Originally posted by 10Bears
The laughs on you wulfie,
Okay I'm going to try and be civil here, because there may be an honest misunderstanding.
There is a significant difference between nuclear weapons, biological weapons, and chemical weapons. I know this statement is a no-brainer, but read on.
You stated *chemical weapons*. A common and inaccurate statement sometimes designed to make people think that the weapons used on the Kurds and the Iraqis were bought from the U.S. and sent into action weeks later and sometimes just an innocent misstatement. No such thing ever happened. The chemical weapons used by Iraq did not come from the U.S., nor were they created from U.S.-supplied precursor material. I'm not gloating over chemical weapons 'quality', but if the Kurds and the Iraqis were hit with 'top line' U.S. or Soviet chemical agents the results would have been far more horrific (especially for the Kurds, when you consider the superior 'persistence' of first rate 'modern' chemical weapons as compared to what the Iraqis used).
The biological agents provided to Iraq - who was fighting a Nation that was self-described as a sworn enemy of the U.S. at the time - have been provided to several other Nations for both defense related and non-defense related medical research. There is a huge difference between biological materials and the ability to farm them, produce them in a form usable as weapons, and (most difficult) the ability to store them for use. The U.S. did not provide Iraq with 'know how' on farming, weapons production, or storage. This is probably the main reason they were never used against the Kurds.
These may all seem like insignificant differences to most - but they are not insignificant to somone who has been involved with WMD/NBC related activities as a part of their job. If you talk to anyone with a serious, educated background on biological agents the data about the materials provided to Iraq doesn't even raise an eyebrow. They were provided to well respected Western trained Iraqi doctors engaged in high level defense and non-defense related research. You have to remember that the Doctors that asked for these materials literally went to medical school in the U.S. and U.K. with some of the Western Doctors involved with clearing the material for shipment to Iraq. Such assistance was given to numerous Nations. There is no quick and easy step between the accquisition of those samples and deployable biological weapons. Someone formally educated on the subject would regard it as the equivalent to providing someone with no lab with the formula for gunpowder. When someone 'outside the situation' comments that conceivably they could now make bullets to kill people with a gun - well, they're still a long ways from that. And the samples provided have numerous valid medical uses. The companies that provided these materials had Western Doctors as advisors, high level employees, etc. There is no way that Iraq or any Nation would have been provided with resources that would have convertible into deployable biological or chemical weapons with no further assistance from outside sources. Iraq did eventually develop some advanced deployable chemical and biological weapons, but it did so with the help of non-U.S. supplied resources and expertise. This is almost never mentioned in the politicially motivated 'reports' commonly available today.
Thrawn and 10Bears - in all honesty I thought 10Bears statement was the typical 'The U.S. gave Iraq chemical wepaons that Iraq used to kill people 2 weeks later'. This is what I was talking about. I know all about the precursor materials, etc. I have a high level knolwedge on NBC weaponry/production/etc. provided by the U.S. Department of Defense (which is both a blessing and a curse - because the worst case scenario is worse than most people can imagine, but the 'layman' is often unaware of how difficult it is to deploy chemical warfare agents with maximum effect - something the media uses to great effect which I find highly unprofessional). If you look at anything I've ever said on the topic, I have always been very specific.
The materials seized by the U.N. were seized because the behavior of Iraq in terms of regional stability had changed radically between the time they were provided and the time at which they were seized. Remember that when these materials were supplied Iraq was a Nation governed by a nonreligious leader and was involved in a war (in which they were heavily outnumbered) against a sworn enemy of the U.S that was currently the most powerful (militarily) Nation hostile to the U.S. in the entire Middle Eastern region. If Iran defeated Iraq they would have been adjacent to the Saudi oil fields and unchallenged militarily unless the U.S. directly intervened, which would have had serious repurcussions when you consider the current state of the cold war between the U.S. and the U.S.S.R.
This is not to say that there is no 'fault' to be assigned to the U.S. over Iraq's WMD programs, but it is only fair to recall the state of world affairs at the time these transactions took place. Using hindsight some poor decisions can be said to have been made, but the reasoning at the time was sound and the best option available. Intent does matter. Also remember The U.S. gave the U.N. inspectors very accurate and complete data on what to look for as far as U.S. provided materials go. The U.S. did its best to rectify a situation gone bad. It did not wantonly throw gasoline onto a fire in terms of Iraq and WMD capability as so many 'reporters' are fond of implying.
It is the following types of inaccurate statements that I find to be highly unprofessional and intentionally misleading:
"$1 billion worth of the components needed to build nuclear weapons"
To build nuclear *weapons*? What components? U.S. companies weren't allowed to provide such components to trusted Allies such as Germany. This is an inaccurate statement.
"When Iraq engaged in chemical and biological warfare in the 1980s"
When and against whom did Iraq engage in biological warfare? If research is being engaged in warfare, the U.S., U.K., U.S.S.R., and numerous other Nations were 'engaged in nuclear, biological, and chemical warfare' for years. A suprisingly low casualty rate from such warfare, no? Also, if he had deployable biological weapons at the time, it is almost certain he would have used them against Kurdish population centers.
"THE US and Britain sold Saddam Hussein the technology and materials Iraq needed to develop nuclear, chemical and biological weapons of mass destruction."
A general statement made for politics. More accurate would be the phrases 'could be used' and 'to begin'. There were/are crucial components that Iraq was lacking and never supplied with by the West. Such components very carefully watched at an international level. There have been numerous (20+) cases over the past decade where the delivery of such components to Iraq, North Korea, and Iraq was detected and thwarted.
"even though they knew Saddam Hussein was using chemical weapons "almost daily" against Iran"
A lie. The incidents where Iraq used checmical weapons are very well documented and tracked. They were far from 'almost daily'. The effectiveness of chemical weapons is (still) highly dependant upon the weather if you are targeting personnel (which is what the Iraqis were doing vs. Iran) and not facilities, assembly areas, and other operational and strategic targets (which is what U.S. and U.S.S.R. doctrine called for). 'Almost daily' use makes no sense. The writer of that report was targeting an audience that would have no way of knowing this. Also, the specific agents used in each and every attack and where they came from are known. Western Doctors have had access to the victims of every documented attack.
"West Nile fever germs and botulism to Iraq right up until March 1992, as well as germs similar to tuberculosis and pneumonia."
A scary sounding statement that is avoiding some obvious facts. Pneumonia and tuberculosis are still major killers in the Middle East. Tuberculosis is the main reason for the far lower life expectancy in the region. Research with those materials by Nations in that region is common and has an obvious valid medical purpose. West Nile fever germs? You tell me - is there a valid medical use for such 'germs'? Are you going to develop a secret lethal version of the West Nile virus for use on the enemy? Who trains the mosquitoes?
"• Clostridium Botulinum...
• Histoplasma Capsulatam...
• Brucella Melitensis...
• Clostridium Perfringens...
• Clostridium tetani...
Also on the list: Escherichia coli (E. coli), genetic materials, human and bacterial DNA,"
Again, it sounds damning - except that almost any University worldwide could accquire such materials from the medical research community of most Nations. Please note that I did not include Bacillus Anthracis, which can be found in the wild. There are major differences, most of which have something to do with lethality, between Bacillus Anthracis and the modified strains of Anthrax that the U.S. and U.S.S.R. developed as possible biological weapons.
As for 'VX nerve gas', the U.S. did not sell deployable VX nerve gas to Iraq. If the Iraqis had such gas in a deployable state, the Iranian casualties from chemical weapons would have been greatly increased. Does the writer of that article list the senate report he referenced (honestly curious)?
You said 'chemical weapons'. In my book that is either chemical warfare agents, ready to be placed in a delivery system, or a delivery system already loaded with a chemical warfare agent. The U.S. provided neither to Iraq.
Google is a useful tool for internet searches, but there's no gurantee that everything it finds for you is accurate and/or truthful.
Mike/wulfie
