Reagan/BushDaddy gave him these weapons!!

[Sandman]

Originally posted by Kieran
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.

Determent seemed to work with those nasty Soviets. Hussein isn't even in the same league.

So SH has a history of incursion. So what. We pushed him out and he's doesn't have a build up of troops at the Kuwaiti or Iranian borders, nor does he have any reason to do so now. To do so would just make it that much easier for the U.S. to convince the Europeans to join in our next round of weapons testing. He is effectively contained.

As for Kuwait, it's just a pissant medieval monarchy with human rights violations every bit as extensive as Iraq's. I don't care to shed a single U.S. drop of blood defending them again. They're not worth it.

Here's what will happen... U.S. will invade Iraq and if Hussein has a nuke, he'll hit Israel with it as a parting shot. Israel will retaliate in turn and in kind and then you can kiss this dream of middle eastern stability goodbye. Gas prices will skyrocket. Canadians will observe smugly that we started the whole mess and the car manufacturers will begin to think very seriously about hydrogen powered cars.

[Dowding (Work)]

lol Toad. I am completely aware of how Saddam came into possession of his Bio-weapons program. Particularly, Britain's (as well as Germany's) involvement in it. Just look at the Super-Gun affair.

But here's my point of contention. You might (naively) argue they were given for legitimate reasons, but I think you are deliberately overlooking the context within which many of the transfers were made - and also exactly what accompanied them. The chemical weapons also transferred were part of the desire to support a sympathetic (though despotic) Middle Eastern leader against Iran and the Soviets. Of course the transfers were made under a 'cloak of legitimacy' - it negates any difficult questions for the body politic at that time.

But let's not pretend this is a case of 'we trusted him, and he turned on us'. The Western governments knew exactly what kind of man he was and the nature of the regime he built around him.

[Holden McGroin]

Originally posted by midnight Target
"intestersted"

Using GWB's dictionary again?

 

I was just looking at it, and the word "is" is in it!

This just in....  Evil scientists have taken botulism cultures obtained from the CDC and injected same into the faces of numerous actresses and socialites.  Update to follow.

[Toad]

Originally posted by Dowding (Work)
lol Toad. I am completely aware of how Saddam came into possession of his Bio-weapons program.....

 
But let's not pretend this is a case of 'we trusted him, and he turned on us'. The Western governments knew exactly what kind of man he was and the nature of the regime he built around him.

Well then, now that we have that first part sorted out, do you feel the need to go back and edit your first post? Perhaps you might want to substitute "we" for the "you" that I underlined?

As to the second part above, the same could be said about Stalin, right? Yet Britain and the US cheerfully helped him and his regime as well. Politics (and war) make strange bedfellows, don't they?

[Dowding (Work)]

Like I said before, the detail of the Iraqi WMD export programme is not new to me.

I don't edit posts after they've been challenged, even if they need it - and that one doesn't. It was directed at your compadre Rude, who seemed to be washing 'his' hands of the whole affair. Obviously, I don't mean him personally.

"I just sold 'em, gov. Nuthin' to do with me."

It's all about personal responsibility Toad. Taking the flak for your actions, no matter what your motive was/is. I could tell you about it if you want...

>

As to the second part above, the same could be said about Stalin, right? Yet Britain and the US cheerfully helped him and his regime as well. Politics (and war) make strange bedfellows, don't they?

Following your line of thinking regarding arms sales, you agree the Western democracies knew full well how biological weapons would be developed and (in the case of chemical weapons) deployed?

Was it a cheerful arrangement with Stalin? I don't think so. In the last few years of the war, when Germany's defeat looked ever more likely, you can bet they were making contingency plans to go to war with the Soviet Union. Truman was even committed to using nukes to push back the Soviets out of Germany and the Eastern Bloc - it was only British advice and intervention that post-poned this (eventually the idea was abandoned when Stalin got hold of his first nuclear devices).

So, in conclusion,  there was no 'happy exchange' of technology - only cold hearted political expediency. And that does not allow us to wash our hands of the affair.

[Toad]

Well, the way I read it, the "you" was a generic finger-pointing,  collectively aimed at the United States in general. Correct me if I'm wrong, but that's how it read to me.

After all, it was "you" the US that "You guys knew he was a shrecking nutcase, but you happened to hate Iran more, so you didn't give a damn." wasn't it?

Doesn't seem aimed just at Rude to me.

Given that, it would seem to me that you (dowding) were doing the hand-washing for Great Britain. Or were "you" the collective Great Britain, involved? Of course "you" were.. collectively.

So I guess you (Dowding) are really chiding the US AND GB there right?


Now to the deeper discussions.

Following your line of thinking regarding arms sales, you agree the Western democracies knew full well how biological weapons would be developed and (in the case of chemical weapons) deployed?

I'd agree if you changed the "would" to "could". That's a very large difference in my opinion.

 

Was it a cheerful arrangement with Stalin?

Was it a cheerful arrangement with Hussein? I don't think so. As I mentioned, politics makes strange bedfellows. I doubt the US or GB ever saw Hussein as anything more than an expedient means to an end... just like Stalin, and many others throughout history. In short, there's nothing at all new here.
 

So, in conclusion, there was no 'happy exchange' of technology - only cold hearted political expediency. And that does not allow us to wash our hands of the affair.

I think you agree with me. Are we saying that sometimes it is in your interest to deal with certified bastages and do it knowing that you may well regret it later?

[Dowding (Work)]

A question of semantics. I think that you can single out an individual entity from within a collective, and in terms of responsibility, it must share that burden. That was the gist of my point.

Given that, it would seem to me that you (dowding) were doing the hand-washing for Great Britain. Or were "you" the collective Great Britain, involved? Of course "you" were.. collectively.

I don't think that is a given. Even as I wrote that first post, I almost mentioned Britain's involvement with Saddam - but I thought it spoilt the sound of my post, so I didn't.

Anyway, I am chiding GB and the US if they think that simply think they bare no responsibility for this mess. "We gave him the stuff, we didn't make him use it" is just plain stupid, to me. We, as democratic supposedly civilised nations have a duty of care over these technologies. We must shoulder that responsibility. How else can we claim the moral high ground over communism and the SU (as was)?

Ok. I see the distinction you are making with 'would' or 'could'. I do think there was intention on the behalf of the US and UK to supply Saddam with the means to conduct a bio-chemical war against Iran. I'm not saying it was a 'crystal-ball' kind of a scenario - but the intention to provide the capability was there. Who knows, perhaps a mini-arms race was developing between Soviet backed Iran and NATO backed Iraq (for want of a better description of the US/UK alliance)?

Was it a cheerful arrangement with Hussein? I don't think so.

Hey, you brought the 'cheerful' aspect to this discussion! I agree, involvement with Saddam was probably anything but cheerful. But it was lucrative as well being a good defensive move. Very lucrative for the British arms industry.

I think you agree with me. Are we saying that sometimes it is in your interest to deal with certified bastages and do it knowing that you may well regret it later?

My point is not that political expediency is a concept to be shunned, but that the aftermath should be recognised and responsibility duly assigned to the protagonists. Duty of care. Duty of care.

[Toad]

My point is not that political expediency is a concept to be shunned, but that the aftermath should be recognised and responsibility duly assigned to the protagonists. Duty of care. Duty of care.

20/20 hindsight then?

It seems that nations "do what they have to do" at the time and as they percieve it.

Obviously, it was beneficial to have the Soviet Union fighting the Germans at the same time.

So, to which protagonists did we assign the responsibilty in the aftermath? What punishment did they deserve, merit or for that matter receive? What is the "duty of care" in this instance?

So Iraq, after claiming a "legitimate public health purpose" got a lot of nasty stuff sent to the University of Baghdad. Did or did not the nations that sent it do so with the intent of helping with "public health" or was it a transfer of the makings of WMD?

Does anyone really know?

So, IN THIS CASE, to which protagonists did we assign the responsibilty in the aftermath? What punishment did they deserve, merit? What is the "duty of care" in this instance?

Be just lovely if all were black and white with no gray, wouldn't it?

I'll say again, I personally think those howling now would have lambasted us back then for NOT sending that stuff to help Iraq with it's "legitimate public health purpose".

In short, this is just another "stir the soup" and "bash 'em" thread.

There's nothing here but politically-colored assumptions, turned into partisan "truth".

Here's a basic underlying truth: What's done is done and now we have to deal with the situation as best we can.

[AKIron]

"Anyway, I am chiding GB and the US if they think that simply think they bare no responsibility for this mess."

Chiding is one thing and likely deserved here. However, it seems to me that you Dowding would have them bow out of the mess rather than clean it up?

[Kieran]

I don't think that is a given. Even as I wrote that first post, I almost mentioned Britain's involvement with Saddam - but I thought it spoilt the sound of my post, so I didn't.

Is this a Freudian slip, or what? Don't let facts get in the way of a good argument, I always say...

[Dowding]

So, to which protagonists did we assign the responsibilty in the aftermath? What punishment did they deserve, merit or for that matter receive? What is the "duty of care" in this instance?

Let me re-iterate my previous comments. My argument is a counter-point to the statement "It's nothing to do with me, we just gave him the goods - whatever action he took with them is not our fault or responsibility."

In modern industry that will not get you out of the courtroom should your company be sued because waste you produced was disposed of by a third party, improperly. I think that particular analogy is a useful one.

That is Duty of Care.

There's no 'punishment' here, however, just the apportioning of responsibility.

Political expediency is no defence, Toad. We must clear this mess up.

AKIron - see above answer.

[Dowding]

Care to explain what you mean, Kieran. I don't quite follow.

[Toad]

I don't offer "political expediency" as a defense.

Merely as a fact.

That's the way it happens, usually. From the earliest days of International Relations. You could go back earlier than the Roman Empire and find examples of "political expediency" that was later regretted.

Is there a better way? Well, unless you have perfect foresight and can devine the future in a way better than looking at goat's entrails...... there will most likely always be errors.

Now, as to cleaning it up.

There was obviously an error here. They have things that many people and nations feel a bit uncomfortable with them having.

But they have them.

Now, how to either remove that capability or negate the threat somehow.

That's where we're at.

And all the "finger-pointing" in the world won't accomplish one step towards that goal.

Beyond the fact that one can "finger-point" at just about any world situation in history and say "this is probably the mistake that caused the irrevocable part of the problem".

And that can be made into a politically partisan attack point. Of no real value, but it can be done.

[Hangtime]

Damn.. this is better than 'Point <> Counterpoint" from SNL.

"EVERYTHING YOU KNOW IS WRONG!!"

"squeak!!"

"potato!!"

hehehehhe.

[Eagler]

the point of the thread is what exactly?

what difference does it make?

that was yesterday - we need to worry about today and tomorrow

the world is in a different place than it was 20 years ago - aren't you?