![]() |
![]() |
|
![]() |
Well, GADefence, your welcomed.
As to the matter at hand, the US joined WWII 1941, when the Axis was winning. Its support with hardware before that was huge, and its acctuall fighting roles in single handadlty defeting the Japanese and forming the bulk of the forces to invade normandy in 1944 are immense. An invasion of Normandy would have been impossible with the US, allowing the German army to give the eastern front immense resourses. But thats off-toppic. America was the only power strong enough to stop the USSR after WWII, thats a fact. The USA did not invent democracy but it seems that lately it is the only one willing to be its sword and shield(i know, i know, but i just like that phrase.). Saddam was not installed by the US, though he was supported by it shortly. At the time Saddam was a good option when compared to those maniacs from Iran. |
![]() |
|
|
Topic: Scraping out proof of weapons sales to Iraq
Im glad you asked me to find proff because everytime I go searching on the internet I learn something new. Hers waht I got so far, Im nto giving up on it yet. I may write to the UN to get the actual list of suppliers. These are not the most straight forward links, so "sigh", you may have to read a little. I will pull out the parts of most importance for your veiwing conveneince following the link.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------- http://projects.sipri.se/cbw/researc...1992_final.pdf Foreign involvement in the Iraqi CBW programme It is not possible to make definite judgements concerning all of the allegations made before and during the Gulf War about the assistance provided by other countries to Iraq’s CW and BW programme.89 Before the Gulf War began, at least 20 countries were accused of involvement in building up the technological basis for different Iraqi weapon programmes, particularly the CW programme. 90 Much information came to light about German companies, and officials in the Federal Economics Ministry investigated approximately 110 German firms on suspicion of violation of the embargo against Iraq. Nine of them are under criminal investigation.91 Other countries, among them the UK and the USA,92 were also accused of supporting the Iraqi CBW programme by the sale of chemicals and technology. In the UK it was discovered that chemicals on the Australia Group’s control list had been sold to Iraq from 1988 to October 1990.93 During the second UNSCOM investigation in Iraq in August, a list was compiled of companies which had supplied technology to the Iraqi CBW programme. According to August press reports, 207 companies from 21 countries were involved in the buildup of Iraq’s CW capability.94 The list was not released, but governments can obtain information on the involvement of companies from their own country upon special request to the UN.95 The Inter- 86 ‘Report called “completely false”’, LD0602144891, Tripoli, JANA, 1415 GMT, 6 Feb. 1991 (in Arabic), in FBIS-NES-91-027, 8 Feb. 1991, p. 9. 87 Reuters, ‘Giftgas-Produktion bestritten’, Frankfurter Rundschau, 9 Mar. 1991, p. 2. 88 Reuters, ‘Bald Medikamente aus Rabta?’, Frankfurter Rundschau, 1 Mar. 1991, p. 2. 89 SIPRI, SIPRI Yearbook 1991 (note 3), pp. 88–89. 90 Cordesman, A. H., Weapons of Mass Destruction in the Middle East (Brassey’s: London, 1991), pp. 64–65. 91 Associated Press, ‘Crackdown on Germans aiding Iraq’, International Herald Tribune, 7 Feb. 1991, p. 3; Reuters, ‘Germans open embargo inquiry’, International Herald Tribune, 12 Feb. 1991, p. 4; Donkin, R. et al., ‘A country that turned a blind eye’, Financial Times, 25 Mar. 1991, p. 20. 92 Wines, M., ‘U.S. tells of prewar technology sales to Iraq worth $500 million’, New York Times,12 Mar. 1991, p. A6; Friedman, A. et al., ‘The sinister alchemy of the Iraqi “doctor”’, Financial Times, 3 Mar. 1991, p. 4; Friedman, A. and Barber, L., ‘US cyanide shipped to Iraq despite warnings to CIA’,Financial Times, 3 July 1991, p. 1. 93 The Australia Group is a group which meets semi-annually to discuss which chemicals ought to be subject to various regulatory measures. Mullin, J., ‘UK firms sent Iraq chemicals’, The Guardian, 29 July 1991, p. 1; Exports to Iraq: Memoranda of Evidence, House of Commons, Session 1990–91 (Her Majesty’s Stationery Office: London, 17 July 1991); Wilkie, T., ‘Iraq export row “due to ignorance of statistics”’, The Independent, 8 Aug. 1991, p. 2. 94 ‘The UN should name names’, The Independent, 1 Aug 1991, p. 18; Pfäffle, W., ‘UNO erstellt Liste westlicher Lieferanten’, Süddeutsche Zeitung, no. 182 (8 Aug. 1991), p. 6. 95 DPA, Associated Press, AFP, ‘UNO soll deutsche Firmen nennen’, Süddeutsche Zeitung, 16 Aug. 1991, p. 8. CHEMICAL AND BIOLOGICAL WARFARE 163 national Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) also reported on the support given the Iraqi nuclear programme by foreign companies.96 ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ http://pqasb.pqarchiver.com/nytimes/...%24500+Million ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- I know you said no alternative news sources but these pages link to what you would consider credible sources. http://www.worldmessenger.20m.com/weapons.html http://www.rense.com/general32/suppe.htm http://expage.com/notowar6 I think this one is the best it has its claims backed up by articles and repots that you can look up http://cns.miis.edu/research/wmdme/flow/iraq/seed.htm Anyway have fun reading, Ill keep looking. |
![]() |
|
![]() |
You seem to be supplying a lot of information on various companies, various chemicals, technology, research materials/samples, and pesticides ... but nothing on actual "WMDs" nor any ties to the US government making those sales.
Just because I sell you some wire, doesn't mean I sold you a bomb. |
![]() |
||
![]() |
Topic: Re: I disagreeQuote:
|
![]() |