys to the primary school and expect him to behave, do you?

[/b]

From the Buffalo News article posted at the top of this thread:

"Researchers at the Center for Strategic and International Studies said American companies were not the only ones that sent anthrax cultures to Iraq. British firms sold cultures to the University of Baghdad that were transferred to the Iraqi military[/color], the Center for Strategic and International Studies said. The Swiss also sent cultures.

Pays to read it all, Dowding.

And would anyone like to bet what we'd have been hearing had we said "NO" when Iraq asked for them?

"I don't think it would be accurate to say the United States government deliberately provided seed stocks to the Iraqis' biological weapons programs," said Jonathan Tucker, a former United Nations biological weapons inspector.

"But they did deliver samples that Iraq said had a legitimate public health purpose, which I think was naive to believe, even at the time."

Almost all of it went to the University of Baghdad which claimed a legitimate public health purpose.

So would all of you making a big deal about it NOW have been squalling back in the '80's if we had denied their request?

I'm thinking you'd have been tearfully pointing out the "legitimate public health purpose" and said how cruel we were for not helping.

Besides all that....... history is absolutely RIFE with examples of a nation helping another "friendly" nation with arms and supplies only to have that "friendly" nation turn into an enemy at a later date. WW2 and the Soviet Union, for example.

Thrawn · « **Reply #23 on:** October 01, 2002, 08:52:11 PM »

Cripes, why don't I ever get any WMD. And I'm a nice guy liberal, I probably wouldn't use them or anything!

PS: the US and Britain suck.

Edit: I could just it now.

"Holy toejam, George, old sport! We better secure all those WMD we gave Iraq!"

"Gosh! No kidding Tony. How about we tell the media we have to go in to stop Iraq from making WMD."

"...are you bloody stupid?"

Sandman · « **Reply #24 on:** October 01, 2002, 09:05:55 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by Kieran
I'd simply like to know what Dowding, 10bears, et al think we should do at this point. Since apparently there is nothing being done right, tell us what right would look like.

What was wrong with the policy of containment and determent?

Has Hussein got out of the box?

If Saddam scares you, better check under the bed and in the closet. Might be a bogeyman in there.

Eagler · « **Reply #25 on:** October 01, 2002, 09:11:52 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by Sandman_SBM

What was wrong with the policy of containment and determent?

Has Hussein got out of the box?

If Saddam scares you, better check under the bed and in the closet. Might be a bogeyman in there.

time for action, not reaction

Thrawn · « **Reply #26 on:** October 01, 2002, 09:16:42 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by Eagler

time for action, not reaction

Quick! Jump into a lake!

Kieran · « **Reply #27 on:** October 01, 2002, 09:17:21 PM »

Quote

What was wrong with the policy of containment and determent?

Containment as in what? Determent how? Are you suggesting SH doesn't have a history of incursion upon neighbors? Ask someone from Kuwait or Israel. Are you suggesting determent has worked in any way? Educate me.

Am I afraid of SH now? No. Will I be worried about the effect of him having the bomb on the stability in the Middle East? Yup.

I'll spare you the typing- I am worried about India and Pakistan, too. As they are chiefly concerned with blowing one another up, I am not concerned with them the way I would be with SH with the bomb.

Sikboy · « **Reply #28 on:** October 01, 2002, 09:23:28 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by Wlfgng
it isn't WHAT you have it's HOW you use it...

You are absolutely correct! Just check out Article X of the BWC!

Quote

Article X
(1) The States Parties to this Convention undertake to facilitate, and have the right to participate in, the fullest possible exchange of equipment, materials and scientific and technological information for the use of bacteriological (biological) agents and toxins for peaceful purposes. Parties to the Convention in a position to do so shall also cooperate in contributing individually or together with other States or international organizations to the further development and application of scientific discoveries in the field of bacteriology (biology) for prevention of disease, or for other peaceful purposes.

(2) This Convention shall be implemented in a manner designed to avoid hampering the economic or technological development of States Parties to the Convention or international cooperation in the field of peaceful bacteriological (biological) activities, including the international exchange of bacteriological (biological) agents and toxins and equipment for the processing, use or production of bacteriological (biological) agents and toxins for peaceful purposes in accordance with the provisions of the Convention.

And that gets us right back to my first post about "dual use." And again, I would be intestersted to see what comes of this. But we're back to being a non-story

I'm sorry, I just love arms control treaties.

-Sikboy

midnight Target · « **Reply #29 on:** October 01, 2002, 10:35:16 PM »

"intestersted"

Using GWB's dictionary again?