Alan Greenspan's opinion on the Iraq War

[Felix_Nietzsche]

Oh? The US State Department's decison to place Iraq on their list of nations that sponsor terror is not good enough for you?

Perhaps you are correct. The US State Dept is one of the worst and most incompetant departments in the US govt. 80% of what they say is crap. So perhaps their opinion on Iraq is crap as well. Regardless, I notice you were unable to refute one fact posted on Iraq's transgressions in the field of terrorism. Perhaps you are unable.....so you resort to the sophmoric tactic of dismissing the entire argument because you lack the basic reasoning skills to address these points directly.

I grant you it is a lot easier to make flippant remarks dismissing counter-arguments rather than engaging them directly. After all, using google to do basic research to support you arguments is just too much work. Yes? Please do *NOT* put too much effort in your posts in the political forum. I would not want you to over exert yourself....

[GoodCallYouWin]

"Oh? The US State Department's decison to place Iraq on their list of nations that sponsor terror is not good enough for you?"

Well, they only had to put them on because Reagan took them OFF in 1983 to give them weapons. They could have just left them ON the whole time, and saved some paperwork... but then the USA couldn't sell Sadaam Hussein weapons of mass destruction.

You know the old joke :

Q : "How does the USA know IRAQ has weapons of mass destruction"

A : "They checked the receipts."

[ikestoys]

[ QUOTE ]
"Oh? The US State Department's decison to place Iraq on their list of nations that sponsor terror is not good enough for you?"

Well, they only had to put them on because Reagan took them OFF in 1983 to give them weapons. They could have just left them ON the whole time, and saved some paperwork... but then the USA couldn't sell Sadaam Hussein weapons of mass destruction.

You know the old joke :

Q : "How does the USA know IRAQ has weapons of mass destruction"

A : "They checked the receipts."

[/ QUOTE ]
do you have any facts to back this assertion, because once again, its not true

[boracay]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
"Oh? The US State Department's decison to place Iraq on their list of nations that sponsor terror is not good enough for you?"

Well, they only had to put them on because Reagan took them OFF in 1983 to give them weapons. They could have just left them ON the whole time, and saved some paperwork... but then the USA couldn't sell Sadaam Hussein weapons of mass destruction.

You know the old joke :

Q : "How does the USA know IRAQ has weapons of mass destruction"

A : "They checked the receipts."

[/ QUOTE ]
do you have any facts to back this assertion, because once again, its not true

[/ QUOTE ]

what do you mean?

Chronology of the United States sordid involvement in the arming of Iraq can be summarized this way:
- The US used methods both legal and illegal to help build Saddam's army into the most powerful army in the Mideast outside of Israel.
- The US supplied chemical and biological agents and technology to Iraq when it knew Iraq was using chemical weapons against the Iranians.
- The US supplied the materials and technology for these weapons of mass destruction to Iraq at a time when it was known that Saddam is using this technology to kill his Kurdish citizens.
- The US supplied intelligence and battle planning information to Iraq when those battle plans included the use of cyanide, mustard gas and nerve agents.
- The US blocked UN censure of Iraq's use of chemical weapons.

Chronology of US involvement

so, what is not true here?

[ikestoys]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
"Oh? The US State Department's decison to place Iraq on their list of nations that sponsor terror is not good enough for you?"

Well, they only had to put them on because Reagan took them OFF in 1983 to give them weapons. They could have just left them ON the whole time, and saved some paperwork... but then the USA couldn't sell Sadaam Hussein weapons of mass destruction.

You know the old joke :

Q : "How does the USA know IRAQ has weapons of mass destruction"

A : "They checked the receipts."

[/ QUOTE ]
do you have any facts to back this assertion, because once again, its not true

[/ QUOTE ]

what do you mean?

Chronology of the United States sordid involvement in the arming of Iraq can be summarized this way:
- The US used methods both legal and illegal to help build Saddam's army into the most powerful army in the Mideast outside of Israel.
- The US supplied chemical and biological agents and technology to Iraq when it knew Iraq was using chemical weapons against the Iranians.
- The US supplied the materials and technology for these weapons of mass destruction to Iraq at a time when it was known that Saddam is using this technology to kill his Kurdish citizens.
- The US supplied intelligence and battle planning information to Iraq when those battle plans included the use of cyanide, mustard gas and nerve agents.
- The US blocked UN censure of Iraq's use of chemical weapons.

Chronology of US involvement

so, what is not true here?

[/ QUOTE ]

The vast majority of the article doesn't say anything about the US giving Iraq chemical weapons. Most of it says that it gave metal or other things to build chemical weapons. I'm afraid I'm not buying that assertion from the Iran Chamber. The only reference for actual chemical material was the "precursors of mustard gas." Do you know what the precursors for mustard gas are? I could make mustard gas in my lab easily. The materials used to make mustard gas have tons of other uses in industry also.

So did the US give Saddam WMD? You have produced nothing that says so, you've given evidence of the US helping a coldwar ally from a shady source

[boracay]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
"Oh? The US State Department's decison to place Iraq on their list of nations that sponsor terror is not good enough for you?"

Well, they only had to put them on because Reagan took them OFF in 1983 to give them weapons. They could have just left them ON the whole time, and saved some paperwork... but then the USA couldn't sell Sadaam Hussein weapons of mass destruction.

You know the old joke :

Q : "How does the USA know IRAQ has weapons of mass destruction"

A : "They checked the receipts."

[/ QUOTE ]
do you have any facts to back this assertion, because once again, its not true

[/ QUOTE ]

what do you mean?

Chronology of the United States sordid involvement in the arming of Iraq can be summarized this way:
- The US used methods both legal and illegal to help build Saddam's army into the most powerful army in the Mideast outside of Israel.
- The US supplied chemical and biological agents and technology to Iraq when it knew Iraq was using chemical weapons against the Iranians.
- The US supplied the materials and technology for these weapons of mass destruction to Iraq at a time when it was known that Saddam is using this technology to kill his Kurdish citizens.
- The US supplied intelligence and battle planning information to Iraq when those battle plans included the use of cyanide, mustard gas and nerve agents.
- The US blocked UN censure of Iraq's use of chemical weapons.

Chronology of US involvement

so, what is not true here?

[/ QUOTE ]

So did the US give Saddam WMD? You have produced nothing that says so, you've given evidence of the US helping a coldwar ally from a shady source

[/ QUOTE ]

- November 1983. Banca Nazionale del Lavoro of Italy and its Branch in Atlanta begin to funnel $5 billion in unreported loans to Iraq. Iraq, with the blessing and official approval of the U.S. government, purchased computer controlled machine tools, computers, scientific instruments, special alloy steel and aluminum, chemicals, and other industrial goods for Iraq's missile, chemical, biological and nuclear weapons programs.

- November 1983. George Schultz, the Secretary of State, is given intelligence reports showing that Iraqi troops are daily using chemical weapons against the Iranians.

- July 1984. CIA begins giving Iraq intelligence necessary to calibrate its mustard gas attacks on Iranian troops.

- March 1986. The United States with Great Britain block all Security Council resolutions condemning Iraq's use of chemical weapons, and on March 21 the U.S. becomes the only country refusing to sign a Security Council statement condemning Iraq's use of these weapons.

- May 1986. The U.S. Department of Commerce licenses 70 biological exports to Iraq between May of 1985 and 1989, including at least 21 batches of lethal strains of anthrax.

- May 1986. US Department of Commerce approves shipment of weapons grade botulin poison to Iraq.

- Late 1987. The Iraqi Air Force begins using chemical agents against Kurdish resistance forces in northern Iraq.

- April 1988. US Department of Commerce approves shipment of chemicals used in manufacture of mustard gas.

- August 1988. Four major battles were fought from April to August 1988, in which the Iraqis massively and effectively used chemical weapons to defeat the Iranians. Nerve gas and blister agents such as mustard gas are used. In the last major battle with of the war, 65,000 Iranians are killed, many with poison gas. Use of chemical weapons in war is in violation of the Geneva accords of 1925.

- August 1988. Five days after the cease fire Saddam Hussein sends his planes and helicopters to northern Iraq to begin massive chemical attacks against the Kurds.

- September 1988. U.S. Department of Commerce approves shipment of weapons grade anthrax and botulinum to Iraq.

- December 1988. Dow chemical sells $1.5 million in pesticides to Iraq despite knowledge that these would be used in chemical weapons.

- July 25, 1990. U.S. Ambassador to Baghdad meets with Hussein to assure him that President Bush "wanted better and deeper relations." Many believe this visit was a trap set for Hussein. A month later Hussein invaded Kuwait thinking the U.S. would not respond.

- July 1991. The Financial Times of London reveals that a Florida chemical company had produced and shipped cyanide to Iraq during the 80's using a special CIA courier. Cyanide was used extensively against the Iranians.

- February 1994. Senator Riegle from Michigan, chairman of the Senate Banking Committee, testifies before the senate revealing large U.S. shipments of dual-use biological and chemical agents to Iraq that may have been used against U.S. troops in the Gulf War and probably was the cause of the illness known as Gulf War Syndrome.

You could find more about it at Arming Iraq and the Path to War including sources if really interested.

[Felix_Nietzsche]

[ QUOTE ]
November 1983. Banca Nazionale del Lavoro of Italy and its Branch in Atlanta begin to funnel $5 billion in unreported loans to Iraq. Iraq, with the blessing and official approval of the U.S. government, purchased computer controlled machine tools, computers, scientific instruments, special alloy steel and aluminum, chemicals, and other industrial goods for Iraq's missile, chemical, biological and nuclear weapons programs.

- November 1983. George Schultz, the Secretary of State, is given intelligence reports showing that Iraqi troops are daily using chemical weapons against the Iranians.

- July 1984. CIA begins giving Iraq intelligence necessary to calibrate its mustard gas attacks on Iranian troops.

- March 1986. The United States with Great Britain block all Security Council resolutions condemning Iraq's use of chemical weapons, and on March 21 the U.S. becomes the only country refusing to sign a Security Council statement condemning Iraq's use of these weapons.

- May 1986. The U.S. Department of Commerce licenses 70 biological exports to Iraq between May of 1985 and 1989, including at least 21 batches of lethal strains of anthrax.

- May 1986. US Department of Commerce approves shipment of weapons grade botulin poison to Iraq.

- Late 1987. The Iraqi Air Force begins using chemical agents against Kurdish resistance forces in northern Iraq.

- April 1988. US Department of Commerce approves shipment of chemicals used in manufacture of mustard gas.

- August 1988. Four major battles were fought from April to August 1988, in which the Iraqis massively and effectively used chemical weapons to defeat the Iranians. Nerve gas and blister agents such as mustard gas are used. In the last major battle with of the war, 65,000 Iranians are killed, many with poison gas. Use of chemical weapons in war is in violation of the Geneva accords of 1925.

- August 1988. Five days after the cease fire Saddam Hussein sends his planes and helicopters to northern Iraq to begin massive chemical attacks against the Kurds.

- September 1988. U.S. Department of Commerce approves shipment of weapons grade anthrax and botulinum to Iraq.

- December 1988. Dow chemical sells $1.5 million in pesticides to Iraq despite knowledge that these would be used in chemical weapons.

- July 25, 1990. U.S. Ambassador to Baghdad meets with Hussein to assure him that President Bush "wanted better and deeper relations." Many believe this visit was a trap set for Hussein. A month later Hussein invaded Kuwait thinking the U.S. would not respond.

- July 1991. The Financial Times of London reveals that a Florida chemical company had produced and shipped cyanide to Iraq during the 80's using a special CIA courier. Cyanide was used extensively against the Iranians.

- February 1994. Senator Riegle from Michigan, chairman of the Senate Banking Committee, testifies before the senate revealing large U.S. shipments of dual-use biological and chemical agents to Iraq that may have been used against U.S. troops in the Gulf War and probably was the cause of the illness known as Gulf War Syndrome.

[/ QUOTE ]
This post is one large pile of steaming crap....
Show a link supporting each silly assertion from a credible source...or concede you just another brainwashed conspiracy theorist.

*Just for fun I picked ***ONE*** assertion on the link you provided:
"May 1986. US Department of Commerce approves shipment of weapons grade botulin poison to Iraq. [7]"

NEXT....I looked at the links supporting this supposed evidence using the "Find" feature using the phrase "botul"
http://www.gulflink.osd.mil/medsearc...port_main.html
http://www.gulflink.osd.mil/medsearc...port_index.htm
http://www.gulflink.osd.mil/medsearc...port_index.htm
http://www.gulflink.osd.mil/medsearc...ring_index.htm
http://www.gulflink.osd.mil/medsearc...report_toc.htm
http://www.gulflink.osd.mil/medsearc...port_index.htm

They was NOTHING to support the claim the author made on these links. NOTHING. John King is a big fat liar who evidently did not think someone would take the time to examine his sources..... LOL! In a way I find this rather humorous. There are a lot of nitwits with computers that will read John King's claims thinking they are gospel.... Jeez, this is futher proof that the American education systemhas sunk to new lows in teaching critical thinking...

[Felix_Nietzsche]

[ QUOTE ]
Well, they only had to put them on because Reagan took them OFF in 1983 to give them weapons.

[/ QUOTE ]
True which was the correct and a grown-up decision. By weapons I assume you mean conventional weapons.
Iraq has sponsored terrorism but they have been a tertiary player with regard to terrorism. My personal opinion was Saddam gave small amounts of money to finance terrorism PRIMARILY to gain "street cred" in the middle east among his fellow muslims. Although Saddam is a rabid hater of Jews. Iran was the greater threat than Saddam's 3rd rate support of terrorism. Reagan made the right decision. If that nitwit Jimmy Carter was president, Iran would have been allowed to conquered Iraq and today's problems in the Middle East would be insignificant compared to the creation of a 2nd Shia theocracy....

[ QUOTE ]
but then the USA couldn't sell Sadaam Hussein weapons of mass destruction.

[/ QUOTE ]
Not true and you can't support this silly statement.
Iraq's chem/bio program was home grown. Their challenge was importing dual-use chemicals to keep there program going. By dual use I mean chemicals that can be used to peaceful purposes like manufacturing insecticide or making chemical weapons. Iraq found ways to circumvent import restrictions.....hence the creation of their chem weapon program. If you have proof the USA relaxed restrictions on exporting these dual use chems to Iraq then show proof. I am not aware of any such actions....

[ShakeZula06]

Felix, what do you think about the lies about WMDs, 9/11connections, AQ connections, and the cost of the war?

We were told Saddam had WMDs, we found none. We were told they were building a nucleur program, we found none. We were told they had connections to Bin Laden, we found none. We were told the war would be a slam dunk and that the little amount of money the war would cost would be paid for in oil. Now the war is basically guarenteed to cost over one trillion dollars. They said we would be treated as liberators, people try to kill us daily and Iraqi polls indicate they want us to leave (as well as American polls).

Now, knowing what we know now, that all Saddam did was not exile a few obscure terrorists and had no connections with AQ or Bin Laden, do you honestly still think invading Iraq, spending over a trillion dollars just to invite a bunch of terrorists into the most secular state in the middle east was the right decision? If so I think if you do you need your head examined.

[Felix_Nietzsche]

[ QUOTE ]
Felix, what do you think about the lies about WMDs,

[/ QUOTE ]
Personally I thought we should have invaded Iraq for:
1. Violating the terms of the armistice
2. Trying to assassinate Bush41 in 1993 while he was in Kuwait

All the WMD stuff was just icing on the cake. But...I'll play your game. We know Iraq had WMD because they used them on Iran and the Kurds. After the first Gulf War, small amounts were discovered by weapons inspectors. After the 2nd Gulf War we have found small caches of Chem/Bio weapons, The last cache was 500 rounds. WMD have been found. The mystery is why have not more been found and what happen to these stockpiles. Iraq provided no proof the WMD stockpiles were destroyed. All we have is Saddam's word which is worthless. Former Iraqi General George Sada claims Saddam sent his WMD stockpiles and mfg equipment to Syria before the war.
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,182932,00.html
The mainstream media largely ignored General Sada. They will spend 4+ years covering Bush's national guard service but Sada gets one day and then his story is buried.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Georges_Sada
http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/159...qid=1140254994
Sada made the Talk radio circuit promoting his book. Sada was one of the few generals that Saddam would listen to. He was ordered to execute American prisoners in the first Gulf War and he refused the order....and survived (he was dismissed from the military). He is a fascinating man...


[ QUOTE ]
Felix, what do you think about the lies about .....9/11connections,

[/ QUOTE ]
Show me ONE quote where Bush or his admin say Saddam was behind 911.... They did say words to effect that Saddam had talks with Al Qaeda but they hardly qualifies the claim your making. Show me *ONE* quote.

[ QUOTE ]
Felix, what do you think about the lies....AQ connections,

[/ QUOTE ]
I was not aware this was a lie. Al Qaeda is in the USA, Europe, the Phillipines, Indonesia, Africa, Middle East,....BUT...they were not in Iraq? Saddam was not a close ally of al Qaeda nor is there proof they sponsored AQ. But to say there was no connection is not true. We do know there were talks between AQ and Saddam's govt. But this is a red herring...Bush never said Saddam was responsible for 911.

[ QUOTE ]
We were told Saddam had WMDs, we found none.

[/ QUOTE ]
Small caches of mustard and Sarin gas rounds have been discovered. The biggest cache was 500 rounds. Again according to Gen Sada the stockpiles were moved to Syria.
http://www.cnsnews.com/ViewNation.as...20060621e.html

[ QUOTE ]
Now, knowing what we know now, that all Saddam did was not exile a few obscure terrorists and had no connections with AQ or Bin Laden, do you honestly still think invading Iraq, spending over a trillion dollars just to invite a bunch of terrorists into the most secular state in the middle east was the right decision?

[/ QUOTE ]
The decision was correct. The execution was lousy. When you try to assassinate an ex-president, then YOU GO TO WAR against the nation that sponsored the assassination. Bush is a nitwit, he is like a poker player that gets AA on the button, lets 8 people limp in, then doesn't raise, and then gives free cards on the flop, turn, and river. If the occupation was properly managed then Iraq would have been stabilized long ago...