No. I'm saying that we provided Saddam with precursors to nerve gas even though we were aware that he was gassing Iraq, we are therefore guilty of providing him with WMD's even though we knew he was capable of using them to commit attrocities.

 

And what were these "precursors" you speak of? Physical weapons, motive, what is it? I'm curious. (not being an ***, I just want to know)

 

Sorry I'm just chiming in right now...

Are you serious!?

That's because we report how many we have, or at least a believable amount, and no one questions it. Partly because we're not a hostile country like Iraq, or N. Korea.

I'm curious as well, because I'm obviously too young to remember something like this, but what did we provide that was a precursor? I know that we've helped other countries and then later ended up having to deal with the consequences later. Or what could be future consequences (aka: Iraq).

 

PUBLIC LAW 95-79 [P.L. 95-79]
TITLE 50, CHAPTER 32, SECTION 1520
"CHEMICAL AND BIOLOGICAL WARFARE PROGRAM"

"The use of human subjects will be allowed for the testing of chemical and biological agents by the U.S. Department of Defense, accounting to Congressional committees with respect to the experiments and studies."

"The Secretary of Defense [may] conduct tests and experiments involving the use of chemical and biological [warfare] agents on civilian populations [within the United States]."

-SOURCE-
Public Law 95-79, Title VIII, Sec. 808, July 30, 1977, 91 Stat. 334. In U.S. Statutes-at-Large, Vol. 91, page 334, you will find Public Law 95-79. Public Law 97-375, title II, Sec. 203(a)(1), Dec. 21, 1982, 96 Stat. 1882. In U.S. Statutes-at-Large, Vol. 96, page 1882, you will find Public Law 97-375.

OK that says that according to the law, they can (of course it would be classified so you wouldn't know about it, but what incidents do we know of?

1942: Chemical Warfare Services begins mustard gas experiments on approximately 4,000 servicemen. The experiments continue until 1945 and made use of Seventh Day Adventists who chose to become human guinea pigs rather than serve on active duty.

1943: In response to Japan's full-scale germ warfare program, the U.S. begins research on biological weapons at Fort Detrick, MD.

1944: U.S. Navy uses human subjects to test gas masks and clothing. Individuals were locked in a gas chamber and exposed to mustard gas and lewisite.

1945: Project Paperclip is initiated. The U.S. State Department, Army intelligence, and the CIA recruit **** scientists and offer them immunity and secret identities in exchange for work on top secret government projects in the United States.

1945: "Program F" is implemented by the U.S. Atomic Energy Commission (AEC). This is the most extensive U.S. study of the health effects of fluoride, which was the key chemical component in atomic bomb production. One of the most toxic chemicals known to man, fluoride, it is found, causes marked adverse effects to the central nervous system but much of the information is squelched in the name of national security because of fear that lawsuits would undermine full-scale production of atomic bombs.

1946-1974: The Atomic Energy Commission authorizes a series of experiments in which radioactive materials are given to individuals in many cases without being informed they were the subject of an experiment, and in some cases without any expectation of a positive benefit to the subjects, who were selected from vulnerable populations such as the poor, elderly, and mentally retarded children (who were fed radioactive oatmeal without the consent of their parents).

1946: Patients in VA hospitals are used as guinea pigs for medical experiments. In order to allay suspicions, the order is given to change the word "experiments" to "investigations" or "observations" whenever reporting a medical study performed in one of the nation's veteran's hospitals.

1947: Colonel E.E. Kirkpatrick of the U.S. Atomic Energy Comission issues a secret document (Document 07075001, January 8, 1947) stating that the agency will begin administering intravenous doses of radioactive substances to human subjects.

1947: The CIA begins its study of LSD as a potential weapon for use by American intelligence. Human subjects (both civilian and military) are used with and without their knowledge.

1950: The U.S. Navy sprays a cloud of bacteria over San Francisco. The Navy claims that the bacteria are harmless, and used only to track a simulated attack, but many San Francisco residents became ill with pneumonia-like symptoms, and one is known to have died.

1950: Department of Defense begins plans to detonate nuclear weapons in desert areas and monitor downwind residents for medical problems and mortality rates.

1950 - 1953: An array of germ warfare weapons is allegedly used against North Korea. Accounts claim that there were releases of feathers infected with anthrax, fleas and mosquitoes dosed with Plague and Yellow Fever, and rodents infected with a variety of diseases. The Eisenhower administration later pressed Sedition Charges against three Americans who published charges of these activities. However, none of those charged were convicted.

1952 - 1953: In another series of experiments, the U.S. military released clouds of "harmless" gases over six (6) U.S. and Canadian cities to observe the potential for similar releases under chemical and germ warfare scenarios. A follow-up report by the military noted the occurrence of respiratory problems in the unwitting civilian populations.

1951: Department of Defense begins open air tests using disease-producing bacteria and viruses. Tests last through 1969 and there is concern that people in the surrounding areas have been exposed.

1953: U.S. military releases clouds of zinc cadmium sulfide gas over Winnipeg, St. Louis, Minneapolis, Fort Wayne, the Monocacy River Valley in Maryland, and Leesburg, Virginia. Their intent is to determine how efficiently they could disperse chemical agents.

the list goes on....


HRW, nice reference, if you'd read the content of my previous link you would see that while the justifications or reasoning might be different, the US is in fact responsible for thousands of bodies being in mass graves.


Comparing them only means to examine the similarities and differences between two entities, any rational person should be able to compare any two things without needing to be deficient "an ounce of sanity".

I would have only hoped that such a comparison would turn up more differences

 

I'd say you need to pull your head out of your star spangled **** and take a look around the world, we ARE the only militarily hostile nation on earth these days, China is quickly turning into the economic force to be reckoned with, but our military spending exceeds the rest of the world's combined.

And we would have UN inspectors here if we didn't veto the matter any time it comes up in the SC.




"helped" usually means giving money and weapons to brutal dictators, and it's generally a matter of common pratice, our foreign policy is specifically designed with the deliberate intention to inflame hostilities and promote military conflicts, so that our arms manufacturing and military industrial complext can hold on to the last planks of the sinking ship that was our booming economy.

You kids really should study more history

 

OK first of psoper, I can assure you (because I am part of an Enhanced Infantry Brigade which is a testing ground for new military equipment) that the Army DOES NOT put it's troop at any extreme risks in the regards to testing. As far as every chemical weapons suit goes, the company tests them then the troop (issuee) tests them first by going through a Camphor chamber (to see if their masks are leaking at all) and then through a CS chamber. Trust me, if your suit has any deficiencies in the CS chamber you WILL know about it. After all that they are then subjected to "mustard gas" which IS lethal but tons of precautions are taken and each troop has a steroid/adrenaline shot that if they are compromised it will save their life (yes, just like the one in the movie "The Rock", those are real).

Lastly, I will not refute the fact that our international policy does, in some ways, encourage conflict in certain areas. You and I both know this but the reasons it is done are so plentiful this site does not have the bandwidth needed to discuss even half of them. I do think you blow it a little out of proportion though. Did we give money to the Saddam era Iraq? Absolutely, but I am sure it was not with the intention of them using weapons (of any kind) on their own population or any for that matter.

We need to look at things with some kind of relativity. If you look back we have given every country "aid" either martial or monetary prior to going to war with them (except the British). We gave the Koreas/Chinese weapons in WWII to help defend themselves from the Japanese. We gave the Afgan fighters thousands of surface to air Stinger missles to help them combat the Russian's (specifically the HINO helocopters). Are we expected to stop them when they commit any wrong doing the instant it happens and do so without any affect whatsoever on the domestic population? That's outrageous. If that's the case put Clinton on trial for Mogadishu (thousands of Farrah loyalists were armed with M-16s) and for condoning the Serbs to commit mass murder for years before anything was done.

 

I'm glad to see that we agree on some points, and I admit that I tend to indulge in hyperbole at times.

I just think that if we had a more insightful way of dealing with other nations using good old fashioned diplomacy in the first place, we wouldn't have to put brave people like yourself in harms way at all.

 

And in essense that is what we are doing. I know you may not agree with that but I strongly believe that the war in Iraq and Afganistan, although difficult, will pay off in the end. The Afgans (notably those who fight us now) didn't have a problem with us until we essentially "used and abused" them. We gave them aid (although extremely covert) in fighting the Russians. Giving them Stingers was a HUGE deal. The one thing that could absolutely destroy them (attack helocopters) was deemed inefffective. This is what essentially turned the tide against the Russians. When the Russians gave up on their campaign we backed out and left them with nothing but a few left over missles. I can understand their resentment as much as I hate to admit that.

It is an obvious fact that we can not foresee the future. I'm sure if we could many countries would have gotten aid and several wouldn't have. The fact of the matter is that now we realize the mistakes we have made in the past and we're trying to set them right now. I wouldn't even go into all the possible "what if" scenarios but I can tell you those who do not apply history to the present are condemned to repeat it. I think that's what we are doing now. Like you said, look at the history.

 

Untrue. Clinton took office in 1992. You could blame Bush for that one, but not Clinton.

<snip>

Aidid hindered international food deliveries and attacked U.N. forces in 1992. As a result, the US put a $25,000 bounty on his head and attempted to capture him. In October 3, 1993 a force of U.S. Army Rangers and Delta Force operators set out to capture several officials of Aidid's militia in an area of the Somalian capital city of Mogadishu, controlled by him. The operation did not go as planned, and 19 American soldiers as well as hundreds of Somalis (the exact number is unknown) died as a result. The events are commonly known as the Battle of Mogadishu.

You'll have a hard time proving that. Besides, I'm speaking of Reagan supplying Saddam with precursors to poison gas with the knowlege that he had already utilized WMD's in Iran.

A 1994 US Senate report revealed that US companies were licenced by the commerce department to export a "witch's brew" of biological and chemical materials, including bacillus anthracis (which causes anthrax) and clostridium botulinum (the source of botulism). The American Type Culture Collection made 70 shipments of the anthrax bug and other pathogenic agents.

The report also noted that US exports to Iraq included the precursors to chemical warfare agents, plans for chemical and biological warfare facilities and chemical warhead filling equipment. US firms supplied advanced and specialised computers, lasers, testing and analysing equipment. Among the better-known companies were Hewlett Packard, Unisys, Data General and Honeywell.

 

^^^^All of this did nothing but help substantiate my point. If you look at the dates of both incidents they fall under Clinton's AOC.

And by the way, you've got your facts wrong. 18 died. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/October...e_of_Mogadishu

Again, define these precursors you speak of. You've yet to validate what they consist of for clarification purposes.

 

Post the link where you've got that from. If you're admitting Reagan is the one who authorized these shipments why is the blame not him? Is it or is not the leadership that accepts responsiblity for wrong-doing under their command?

 

But up until then (when the alleged m16s were delivered) Bush was CIC

Oops.

We'll start with the documented anthrax, and botulism, west nile virus, and VX.

Then you should take a look at

this
this

this

And a quote from the U.S. senate:

"United States Export Policy Toward Iraq Prior to Iraq's Invasion of Kuwait," Senate Report 102-996, Senate Committee on Banking Housing and Urban Affairs, 102d Congress, Second Session (October 27, 1992).

from This source

 

Reagan's dead. I think his secretary of Defense would be the logical choice.

As far as "the buck stops here" I didn't see you advocating the abu ghraib attrocities, or the "failures of intelligence" in the runup to the Iraq war be accounted for by Bush.

 

Oh ok. Reagan's dead so lets go after the next in line. I like that philosophy. Forget about justice and the judiciary system. Let's fire up Sparky and fry someone's ***. Salem witch trials anyone?

As far as Abu Ghraib and "failures of intelligence" you never asked me how I felt. I think the commanding officer directly in charge of overseeing Abu Ghraib should have their *** handed to them and spend the rest of their lives in Fort Leavenworth for dereliction of duty. I have had several friends killed during the war on terrorism and perhaps the enemy that killed them was motivated after seeing what happened to become a terrorist. I feel the same way about intelligence. If someone reported false information or "sugar coated" information as to lead someone to believe a falacy.........let justice be served. Why? Because their lack of competence cost soldiers, the ultimate medium of mistake in warfare. Servicemen suffered the consequences when leaders fail and I have a heart felt hatred for politicans (sometimes even senior officers) who write their soldiers off as "justified" sacrifices on the alter of freedom.

 

Duly noted.

As far as Reagan/Rumsfeld: There is no outstanding proof that it went as far as Reagan. Certainly, that Rumsfeld is currently alive and able to testify, I think that given he was SOD at the time (and now, for that matter) qualifies him to be held accountable for arms sales to Iraq at the time.