Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

WHO ARMED IRAQ? MYTH VS. FACT (Charles Smith Alert!)
NewsMax.com ^ | March 18, 2003 | Charles Smith

Posted on 03/18/2003 7:06:49 AM PST by HighRoadToChina

click here to read article


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-4041-45 next last
To: HighRoadToChina
I can't recall the exact name, but IIRC, some Swedish "peace institute" did a real study
and found that about ONE PERCENT of the military purchases by Iraq
were of USA-made hardware.

The USA may have given Saddam the "go get 'em, boy!" encouragement in regard to Iran...
but apparently the USA DID NOT provide him the means (well, except via buying his oil).
21 posted on 03/18/2003 7:49:49 AM PST by VOA
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: HighRoadToChina
Thanks for the ping. Nice article. The US government should recite it in public often and loud.
22 posted on 03/18/2003 7:51:56 AM PST by DoughtyOne
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: VOA
Iran was a threat (Soviet Empire Puppet) then and are a terrorist threat now. Maybe they will be next. : )

Actually, if President Bush can changed minds toward democracy (less terrorist seeking, I see that happening now) in the middle east through force, trade policy and determination. He will stand tall as one of the greatest presidents ever.
23 posted on 03/18/2003 7:55:42 AM PST by BushCountry
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 21 | View Replies]

To: HighRoadToChina
I wonder if we are actually going to see any attempts at flying the Iraqi air force this time around.
24 posted on 03/18/2003 7:57:04 AM PST by Question_Assumptions
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: BushCountry
Iran was not a Soviet puppet, they hated the Soviets almost as much as they did the US.
25 posted on 03/18/2003 7:59:21 AM PST by dfwgator
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 23 | View Replies]

To: HighRoadToChina
read later
26 posted on 03/18/2003 8:12:33 AM PST by LiteKeeper
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: dfwgator
You're right. I assumed wrongly that since we turned a blind eye, that it had cold war implications. Sorry.
27 posted on 03/18/2003 8:12:51 AM PST by BushCountry
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 25 | View Replies]

To: HighRoadToChina
The propaganda spun by the far left is false.

...a redundant tautology, and true!

28 posted on 03/18/2003 8:13:59 AM PST by genew
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: *war_list
http://www.freerepublic.com/perl/bump-list
29 posted on 03/18/2003 8:42:31 AM PST by Free the USA (Stooge for the Rich)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 28 | View Replies]

To: HighRoadToChina
HI ALL. This is exactly what i confronted the anti war protesters in Sacramento at the first PEAS protest. They could not give me one american weapon iraq has...They get flustered and change the subject or start spouting the Main line that bush is hitler reincarnated. Or no blood for oil...Then you confront them with if its about oil would we not have taken it in 1991, Or better yet would we not be in alaska drilling like Ron Jermey on a good day....
GOd bless out troops and god bless our President...
Oh and Go to all the Support the troop Rallies this weekend.
30 posted on 03/18/2003 8:51:15 AM PST by DAPFE8900
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: finnman69
Yes, I have read all about the dual use stuff. That's a big difference from "WE GAVE THE IRAQI'S NERVE GAS".

I agree, most of the stuff was funneled through the University of Baghdad and the Iraqi Ministry of Health.

Iraq acknowledged that it procured, through the Technical and Scientific Materials Import Division (TSMID),very large quantities of complex growth media in 1988 but failed to provide an accounting for the purposes of this importation and for the use of a significant portion of it. Iraq claimed that, while the media was imported by TSMID, the import was on behalf of the Ministry of Health for the purposes of hospital diagnostic laboratories. This importation of media by types, quantities and packaging is grossly out of proportion to Iraq‘s stated requirements for hospital use. Iraq explained the excessive quantities imported and the inappropriate size of the packaging as being a one-of-a-kind mistake and attempted to justify the import as appropriate and required for medical diagnostic purposes. However, for hospital diagnostic purposes, only small quantities are needed. According to Iraq‘s declarations, which were imprecise and changing, over the period 1987-1994 Iraq‘s total hospital consumption of all such media was less than 200 kg per annum. But in 1988 alone, TSMID imported nearly 39,000 kg of such media, which has a manufacturer‘s guarantee of 4 to 5 years. A further incongruity was that, of all the types of media required for hospital use, only a select few were "mistakenly" imported by TSMID in large quantities. These did not include those most frequently used in hospitals. Furthermore, the packaging of TSMID imports was inconsistent with declared hospital usage: diagnostic assays use very small quantities of media and so, because the media deteriorates rapidly once a package has been opened, media for diagnostic purposes is normally distributed in 0.1-1 kg packages. However, the media imported by Iraq in 1988 was packaged in 25-100 kg drums. This style of packaging is consistent with the large-scale usage of media associated with the production of biological agents. The types of media imported are suitable for the production of anthrax and botulinum, known biological warfare agents researched by Iraq in its declared biological military program. [S/1995/284]

Iraq acknowledged the purchase by TSMID in 1989 of four filling machines, ostensibly for a biopesticide project at the Salman Pak site. Until this acknowledgement, Iraq, while declaring Salman Pak to be the site of its biological military research programme, had not declared any biopesticide activity there. Filling machines, while having many uses, are required for filling bacterial warfare agent into munitions or containers. TSMID procured a spray dryer in 1989. Again, it was claimed that this was for the above-mentioned biopesticide project at Salman Pak. This spray dryer has technical specifications which provide a capability of drying the bacterial slurry resulting from the fermentation process to produce dry matter with particle sizes in the range of 1 to 10 m. This particle size is associated with efficient dispersion of biological warfare agents, not with the production of biopesticides. Furthermore, dry bacterial matter is easier to store for longer periods. Such spray dryers, therefore, would be a crucial component in acquiring an indigenous capability to produce viable and durable biological weapons. TSMID attempted to order various named and virulent anthrax strains, known to be particularly appropriate for biological warfare purposes. Iraq flatly denied this, despite confirmation to the Commission by the potential supplier. [S/1995/284]

After intensive inspection efforts and accumulation of further findings by UNSCOM, on 01 July 1995, Iraq finally admitted for the first time that it indeed had had an offensive biological weapons program from April 1986 to September 1990. While acknowledging an offensive program that included the production of large quantities of two warfare agents at the Al Hakam facility, Iraq nevertheless firmly denied weaponization of these or any other biological warfare agents.

The weaponization and the broader scope of the biological warfare programme was disclosed only in August 1995, after the departure from Iraq of Lieutenant-General Hussein Kamel, former Minister of Defence and Minister Supervisor of the Military Industrialization Corporation. [S/1996/848] On 17 August 1995 Iraq informed UNSCOM that the full, final and complete disclosure of 04 August should not be considered valid. Iraq then presented a vastly different account of Iraq‘s past biological warfare program that included weaponization, additional agents and additional sites involved in the program. [S/1995/864]

Source and more info

31 posted on 03/18/2003 8:55:46 AM PST by ravingnutter
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 20 | View Replies]

To: finnman69
Thanks for your information!
32 posted on 03/18/2003 9:53:36 AM PST by HighRoadToChina (Never Again!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 15 | View Replies]

To: HighRoadToChina
Bump!
33 posted on 03/18/2003 10:01:21 AM PST by Concentrate
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 32 | View Replies]

To: HighRoadToChina
Excellent read, yet another debunking of the Loony Lefts propensity to lie.

Unfortunately their invincible ignorance cannot be overcome.

34 posted on 03/18/2003 10:30:30 AM PST by Nitro
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

Comment #35 Removed by Moderator

To: HighRoadToChina; *war_list; W.O.T.; 11th_VA; Libertarianize the GOP; Free the USA; knak; MadIvan; ..
Thanks for the info!

OFFICIAL BUMP(TOPIC)LIST

36 posted on 03/18/2003 11:09:43 AM PST by Ernest_at_the_Beach (Nuke Saddam ( Bush is thinking about it ) and then what about Germany and France?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: HighRoadToChina
Bump!!!
37 posted on 03/18/2003 11:11:22 AM PST by k2blader (Please do not feed the Tag Lion. ®oar.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: HighRoadToChina
Thank you for this vital info.!
38 posted on 03/18/2003 11:16:44 AM PST by nastypumps (nastypumps)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: HighRoadToChina
Bump
39 posted on 03/18/2003 11:56:53 AM PST by fatima (Prayers for all our troops and loved ones.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: HighRoadToChina
The fact is that Saddam owes billions to France, Russia and China for weapons purchases. Clearly, Iraq is buying more weapons from Paris and Beijing despite a U.N. arms embargo. Perhaps one reason why Paris, Moscow and Beijing oppose a war in Iraq is because they would lose their best customer.

That's absolutely right.

I'm bookmaking this thread.

40 posted on 03/18/2003 6:02:45 PM PST by Victoria Delsoul
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-4041-45 next last

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson