RE: U.S. Had Key Role in Iraq Buildup: Trade in Chemical Arms Allowed Despite Their Use on Iranians, Kurds

From: Lee Corbin (lcorbin@tsoft.com)
Date: Thu Jan 16 2003 - 17:56:26 MST


John Clark (January 8) agrees with Technotranscendence (December 30)

> "Technotranscendence" <neptune@mars.superlink.net>
>
> > the "administrations of Ronald Reagan and George H.W. Bush
> > authorized the sale to Iraq of numerous items that had both
> > military and civilian applications, including poisonous
> > chemicals and deadly biological viruses, such as anthrax
> > and bubonic plague." If this is true
>
> It almost certainly is true.
>
> > then should not also the people behind these
> > transfers be punished for putting America in danger?
>
> In retrospect it turned out to be a very bad idea, but I don't know of any
> law that was violated.

"Bad idea"? I'll say. What were they thinking?? In
the first place, alliances have been shifting since
pre-history, so how could the experienced state
department and pentagon foreign policy experts of
the first Bush administration have failed to consider
that possibly Iraq would not be on "their side" one
day?

Also, BIOLOGICAL weapons? Didn't it occur to anyone
that these are a poor man's nukes? And that all advanced
nations are put at risk by this act?

Some key paragraphs from the URL supplied by Technotranscendence:

    Opinions differ among Middle East experts and
    former government officials about the pre-Iraqi
    tilt, and whether Washington could have done
    more to stop the flow to Baghdad of technology
    for building weapons of mass destruction.

    "It was a horrible mistake then, but we have
    got it right now," says Kenneth M. Pollack,
    a former CIA military analyst and author of
    "The Threatening Storm," which makes the
    case for war with Iraq. "My fellow [CIA]
    analysts and I were warning at the time
    that Hussein was a very nasty character. We
    were constantly fighting the State Department."

    "Fundamentally, the policy was justified,"
    argues David Newton, a former U.S. ambassador
    to Baghdad, who runs an anti-Hussein radio
    station in Prague. "We were concerned that
    Iraq should not lose the war with Iran,
    because that would have threatened Saudi
    Arabia and the Gulf. Our long-term hope
    was that Hussein's government would become
    less repressive and more responsible."

Amazing.

    What makes present-day Hussein different
    from the Hussein of the 1980s, say Middle
    East experts, is the mellowing of the
    Iranian revolution and the August 1990
    invasion of Kuwait that transformed the
    Iraqi dictator, almost overnight, from
    awkward ally into mortal enemy. In addition,
    the United States itself has changed. As a
    result of the Sept. 11, 2001, terrorist
    attacks on New York and Washington, U.S.
    policymakers take a much more alarmist
    view of the threat posed by the proliferation
    of weapons of mass destruction.

Well, the biological weapons granted to Iraq included anthrax!

See the URL below that Dan gave originally for the full story,
but it would be nice if more had been said about the anthrax.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn/A52241-2002Dec29?language=print

Lee



This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Tue Jan 21 2003 - 17:10:21 MST