or perhaps its an anti-American conspiracy theory made up by this Senate Comittee who are secret Saddam Hussein sympathizers?
Once again I can't read that page. The text encoding looks off or somethings? Plus I think it's bullshit. Find me the original information. If you don't have it then you have no proof. I'll consider the statement that the US gave saddam chemical weapons withdrawn until there's real proof.
Once again I can't read that page. The text encoding looks off or somethings? Plus I think it's bullshit. Find me the original information. If you don't have it then you have no proof. I'll consider the statement that the US gave saddam chemical weapons withdrawn until there's real proof.
The information given in the article is quite specific, and published in a paper with a large reach and readership. I cannot find any refutation of this article (or numerous that are similar or corroborate it). If I actually went to great lengths and dug out the evidence, I am sure you would still be unconvinced.
Scott, it would be great if your skepticism, and requirement of proof was just a little more even-handed. The US embarked on the war in Iraq with neither proof nor evidence of any of the so-called reasons given to the public for it. Yet you were the most vocal supporter of it : proof or evidence be damned.
Scott, is there any evidence that would convince you that the US sold Iraq WMD agents?
If so, what?
Bill of Sale.
Besides if I read through the bad formating at the page it does not say that the US sold WoMD to Iraq but instead sold so called "dual use" technology.
Oh and SJO circulation doesn't show good reporting. The NYT had to publish a multi-page retraction for the lies it published.
Next you guys are going to tell me that the US gave $40 million to the Taliban ? Another lie we all "know" to be true.
The information given in the article is quite specific, and published in a paper with a large reach and readership.
The problem with your article is that it is apparently from a Google archive. You keep on providing the same single source. Your article would be credible if it could cite a documented source. But it does not. It cites "a document". Nowhere does the article cite a tracable source.
Your post went as far as to say that you could neither corroborate nor refute the article.
"I cannot find any refutation of this article (or numerous that are similar or corroborate it)."
If you meant to say that you had done research that had corroborated the article, then you should provide that information whether or not you believe that Mr. Scott would accept your information (which, no doubt, he would not if it were as poorly documented as the first article or they were self-referring articles).
Besides if I read through the bad formating at the page it does not say that the US sold WoMD to Iraq but instead sold so called "dual use" technology.
Here's the full text of former British Foreign Secretary Robin Cook's House of Commons resignation speech just before the Iraq war started. I imagine he is a little more qualified than most people re. what Saddam didn't have, and what he did...and where he got it from.
Quote:
Iraq probably has no weapons of mass destruction in the commonly understood sense of the term - namely a credible device capable of being delivered against a strategic city target.
It probably still has biological toxins and battlefield chemical munitions, but it has had them since the 1980s when US companies sold Saddam anthrax agents and the then British Government approved chemical and munitions factories.
Why is it now so urgent that we should take military action to disarm a military capacity that has been there for 20 years, and which we helped to create?
Why is it necessary to resort to war this week, while Saddam's ambition to complete his weapons programme is blocked by the presence of UN inspectors?
Robin Cook was wrong on one thing: the anthrax (etc) was destroyed by either the inspectors after the 1991 Gulf War, or during unsupervised destruction programs before the inspection regime started, on the orders of Hussein's (deceased) brother in law, Hussein Kamel. Otherwise, his judgement of the situation has been proved, in the light of subesquent events to be spot on, unlike that of his lying ex-boss, Blair.
Comments
Originally posted by sammi jo
Scott....here's a detailed article...and it's safe to read, Israel is not implicated here.
Full article here:
http://www.sundayherald.com/27572
or perhaps its an anti-American conspiracy theory made up by this Senate Comittee who are secret Saddam Hussein sympathizers?
Once again I can't read that page. The text encoding looks off or somethings? Plus I think it's bullshit. Find me the original information. If you don't have it then you have no proof. I'll consider the statement that the US gave saddam chemical weapons withdrawn until there's real proof.
Originally posted by Scott
Once again I can't read that page. The text encoding looks off or somethings? Plus I think it's bullshit. Find me the original information. If you don't have it then you have no proof. I'll consider the statement that the US gave saddam chemical weapons withdrawn until there's real proof.
The information given in the article is quite specific, and published in a paper with a large reach and readership. I cannot find any refutation of this article (or numerous that are similar or corroborate it). If I actually went to great lengths and dug out the evidence, I am sure you would still be unconvinced.
Scott, it would be great if your skepticism, and requirement of proof was just a little more even-handed. The US embarked on the war in Iraq with neither proof nor evidence of any of the so-called reasons given to the public for it. Yet you were the most vocal supporter of it : proof or evidence be damned.
If so, what?
Originally posted by Harald
Scott, is there any evidence that would convince you that the US sold Iraq WMD agents?
If so, what?
Bill of Sale.
Besides if I read through the bad formating at the page it does not say that the US sold WoMD to Iraq but instead sold so called "dual use" technology.
Oh and SJO circulation doesn't show good reporting. The NYT had to publish a multi-page retraction for the lies it published.
Next you guys are going to tell me that the US gave $40 million to the Taliban ? Another lie we all "know" to be true.
Originally posted by sammi jo
The information given in the article is quite specific, and published in a paper with a large reach and readership.
The problem with your article is that it is apparently from a Google archive. You keep on providing the same single source. Your article would be credible if it could cite a documented source. But it does not. It cites "a document". Nowhere does the article cite a tracable source.
Your post went as far as to say that you could neither corroborate nor refute the article.
"I cannot find any refutation of this article (or numerous that are similar or corroborate it)."
If you meant to say that you had done research that had corroborated the article, then you should provide that information whether or not you believe that Mr. Scott would accept your information (which, no doubt, he would not if it were as poorly documented as the first article or they were self-referring articles).
Originally posted by Scott
Bill of Sale.
Besides if I read through the bad formating at the page it does not say that the US sold WoMD to Iraq but instead sold so called "dual use" technology.
Here's the full text of former British Foreign Secretary Robin Cook's House of Commons resignation speech just before the Iraq war started. I imagine he is a little more qualified than most people re. what Saddam didn't have, and what he did...and where he got it from.
Iraq probably has no weapons of mass destruction in the commonly understood sense of the term - namely a credible device capable of being delivered against a strategic city target.
It probably still has biological toxins and battlefield chemical munitions, but it has had them since the 1980s when US companies sold Saddam anthrax agents and the then British Government approved chemical and munitions factories.
Why is it now so urgent that we should take military action to disarm a military capacity that has been there for 20 years, and which we helped to create?
Why is it necessary to resort to war this week, while Saddam's ambition to complete his weapons programme is blocked by the presence of UN inspectors?
Robin Cook was wrong on one thing: the anthrax (etc) was destroyed by either the inspectors after the 1991 Gulf War, or during unsupervised destruction programs before the inspection regime started, on the orders of Hussein's (deceased) brother in law, Hussein Kamel. Otherwise, his judgement of the situation has been proved, in the light of subesquent events to be spot on, unlike that of his lying ex-boss, Blair.
Cook's complete speech here:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/2859431.stm
Oh and SJO circulation doesn't show good reporting. The NYT had to publish a multi-page retraction for the lies it published.
True enough...agreed
Next you guys are going to tell me that the US gave $40 million to the Taliban ? Another lie we all "know" to be true. [/B]
Wasn't it $43 million? Can you prove to me that they didn't?