"Gunner" wrote in message
news
On Sun, 14 Sep 2003 05:09:33 GMT, "Calif Bill"
wrote:

What is really scary, other than your IQ, is that no WMD's were found!
Where did they go? IS a known fact he had them, even your beloved
Clinton
believed the fact, especially the proven fact he used them on his own
people
as well as Iranians. Which country is the holder of the weapons now?
They
scary fact is that zero has been found. Means that there was a very
complete transfer out of the country.
Bill

The word is, there were a large number of military and civilian
tractor trailer rigs, loaded, crossing into Seria and Iran weeks
before the war started, and returning empty. And they were heavily
guarded. Saddams bullion? WMD? No one knows, yet.

Gunner
snip
Great, now the right wing PNAC loonies are going to march the USA into
spending 180 billion a year on Syria and Iran!

And they still won't find any WMDs.

Mark Browne
P.S. Time for a regime change in Washington!

"Calif Bill" wrote in message
ink.net...
What is really scary, other than your IQ, is that no WMD's were found!
Where did they go? IS a known fact he had them, even your beloved Clinton
believed the fact, especially the proven fact he used them on his own
people
as well as Iranians. Which country is the holder of the weapons now?
They
scary fact is that zero has been found. Means that there was a very
complete transfer out of the country.
Bill
snip

Used them - like - all up; there is nothing left to find.

Mark Browne

Gunner wrote in message . ..
On Sun, 14 Sep 2003 05:09:33 GMT, "Calif Bill"
wrote:

What is really scary, other than your IQ, is that no WMD's were found!
Where did they go? IS a known fact he had them, even your beloved Clinton
believed the fact, especially the proven fact he used them on his own people
as well as Iranians. Which country is the holder of the weapons now? They
scary fact is that zero has been found. Means that there was a very
complete transfer out of the country.
Bill

The word is, there were a large number of military and civilian
tractor trailer rigs, loaded, crossing into Seria and Iran weeks
before the war started, and returning empty. And they were heavily
guarded. Saddams bullion? WMD? No one knows, yet.

Gunner


"At the core of liberalism is the spoiled child -
miserable, as all spoiled children are, unsatisfied,
demanding, ill-disciplined, despotic and useless.
Liberalism is a philosphy of sniveling brats." -- P.J. O'Rourke

Why do you think the axis of weasel was so active during the final few
weeks before the war? Fact is if we ever do find the stuff, it will
have France, Germany, and Russia all over it...

"Calif Bill" wrote in message
ink.net...
What is really scary, other than your IQ, is that no WMD's were found!
Where did they go? IS a known fact he had them, even your beloved Clinton
believed the fact, especially the proven fact he used them on his own
people
as well as Iranians. Which country is the holder of the weapons now?
They
scary fact is that zero has been found. Means that there was a very
complete transfer out of the country.
Bill

How about "means that they were used up"? Any chance of that? The "used
against his own people" thing happened more than just a few years ago.

"Mark Browne" wrote in message
news:cLZ8b.445300$uu5.78581@sccrnsc04...

"Calif Bill" wrote in message
ink.net...
What is really scary, other than your IQ, is that no WMD's were found!
Where did they go? IS a known fact he had them, even your beloved Clinton
believed the fact, especially the proven fact he used them on his own
people
as well as Iranians. Which country is the holder of the weapons now?
They
scary fact is that zero has been found. Means that there was a very
complete transfer out of the country.
Bill
snip

Used them - like - all up; there is nothing left to find.

Mark Browne



ROTFLMAO!!!! Hey Mark, I have some nice swamp land for you to buy.

BTW, where and when did he use them all up?

"Jim -" wrote in message
news:Hb_8b.445493$uu5.78735@sccrnsc04...

"Mark Browne" wrote in message
news:cLZ8b.445300$uu5.78581@sccrnsc04...

"Calif Bill" wrote in message
ink.net...
What is really scary, other than your IQ, is that no WMD's were found!
Where did they go? IS a known fact he had them, even your beloved
Clinton
believed the fact, especially the proven fact he used them on his own
people
as well as Iranians. Which country is the holder of the weapons now?
They
scary fact is that zero has been found. Means that there was a very
complete transfer out of the country.
Bill
snip

Used them - like - all up; there is nothing left to find.

Mark Browne



ROTFLMAO!!!! Hey Mark, I have some nice swamp land for you to buy.

BTW, where and when did he use them all up?


Have you been sleeping throught the last twenty or so years? I am not
normally a fan of clip and paste politics, but your question does not merit
the work of personally answering:

Hypocrisy Seen in U.S. Stand on Iraqi Arms
Mideast: Officials say American intelligence aided Baghdad's use of
chemical weapons against Iran in '80s.
By ROBIN WRIGHT, Times Staff Writer

WASHINGTON--A decade before the current showdown
over weapons of mass destruction, the United States turned
a blind eye when Iraq used American intelligence for operations
against Iran that made rampant use of chemical weapons and
ballistic missiles, according to senior administration and former
intelligence officials.

The attacks against civilian and military targets during the
Iran-Iraq War included some of the most pervasive uses of
chemical weapons anywhere since World War I.
The combination of Iraq's weapons of mass destruction and
American intelligence eventually helped turn the tide of the
eight-year war in Baghdad's favor. The collaboration reached a
peak shortly after a secret U.S. estimate projected for the first time
that Iran could win one of the century's bloodiest wars.
"We knew [the Iraqis] used chemicals in any major campaign,"
said a former U.S. intelligence official familiar with the American
role. "Although we publicly opposed the use of chemical weapons
anywhere in the world, we knew the intelligence we gave the Iraqis
would be used to develop their own operational plans for chemical
weapons."

Now, 10 years later, the United States is trying to rally world
support for the use of military strikes to destroy the same kinds of
Iraqi weapons-on the grounds that Iraqi President Saddam
Hussein should not be allowed to use them in the future.
As the U.S. struggles to assemble a new coalition to force Iraq
to give up such weapons, Clinton administration officials
acknowledge the apparent hypocrisy in U.S. policy. The United
States, under President Reagan, "virtually encouraged" the use of
chemical weapons a decade ago, noted a frustrated senior Clinton
administration official.

But the shift also reflects changes in the political landscape, U.S.
officials now argue. In the 1980s, "Saddam Hussein was the great
white hope" holding back what was then viewed as a militant
Islamic tide from Iran, the administration official said. "They built this
guy up and let him do whatever it took to win. And that included the
use of chemical weapons and ballistic missiles."
The climax of the relationship was the 1988 Iraqi counterattack
at the Faw Peninsula, a swampy but strategic southern oil port
captured by Iran in 1986. Iraq lost the peninsula in part because
U.S. intelligence misread an Iranian military buildup.
To help regain the peninsula, U.S. intelligence sources provided
data on Iran's equipment and troop strength that guided the Iraqi
military in designing and staging a dress rehearsal of the offensive,
the sources say. Washington had an "additional incentive" to
provide detailed data because of its role in the loss of Faw, a
former U.S. diplomat said.

Iraq's 1988 counterattack was a rapid success. And the
casualties were among the grisliest of the war. Thousands of Iranian
troops were killed, many because gas masks did not fit snugly
enough over their beards and thus allowed seepage of lethal toxins.
Empty syringes, some of which had contained a faulty antidote,
were found beside hundreds of bodies, the sources said.
The Reagan administration never actively encouraged Iraq's use
of chemical weapons or missiles. And officially, it was neutral in the
Iran-Iraq War.

But Washington was well aware that Iraq began using chemical
weapons in 1983 and intensified their use in 1986, creating a
pattern that made it virtually impossible not to know that Iraq
intended to use chemical weapons on the Faw Peninsula, former
intelligence officials said.

"By 1986, Iraq had proven itself better at the use of chemical
weapons than any fighting force in the world," said a former senior
U.S. diplomat involved in Iraq. By 1988, Iraq's use of gases had
also repeatedly been documented by U.N. specialists.
"It was all done with a wink and a nod," said a former U.S.
intelligence official. "We knew exactly where this stuff was going,
although we bent over backwards to look the other way."
Washington knew Iraq was "dumping boatloads" of chemical
weapons on Iranian positions, he added.
Missiles were also pivotal in turning the war in Iraq's favor,
especially when Iraq fired Russian-made Scuds on Iranian civilian
areas and major cities, including Tehran. The "war of the cities,"
during which Iran also targeted Iraq, eventually gave
better-equipped Iraq a strong psychological edge in the conflict.
Today, Reagan administration officials contend that they could
not have prevented Hussein's use of weapons of mass destruction.
"Get real. We couldn't have stopped him," (my note: so they provided him
with
assistance and intelligence instead?) said a former
National Security Councilstaffer. "The Iraqis were fighting for survival."
(my
note: they were the invadeders!)

Policy at the time, said another former Reagan official,
recognized that "Hussein is a *******. But at the time, he was our
*******."

Ironically, the most difficult task initially was persuading the
Iraqis to believe U.S. intelligence data.
"We gave them so much help with intelligence in the conduct of
overall campaigns-showing them where Iran was moving troops,
where it was most vulnerable, and projecting how to exploit both to
their advantage," the former intelligence official said.
At first, Iraq ignored or discarded much of the American data.
"It took a long time for them to trust us and listen to us," the official
said. "Eventually, it sunk in that we were telling them what they
needed to know."

The Faw operation was the high point of a blooming relationship
between Baghdad and Washington that was founded on a common
fear of and deep enmity toward Iran. It overcame more fundamental
differences over Israel that led Iraq to sever relations with the U.S.
in 1967.

After relations resumed in 1984, U.S. intelligence agents began
to provide data about Iran's military operations, largely from satellite
photography. The goal at one stage was to provide a counterweight
to the supply of arms and intelligence the Reagan administration was
providing to Iran as part of the 1985-86 arms-for-hostages swap,
according to Reagan administration officials.
But in 1986, as the Iran-Iraq War began to turn decisively in
Iran's favor, the pace of U.S. intelligence information escalated as
part of a bid to at least restore Iraq's edge.
The United States was not alone. In advance of the Faw
counteroffensive, France, Egypt and Jordan provided help in
reorganizing and retraining the weary Iraqi military, Reagan
administration officials point out.
And the very countries now most threatened by Iraq's weapons
of mass destruction helped pay for them, according to U.S. officials.
Of the $100 billion Iraq spent on arms during the 1980s, up to $40
billion was provided by Saudi Arabia, Kuwait and the United Arab
Emirates, either in cash or in free oil.

Copyright Los Angeles Times

"Mark Browne" wrote in message
news:iv_8b.443180$Ho3.71632@sccrnsc03...

"Jim -" wrote in message
news:Hb_8b.445493$uu5.78735@sccrnsc04...

"Mark Browne" wrote in message
news:cLZ8b.445300$uu5.78581@sccrnsc04...

"Calif Bill" wrote in message
ink.net...
What is really scary, other than your IQ, is that no WMD's were found!
Where did they go? IS a known fact he had them, even your beloved
Clinton
believed the fact, especially the proven fact he used them on his own
people
as well as Iranians. Which country is the holder of the weapons now?
They
scary fact is that zero has been found. Means that there was a very
complete transfer out of the country.
Bill
snip

Used them - like - all up; there is nothing left to find.

Mark Browne



ROTFLMAO!!!! Hey Mark, I have some nice swamp land for you to buy.

BTW, where and when did he use them all up?



Hypocrisy Seen in U.S. Stand on Iraqi Arms
Mideast: Officials say American intelligence aided Baghdad's use of
chemical weapons against Iran in '80s.
By ROBIN WRIGHT, Times Staff Writer

WASHINGTON--A decade before the current showdown
over weapons of mass destruction, the United States turned
a blind eye when Iraq used American intelligence for operations
against Iran that made rampant use of chemical weapons and
ballistic missiles, according to senior administration and former
intelligence officials.

The attacks against civilian and military targets during the
Iran-Iraq War included some of the most pervasive uses of
chemical weapons anywhere since World War I.
The combination of Iraq's weapons of mass destruction and
American intelligence eventually helped turn the tide of the
eight-year war in Baghdad's favor. The collaboration reached a
peak shortly after a secret U.S. estimate projected for the first time
that Iran could win one of the century's bloodiest wars.
"We knew [the Iraqis] used chemicals in any major campaign,"
said a former U.S. intelligence official familiar with the American
role. "Although we publicly opposed the use of chemical weapons
anywhere in the world, we knew the intelligence we gave the Iraqis
would be used to develop their own operational plans for chemical
weapons."

Now, 10 years later, the United States is trying to rally world
support for the use of military strikes to destroy the same kinds of
Iraqi weapons-on the grounds that Iraqi President Saddam
Hussein should not be allowed to use them in the future.
As the U.S. struggles to assemble a new coalition to force Iraq
to give up such weapons, Clinton administration officials
acknowledge the apparent hypocrisy in U.S. policy. The United
States, under President Reagan, "virtually encouraged" the use of
chemical weapons a decade ago, noted a frustrated senior Clinton
administration official.

But the shift also reflects changes in the political landscape, U.S.
officials now argue. In the 1980s, "Saddam Hussein was the great
white hope" holding back what was then viewed as a militant
Islamic tide from Iran, the administration official said. "They built this
guy up and let him do whatever it took to win. And that included the
use of chemical weapons and ballistic missiles."
The climax of the relationship was the 1988 Iraqi counterattack
at the Faw Peninsula, a swampy but strategic southern oil port
captured by Iran in 1986. Iraq lost the peninsula in part because
U.S. intelligence misread an Iranian military buildup.
To help regain the peninsula, U.S. intelligence sources provided
data on Iran's equipment and troop strength that guided the Iraqi
military in designing and staging a dress rehearsal of the offensive,
the sources say. Washington had an "additional incentive" to
provide detailed data because of its role in the loss of Faw, a
former U.S. diplomat said.

Iraq's 1988 counterattack was a rapid success. And the
casualties were among the grisliest of the war. Thousands of Iranian
troops were killed, many because gas masks did not fit snugly
enough over their beards and thus allowed seepage of lethal toxins.
Empty syringes, some of which had contained a faulty antidote,
were found beside hundreds of bodies, the sources said.
The Reagan administration never actively encouraged Iraq's use
of chemical weapons or missiles. And officially, it was neutral in the
Iran-Iraq War.

But Washington was well aware that Iraq began using chemical
weapons in 1983 and intensified their use in 1986, creating a
pattern that made it virtually impossible not to know that Iraq
intended to use chemical weapons on the Faw Peninsula, former
intelligence officials said.

"By 1986, Iraq had proven itself better at the use of chemical
weapons than any fighting force in the world," said a former senior
U.S. diplomat involved in Iraq. By 1988, Iraq's use of gases had
also repeatedly been documented by U.N. specialists.
"It was all done with a wink and a nod," said a former U.S.
intelligence official. "We knew exactly where this stuff was going,
although we bent over backwards to look the other way."
Washington knew Iraq was "dumping boatloads" of chemical
weapons on Iranian positions, he added.
Missiles were also pivotal in turning the war in Iraq's favor,
especially when Iraq fired Russian-made Scuds on Iranian civilian
areas and major cities, including Tehran. The "war of the cities,"
during which Iran also targeted Iraq, eventually gave
better-equipped Iraq a strong psychological edge in the conflict.
Today, Reagan administration officials contend that they could
not have prevented Hussein's use of weapons of mass destruction.
"Get real. We couldn't have stopped him," (my note: so they provided him
with
assistance and intelligence instead?) said a former
National Security Councilstaffer. "The Iraqis were fighting for survival."
(my
note: they were the invadeders!)

Policy at the time, said another former Reagan official,
recognized that "Hussein is a *******. But at the time, he was our
*******."

Ironically, the most difficult task initially was persuading the
Iraqis to believe U.S. intelligence data.
"We gave them so much help with intelligence in the conduct of
overall campaigns-showing them where Iran was moving troops,
where it was most vulnerable, and projecting how to exploit both to
their advantage," the former intelligence official said.
At first, Iraq ignored or discarded much of the American data.
"It took a long time for them to trust us and listen to us," the official
said. "Eventually, it sunk in that we were telling them what they
needed to know."

The Faw operation was the high point of a blooming relationship
between Baghdad and Washington that was founded on a common
fear of and deep enmity toward Iran. It overcame more fundamental
differences over Israel that led Iraq to sever relations with the U.S.
in 1967.

After relations resumed in 1984, U.S. intelligence agents began
to provide data about Iran's military operations, largely from satellite
photography. The goal at one stage was to provide a counterweight
to the supply of arms and intelligence the Reagan administration was
providing to Iran as part of the 1985-86 arms-for-hostages swap,
according to Reagan administration officials.
But in 1986, as the Iran-Iraq War began to turn decisively in
Iran's favor, the pace of U.S. intelligence information escalated as
part of a bid to at least restore Iraq's edge.
The United States was not alone. In advance of the Faw
counteroffensive, France, Egypt and Jordan provided help in
reorganizing and retraining the weary Iraqi military, Reagan
administration officials point out.
And the very countries now most threatened by Iraq's weapons
of mass destruction helped pay for them, according to U.S. officials.
Of the $100 billion Iraq spent on arms during the 1980s, up to $40
billion was provided by Saudi Arabia, Kuwait and the United Arab
Emirates, either in cash or in free oil.

Copyright Los Angeles Times



And because they reported it, it must be true.

Lets see, the story talks about the 1980's. Even Iraq admitted to having WOMD in the
1990's in their reports to the UN.

So where did they go Mark?

Have you been sleeping throught the last twenty or so years? I am not
normally a fan of clip and paste politics, but your question does not merit
the work of personally answering:

Translation: I am not able to.

Jim - wrote:

"Mark Browne" wrote in message
news:iv_8b.443180$Ho3.71632@sccrnsc03...


So where did they go Mark?

Have you been sleeping throught the last twenty or so years? I am not
normally a fan of clip and paste politics, but your question does not merit
the work of personally answering:

Translation: I am not able to.


I don't usually even read "Jim's" posts, but he's posted yet another
example of the typical dumber-than-dirt-yet-smug-in-his-ignorance
right-wing interpretation of someone yet again telling him that what
he's posted simply isn't worth the effort of a reasoned response.

Here's a hint, Jim: Mark is *able* to respond, but your post isn't worth
the effort.

Now, go give a few of your right-wing buddies the usual high five, eh?

Stupid is as stupid does.




--
* * *
email sent to will *never* get to me.

snip
And because they reported it, it must be true.

Sounds good to me; it does dovetail rather nicely with what I have
personally experienced when traveling in the middle east. This is in rather
sharp contrast with much of what has been said by people of the PNAC
persuasion.

Lets see, the story talks about the 1980's. Even Iraq admitted to having
WOMD in the
1990's in their reports to the UN.

So where did they go Mark?

They said they destroyed them, and so far, it seems to be the truth. You do
seem to think a lot of your opinion about how clueless the inspectors are.
Perhaps you wish to go over to the middle east and show these stupid
inspectors how to search of the "missing" WMDs. I have a shovel, if you
want to go over and dig up the missing weapons I would be happy to borrow it
to you. Until then, the preponderance of evidence is that the weapons are
destroyed.

Have you been sleeping through the last twenty or so years? I am not
normally a fan of clip and paste politics, but your question does not
merit
the work of personally answering:

Translation: I am not able to.

Your provocation does not change the amount of effort I care to expend on
answering you. You could take my statement face value and realize that I
really don't think that responding to you is worth a lot of effort. Now if
you showed any signs that you have done the work and actually understood the
issues it might be a different answer.

When you offer a thought provoking post, I will think about it and get back
to you. I am still working though your post on the veracity biblical texts.

Mark Browne

In article GJZ8b.442022$o%2.199341@sccrnsc02, Mark Browne
wrote:

"Gunner" wrote in message
news

The word is, there were a large number of military and civilian
tractor trailer rigs, loaded, crossing into Seria and Iran weeks
before the war started, and returning empty. And they were heavily
guarded. Saddams bullion? WMD? No one knows, yet.

Gunner
snip
Great, now the right wing PNAC loonies are going to march the USA into
spending 180 billion a year on Syria and Iran!

And they still won't find any WMDs.


Al Qaida was never the real problem...Afghanistan was!

Whoops. Afghanista was never the real problem...Iraq was!

Whoops. Iraq was never the real problem...Iran, Syria, Pakistan, and
Jordan are the _real_ problems!

We dare not mention Saudi Arabia, as they are our most important ally
in the region. Besides, they don't let women vote or drive, they ban
Xtian and Jewish churches...they are true "compassionate
conservatives." Our kind of people. The fact that 17 of the 19
hijackers came from Saudi Arabia and _none_ came from either
Afghanistan or Iraq means nothing. The fact that three Saudi
princelings were the main money source for the hijackers means nothing.
Saudi Arabia is our friend, so we will invade and occupy their enemies.
While they laugh. And prepare for the next attack on the infidels.


--Tim May