Ochi reason number one...

[kandrathe]

According to the Washington Post...

And Bob Woodward to boot, a paragon of objective journalism...

BTW what would be a proof in your eyes? Even the aforementioned hypthetical video I can not come up with probably would not be a proof for you because it may be a fake.
I think in your eyes it only would be a proof for the US helping the iraqi WMD program if the president would say exactly this in an official statement.

No, I told you I don't think politicians know anything other than how to get elected.

I'm kind of an adherent to the idea that claims need to be backed with evidence, not conjecture. It is not evidence to cite Bob Woodward's conjecture. It would be evidence for Bob Woodward to divulge the CIA operative who admitted that this is what happened.

But, I am one who believes that the CIA probably did help Saddam target the Iranians during that war, and I even fault the WORLD at that time for not recognizing the dangers of Iraq's use of chemical weapons. So, now how exactly did the US help Iraq build its WMD capabilites?

[ergates]

I'm kind of an adherent to the idea that claims need to be backed with evidence, not conjecture. It is not evidence to cite Bob Woodward's conjecture. It would be evidence for Bob Woodward to divulge the CIA operative who admitted that this is what happened

Sorry but is this really what you believe in? The system is always correct unless it openly admits that there was a fault? Come on.

BTW there are several ex CIA operatives which state opinions as mine. But of course no longer belonging to the system they are all liars... :-(

Occhi (at least partially) and you rely on the same strategy: deny every source's credibility, say that everything is fake or "spouting the big lie".

Please look at this again. As I have said before there is simply no way one could "prove" (in the very strict meaning) any claim. At some point you have either to believe the claim or the disclaim. You choose the latter and have (as far as I have read your posts) also not any "proof" for the correctness of your opinion.

Since we are not in court this means that you can not just assume the innocence of the accused until proven otherwise. But if you only could give me links to articles which (in a reasonable manner) support your opinion perhaps my opinion may be changed...

But this evolves into a meta-meta-discussion which easily may become boring. Perhaps we stop it here unless you can present me some support for your opinion.

Bye,
ergates

[ergates]

Two more links which I found interesting:

Our History with Iraq

U.S. Exports of Biological Materials to Iraq

Just in case you care to dig deeper...

Bye,
ergates

[kandrathe]

BTW there are several ex CIA operatives which state opinions as mine. But of course no longer belonging to the system they are all liars... :-(

No, that would be evidence, and has some merit in a discussion if they were actually involved. I'm skeptical of treating anything as "truth" which is merely hearsay. The preponderence of evidence (even from the two links you supplied) suggests that "Reagan" (Actually William Casey, as we all know that Reagan maintained an aura of plausible deniability) did know about and contribute to the evils of Saddam. Conjecture is fine for bandying about conspiracy theories, and if you do not mind looking the fool when the truth is revealed. I do not deny "every" sources credibility, and just because you or I provide a hyperlink does not make it a source. I think every source should be scrutinized for credibility, and if their are concerns about them they should be addressed.

As for your supplied links, they state nothing to undermine the position which I have already stated. I believe that Iraq may have acquired biological materials from the US for agricultural pathogen research under the auspices of doing good, not evil. Your source states that the DOC did not have any records prior to 1985. But, I would accept that we were probably gullible or naive enough to trust Iraq, at that time. There was a time when any university in the world could order Anthrax bacillus from the University of Iowa, Ames Veterinary Research Institute via mail order.

[ergates]

Ok, let us just assume that this is correct and the US was "gullible or naive enough to trust Iraq" (BTW I never thought the DOC and the DOD to be acting overly naive; maybe only on what the outcome of military actions could be...). Further let us assume that the US's clear support for Iraq in the Iran-Iraq war did not play any role in this. So let us ignore reports about help from US military advisory for Iraq in this period of time (which could be wrong).

Under these assumptions (and they are big ones!) I still fail to see why the USA has the moral high ground in this issue which was my initial concern. If the Americans delivered key parts of CW or BW to a war faring country like Iraq, a country driven by a cruel dictator (this was common knowledge even back then because of the way Saddam came to power), then they have their share in guilt. Even if the export of those materials was a "naive" error.

Again my disclaimer: I do not claim that other nations are innocent. And this is not the slightest bit an argument against the war since "having moral high ground" is not this important for waging wars. There are real arguments against the war but they have nothing to do with American exports in the 80's.

Bye,
ergates

[kandrathe]

Should all of the US, past, present and future be condemned by the actions of William Casey, or if you want to go back further J. Edgar Hoover? Moral high ground, not in the perfect sense of what that implies, but certainly not the overt help that was supplied by France, the former Soviet Union, Japan, and some others. The US has its share of evil-doers, and some of them attain levels of power. Hopefully, a free press, government accountability, along with the checks and balances built into our system prevents abuses of power from happening, or lasting. However, US history has many incidents of evil deeds that have been intesively scrutinized to which we the people of the US are ultimately responsible for, and are willing to make recompense for.

From the sources that you cite and the ones that I have read regarding this topic, one can see a measured, calculated and limited amount of aid (good and evil) was given to Iraq. Just enough to assure that the waves of Iranian soldiers would not overrun Iraq. Now, I still maintain the the DOC is not the DOD, and one hand does not neccesarily know what the other is doing. Remember, this was the time when even the NSA was running secret military operations out of the White House basement. William Casey as director of the CIA was very powerful (IMO, too much so) and yet a good friend of Reagan with Congressional oversight. In general, the Reagan administration and all of its factions were at odds with a Congress that for a decade had worked to pull the teeth of the Executive branch. People in the US, even the citizens were afraid of Iran, and not of Iraq. In fact, many considered it a good thing to have a friendly sectarian state in the middle east, like Iraq, who would help to stem the tide of Islamic fundamentalism.

I reject your implication that the US had a direct role in helping Iraq develop any WMD program. Indirectly, yes, I can clearly see we turned a blind eye to Iraq's chemical weapons usage in the 1980's and even supplied them with satellite photos. I can see how our research universities probably mailed them the biological samples that were a crucial step in their BW program. There is evidence to suggest that this was the case.

Here is what I think is a well researched (and sourced) relevant document; Monterey Institute of Internationl Studies - Foreign Suppliers to Iraq's Biological Weapons Program and the entire collection seems to be acedemically sound; Monterey Institute of International Studies - Iraq Sepcial Collection

If I mailed you precursor chemicals, biological samples, or uranium ore, I maintain it would take you a long time, alot of money, external help, and research, to create a WMD. For example, North Korea has been actively trying to build an atomic bomb for over 40 years. All it takes is one greedy SOB to let the WMD knowledge genii out of its bottle.

[ergates]

Well, I really can not say if this all was Casey's plot or who was involved, who knew what, etc. I think you can not either.
Also we have quite different perceptions of what further aid was given to Iraq (besides the samples). As stated before a proof for my claim ("direct military and scientific advice for the Iraqi WMD program") or your claim ("there was no further help, maybe some small-scale intelligence via satellite") seems to be very unlikely to find.

But after all we are quite close that there are dark spots on the American vest in this issue. We disagree about the size of the spots and nobody can hope to bring up solid proof on that (I could go on presenting links and non-official sources supporting my view for weeks - this would never be enough. This also works the other way around: I could claim that the Monterey Institute is not an totally independent institution and so on...).

So if there is nothing really new to learn I will quit this argument. Is this ok with you?

Bye,
ergates

PS: Thanks for the links.

[kandrathe]

Well, I really can not say if this all was Casey's plot or who was involved, who knew what, etc. I think you can not either.
Also we have quite different perceptions of what further aid was given to Iraq (besides the samples). As stated before a proof for my claim ("direct military and scientific advice for the Iraqi WMD program") or your claim ("there was no further help, maybe some small-scale intelligence via satellite") seems to be very unlikely to find.

I would phrase it more like I'm reserving judgement until I see evidence to suggest otherwise. But, I do agree that speculation and conjecture are pointless.

I could claim that the Monterey Institute is not an totally independent institution and so on...).

You could try to attack the credibility of MIIS, but then you might have trouble backing it up. They seem credible to me.
They are a member of the University of California system and from their homepage

The Center for Nonproliferation Studies (CNS) strives to combat the spread of weapons of mass destruction (WMD) by training the next generation of nonproliferation specialists and disseminating timely information and analysis. CNS at the Monterey Institute of International Studies is the largest nongovernmental organization in the United States devoted exclusively to research and training on nonproliferation issues.

They have partnered with NTI -

Ted Turner and Sam Nunn have joined together to create the Nuclear Threat Initiative (NTI), a charitable organization working to reduce the risk of use and prevent the spread of weapons of mass destruction. NTI has brought together international experts with different views and experience who share a common goal of taking immediate action to close the gap between the global threat and the response.

To me, the evidence presented by MIIS - CNS it is quite a contrast to something Bob Woodward wrote in the mid eighties for the Washington Post. It is quite another thing for me to find media professionals who question Mr. Woodward's veracity, like Accuracy In Media : Can You Trust Bob Woodward? by Reed Irvine, June 25, 1999

So if there is nothing really new to learn I will quit this argument. Is this ok with you?

In order to learn something new, one must be willing to have an open mind, perserverance, and be presented with information. But, quit if you like. I'm sure we could dig a little deeper and discover exactly what was shipped, when, and to where if you are willing to set aside your conjectures and deal with facts. But I suspect not. I find that there are some people who are willing to change their minds, and then there are those who would rather quit the discussion before they learned anything that might upset their world view.

[ergates]

Oh, come on kandrathe. This was a childish kick in the back:

In order to learn something new, one must be willing to have an open mind, perserverance, and be presented with information. But, quit if you like. I'm sure we could dig a little deeper and discover exactly what was shipped, when, and to where if you are willing to set aside your conjectures and deal with facts. But I suspect not. I find that there are some people who are willing to change their minds, and then there are those who would rather quit the discussion before they learned anything that might upset their world view.

This struck me as unfair and so we will continue, at least a bit.

Sorry, but there is simply no way you can establish an institute being a part of your university system as independent and credible in political affairs! I hope you know who are they getting their money from. Do you even know where the strings of power run in your beautiful country?
But even if this would prove to be pointless: the board of this institute could consist of the most fervent followers of "Albion Childs" :-) you have ever seen.

Ted Turner and Sam Nunn have joined together to create the Nuclear Threat Initiative ...

How does that should add credibility to the institute is beyond me. I do not know Sam Nunn very well but I do not consider Ted Turner a very independent and open minded person. Can you even tell me one public person (except perhaps for known dissidents as Noam Chomsky) to be taken politically serious and not being swayed by patriotic feelings/influence? Since most of you digest this patriotism with their mother's milk this will be an influence you will not even detect most of the time. There always will be the implicit assumption of "We are the good guys"...

Just face it: most of the sources you perceive as credible are an integrated part of the US's socioeconomic system. I can not accept them as innocent and neutral for quite obvious reasons (who are the sponsors, what is their agenda, can they even afford to support an unpatriotic theory, ...).

So I see no way you could present credible (that is credible for me) proof for your claims. Thus it is pointless to continue.

But, I do agree that speculation and conjecture are pointless.

Yeah, but that is all we can do. If there is not an official statement (for example from the DoD) which admits to military advice for Iraq's WMD program I can not prove anything. For you it would be even more difficult to prove anything because: who should we trust in an issue that could damage the USA's reputation this bad?

I'm sure we could dig a little deeper and discover exactly what was shipped, when, and to where...

Sorry, but did you even read my previous posts and the links I have provided (for example U.S. Exports of Biological Materials to Iraq)? It is not a question of what was shipped (we at least know of the biological samples) but of which further help was given.

As to open mindedness: did you start up google with, for example, "+senate +hearing +1994 +iraq +gas +attack" and read through a lot of the more interesting links provided (from several 1000)? After reading a lot of them (of course you have to correctly weigh the source for credibility and independence (and there will be the difference between us)) I came to my opinion. Can you say the same?

Bye,
ergates

[kandrathe]

Sorry, but did you even read my previous posts and the links I have provided (for example U.S. Exports of Biological Materials to Iraq)? It is not a question of what was shipped (we at least know of the biological samples) but of which further help was given.

You make my point. You have only presented speculation on any help providedby the US, while I have presented evidence that Japan, Denmark, the former Yugoslavia, Germany and Switzerland have provided substantial help.

After reading a lot of them (of course you have to correctly weigh the source for credibility and independence (and there will be the difference between us)) I came to my opinion. Can you say the same?

Yes. I guess the difference is in how you weigh a source for credibility. For instance, your link the the 1994 senate committee meeting, their purpose was only ever to determine if it was possible that coalition troops may have been exposed to chemical or biological agents. It was only ever a partial exploration by a very politically motivated committee. As I said before, we can agree that the US company ATCC, as well as the French Pastuer Institute may have shipped Iraq biological samples; it is discussed in this NY times article, Eyeballing ATCC - Iraq Links Germs for Weapons to U.S. and France . What I see in that NYTimes article is that our relationship with Iraq was different in the mid 1980's and that all exports were not as well scrutinized. The persons who ordered the biological samples had clearly stated their purpose was for medical research. I ignore Cryptome's speculations, as they seem to think that having a vial of some virulent pathogen is equivalent to have a biological weapon.

You can attack the University of California, Sam Nunn, and even Ted Turner if you like for providing the funding to independant (NGO) organizations devoted to nonproliferation studies. People can have opinions, that is true, and so you are saying that nothing can be trusted, and no one is independant. However, I found their content to be well written and well referenced.

[ergates]

You make my point. You have only presented speculation on any help providedby the US, while I have presented evidence that Japan, Denmark, the former Yugoslavia, Germany and Switzerland have provided substantial help.

You do not get it. I repeatedly have stated that I agree to the latter point. There were many nations which provided Iraq with direct and great help. This was simply not what I was talking about. This was not intended as a moral competition between for example Europe and the USA. This competition only exists in your mind...

As I said before, we can agree that the US company ATCC, as well as the French Pastuer Institute may have shipped Iraq biological samples

Yes we agree in this. We disagree in the question of which (if at all) further help the US gave to Saddam's WMD program. We both can not prove our opinions on this point for principal reasons as stated numerous times before.

That is it for me. If you are small enough now to dance a victory dance in your answer - so be it. Another competition that is not important to me...

BTW your links have been useful and interesting to me even though I can not fully trust the sources. I hope you made the same experience.

Bye,
ergates

[Occhidiangela]

You and kandarthe in your skirmish here. I will only try to make a couple of points.

1. Policy. Non-proliferation is, and has been, US policy for quite some time, going back to Nixon on chem weapons.

2. Is any policy air tight? Probably not, see the various scandals in this country in the Savings and Loan industry.

3. Is our open society conducive to 'letting the light in' on decisions that appear self contradictory. Absolutely.

4. The 1994 discussions that you initially linked to highlight that very process. Congress judged that the measures of policy implementation were not good enough, and therefore passed the legislation in question. I call that an excellent example of the continuous improvement model: detect errors and correct them, just like any control system with a feedback loop, such as a driver in a car.

5. I would ask you to show how Europe fared in the period 1991 to 2003 in the same critical self analysis as regards the entire UN protocol concerning Iraq and holding the government to the the letter of the law.

We have all beaten this horse into glue, and I suggest that a predisposition to believe the worst, and to assign to malice what can be attributed to human imperfection is typical of the liberal who choose to assault current courses of action, while having sat mute since 1991 on the exact same topic.

Consider how Mr Eli Wiessel discussed neutrality: Neutrality aids the oppressor and the tyrant, who use the inaction of 'neutrals' and their passive neutrality to his advantage. (Paraphrase.) I realize that Mr Wiessel's remarks in that regard may be slightly out of context in this exact case, but I would suggest that you look at the Spanish Civil War of 1936 to 1939 to consider an interesting parallel on how harmful neutrality can bem, as well as how ludicrous a Swiss Cheese embargo is as a tool of international resolve. The replay in 1991-2003 of the Swiss Cheese (holes all through) enforcement rendered a 'bloodless coercive measure' practically invalid.

In both cases, the desire to 'not soil our hands' for varying reasons, allowed those who chose to 'soil their hands' free reign, be they Russian or German, at the expense of the Spanish people. The lack of resolve to follow through on the intent of the embargo by the entirety of the UN made for an embargo that only did half the job: it applied pain, but the pain was irrelevant to those whose backsides it was to be applied to, since they knew how to exploit the weakness and greed of 'neutrals' to avoid compliance.

In any case, I again thank you for the links. :)

Consider this: Rep Pauls questions were obviously answered in October and November, now weren't they? Had they not been, I suspect that Congress would not have given the support it did. Just a hunch.

[ergates]

Hi.

No objection to points 1-4. Our disagreement lies in additional support for the Iraqi WMD program besides any biological samples which have been delivered. Nobody will be able to come up with credible proof in favour or against this hypothesis. So I decided to no longer discuss this point.

Point 5 - I will repeat it again: this is no competition in morality. I am the first to admit that many nations did a lot more than delivering some biological samples and that this was wrong. It was not the point, though.

In the next parts of your post you mix the discussion with questions as "Was the war justified?", "Is 'Old Europes' position selfish or ignorant or just moral?", "peacenick vs. warmonger", ...
That is a whole different discussion and you may be surprised about my opinions there. Please do not make the all to easy error of identifying persons with nations regarding politics.


Ok, some statements regarding my perception of the war (all IMO, of course):

- There was no very imminent threat so that the timing has a bad smell
(this does not say anything on "Was the war avoidable?").

- The final outcome of the US engagement in GME is very unclear to me and produces some fear of very,
very bad scenarios (e.g. new age of world-wide terrorism).
Still the "peace could be won" (and I truly do hope so...). I just deem it not very probable given the ethnic
background of the people involved ("eye for an eye" until self-destruction; a generalization, of course).
It is really incomparable to the situation in Germany after WWII.

- I have a deep distrust regarding the US' current administration. Knowing of the PNAC, their agenda, their
leader's positions today, knowing of Bush's, Cheney's, .... economical background I will be very surprised if
the Iraqi people can freely choose who will "purchase" their oil.
But that is easy. We will see who gets the big contracts, which interests will be payed, etc. It will
eventually get clear.

Disclaimer: Please do not mix this with anti-Americanism or insult. You have to make a difference between
the American people, its political system and the people currently dominating it.

- Is the UN organization of any value today? Well, is it?

- I do not like the comparison between Bosnia and Iraq. Bosnia was torn by a cruel civil war when the NATO
chose to take action. So the point that "Yugoslavia" as a state was no longer existent has some merit.
Iraq in 2002/2003 was a souvereign state. Yes, it was ruled by a dictator and the people suffered. The
same in (roughly estimated) 80% of the world (some of the dictatorships are harder to recognize but I
count them).

- What will be the "lesson learned" for every small but unscrupulous dictator? Are you sure?

- Will the USA in the long run be able to contain the danger from WMD in the posession of dictators by
military actions/threats or are we in dire need for much more subtle strategies?

- It was a great move with regard to global power politics to divide the Europeans. There are many positive
effects for the US (for example the $ will probably continue to be the oil currency - a key point for the US
economy - at least if they do not "loose the peace" very bad).
Will it be such a great move in the long run?

- What will be bred from the stronger than ever connection between religion, patriotism and black-white
thinking (Is this PC? Or should I say red-green? :-) ) in the US? Add in the anti-terror "laws"
and "security" measures and you may see where this could end (I do not hope so).

- Yes, it is great that Saddam's regime has been defeated. This could give the Iraqi people a chance. Maybe.

- Yes, cheap oil may be the spark that the global economy needs to start the next cycle. In spite of this I
fear a major break down someday. Just look at the western countries deficits and remember the
properties of exponential functions.

Warning: Some of these opinions are subject to rapid change... :-)

Just some thoughts of someone who does not claim to be correct more often than not.

Bye,
ergates

[kandrathe]

Sorry you feel that way. :( It seems to me that you were the one who claimed that the US provided material help to Iraq's WMD programs, and beyond that to which we both agree (ATCC and others supplying biological samples). I'm not ready to jump to the conclusions that you are without any evidence to support that claim. You suggested that I explore the 4100 links from your google search and then discriminate which ones contain any value, but that is not so very helpful either (And, I did scan a few hundred, btw).

I'm not looking for victory, and I'm very interested in knowing if there is anything to your claim, but so far I've found nothing and IMO, you have provided few references that shed any more light. As for proof, it is not required. I guess what I would like to see is any instance of technical or scientific help being provided to them. Another point to consider is that Iraq's BW program was progressing very slowly (even considered to be a failure) until they accelerated it in 1988, and this was well after the US had determined Iraq was a threat. Somebody helped them considerably between 1988 - 1991, so if we are trying to find those culpable 1988 seems a pivotal year. This time period is also when Dr. Nasser Hindawi seems to have become a prominent figure within Iraq's BW programs. It goes back to what I was trying to infer, about there being a difference between having organisms and having a weapon.

Also, I think it impractical to a rational disscussion to claim that all human's are so biased to their particular world view such that there is not one document or opinion that you would trust. Isn't that a huge damper on learning?