Saddam's capture

[violette829]

I think this is gonna be a wonderful holiday season just because we caught the bastard...I hate him, and so should u!!!!

Wait....I'm scared though. What if there are some terrorists here in the US who follow saddam (maddas) and just get really ticked off and come after us!

Is it just me or was SH complaining about pain in his head when they were examining him..He looked like one of those patients on the armo doctor commercials..LOL

yawn..no one cares about this post

Good Bye

[ckBejug]

Originally posted by Anonymouse I agree completely that this was a last ditch effort by Bush. There is even rumor that Saddam had already been captured and there was a deal involved with those who captured and the U.S. and the U.S. paid them off, because Saddam has dirt on Bush. Since the U.S. created Saddam, it is in every interest of the U.S. to 'rescue' him and now they have him, and isn't it coincidential that this came at a time when many U.S. soldiers were dying in Iraq, the talks of re-election are coming up. With the California recall a success, and Republicans firmly in power, the new 'electronic voting' scam on the way ( strangely enough provided by one of the companies with ties to Bush ), and now Saddams capture, this is a ticket for Bush to reclaim his post on the ivory tower, and continue his path towards destruction, which will end not in a very beautiful way.

I agree with you mouse. I do believe they had Saddam caught much before they released the information to the news and other media agencies around the world. But far be it for the Republican Party and Bush to be overshadowed by any of the activities of the Democratic Party, namely the following....


" Clark to testify at Milosevic war crimes trial

WASHINGTON (AP) — Retired Gen. Wesley Clark agreed to take a brief hiatus from his campaign for the Democratic presidential nomination to go to the Netherlands and testify at the U.N. war crimes trial of former Yugoslav President Slobodan Milosevic.
Clark said Sunday that the chief prosecutor in the trial at The Hague, Carla Del Ponte, has asked him to appear in mid-December to testify against the deposed Serb leader.

"Because of the historic importance of this proceeding — the first trial of a head of state before a war crimes tribunal — I have agreed to appear," Clark said in a statement.

He said the U.S. government has authorized his participation, and lawyers from the State Department and the Pentagon would accompany him. "

The war crimes tribunal and Genral Clark going there to testify was supposed to get A LOT of press coverage this weekend. Alas, it was overshadowed by everything Saddam Hussein. Who else heard about this over all the noise of the capture?? I'm not saying that it's the ONLY reason things came about as they did this weekend, but you can bet your ass it's one of the reasons.....

[ckBejug]

Originally posted by jahannam dude, how much more OBVIOUS can it be?
it's the money
it's the O-I-L...
why else wouldn't america "LET" Germany and Russia participate in the reconstruction of IRAQ???
I mean can you believe that??? ahhh
here's what happened:
the Bush administration's reputation had dropped BELOW freezing freakin level.
they HAD to come up with something before ALLLLLL these new candidates took over.
it's crystal clear.
it's a game the US is playing JUST as the game on september 11th of 2001...
anyone who DOESn't see that, with all my respect, but
you're gonna need to sunbath after rubbing "HEAT" all over you!!!

P.S. ckbejug, you my friend are truely brainwashed!
yalla bye

I actually agree with you on all this Jahhanamig. More or less. Now why am I brainwashed again? Because I don't think 'nanee nanee boo boo' is quite the language that should be used when talking about the destruction and capture of one of the most evil men out there? We win, you lose is not the kind of language I think respects all those people who died in his hands. Like I said... maybe it's just me.

[Arvestaked]

Originally posted by Anonymouse There is even rumor that Saddam had already been captured and there was a deal involved with those who captured and the U.S. and the U.S. paid them off, because Saddam has dirt on Bush.

As much as I hate politics, especially our government, I never believe rumors about our governments activity. Chances are it's pure, 100%, all-natural bullsh!t.

[dstyle]

Originally posted by patlajan It's always fun when people believe they have mind reading powers when their head is far up their ass.

Sounds like you know alot about having your head up your ass

[patlajan]

At the end of it all he was a man that destroyed himself. Attacked Iran and gained nothing. Attacked Kuwait and the world crushed him. And it was all for nothing. Had he stayed in his place he would have been living a posh life in one of his many palaces today.

[Dan]

Originally posted by patlajan Giving sattelite photoes to Iraq during the war with Iran is hardly "creating" him.
Most of the Iraqi weapons are Russian made. If it was about the money why weren't U.S. weapons manufacturers selling to Iraq in the 70's and 80's? If the Iraqi army attacked Iran or invaded Kuwait with M-16's in their hands that would be "creation" to me.
This idea that you have that someone can be created by someone else and the second person has no responsibility for their actions is yet another reason why you're full of boloney.

***

A PBS Frontline episode, "The Arming of Iraq" (1990) detailed much of the conventional and so-called "dual-use" weapons sold to Iraq. The public learned from other sources that at least since mid-1980s the US was selling chemical and biological material for weapons to Iraq and orchestrating private sales. These sales began soon after current Secretary of State, Donald Rumsfeld traveled to Baghdad in 1985 and met with Saddam Hussein as a private businessman on behalf of the Reagan administration. In the last major battle of the Iran-Iraq war, some 65,000 Iranians were killed, many by gas.

Investigators turned up new scandals, including the involvement of Banca Nazionale del Lavoro (BNL), the giant Italian bank, and many of the very same circles of arms suppliers, covert operators, and policy makers in and out of the US government and active in those roles for years. The National Security Council, CIA and other US agencies tacitly approved about $4 billion in unreported loans to Iraq through the giant Italian bank's Atlanta branch. Iraq, with the blessing and official approval of the US government, purchased computer controlled machine tools, computers, scientific instruments, special alloy steel and aluminum, chemicals, and other industrial goods for Iraq's missile, chemical, biological and nuclear weapons programs.

By late 1992, the sales of chemical and biological weapons were revealed. Congressional Records of Senator Riegle's investigation of the Gulf War Syndrome show that that the US government approved sales of large varieties of chemical and biological materials to Iraq. These included anthrax, components of mustard gas, botulinum toxins (which causes paralysis of the muscles involving swallowing and is often fatal), histoplasma capsulatum (which may cause pneumonia, enlargement of the liver and spleen, anemia, acute inflammatory skin disease marked by tender red nodules), and a host of other nasty chemicals materials.

http://www.counterpunch.org/boles1010.html

***

Published on Sunday, September 8, 2002 by the Sunday Herald (Scotland)
How Did Iraq Get Its Weapons? We Sold Them
by Neil Mackay and Felicity Arbuthnot

Reports by the US Senate's committee on banking, housing and urban affairs -- which oversees American exports policy -- reveal that the US, under the successive administrations of Ronald Reagan and George Bush Sr, sold materials including anthrax, VX nerve gas, West Nile fever germs and botulism to Iraq right up until March 1992, as well as germs similar to tuberculosis and pneumonia. Other bacteria sold included brucella melitensis, which damages major organs, and clostridium perfringens, which causes gas gangrene.

Classified US Defense Department documents also seen by the Sunday Herald show that Britain sold Iraq the drug pralidoxine, an antidote to nerve gas, in March 1992, after the end of the Gulf war. Pralidoxine can be reverse engineered to create nerve gas.

The Senate committee's reports on 'US Chemical and Biological Warfare-Related Dual-Use Exports to Iraq', undertaken in 1992 in the wake of the Gulf war, give the date and destination of all US exports. The reports show, for example, that on May 2, 1986, two batches of bacillus anthracis -- the micro-organism that causes anthrax -- were shipped to the Iraqi Ministry of Higher Education, along with two batches of the bacterium clostridium botulinum, the agent that causes deadly botulism poisoning.

One batch each of salmonella and E coli were shipped to the Iraqi State Company for Drug Industries on August 31, 1987. Other shipments went from the US to the Iraq Atomic Energy Commission on July 11, 1988; the Department of Biology at the University of Basrah in November 1989; the Department of Microbiology at Baghdad University in June 1985; the Ministry of Health in April 1985 and Officers' City, a military complex in Baghdad, in March and April 1986.

The shipments to Iraq went on even after Saddam Hussein ordered the gassing of the Kurdish town of Halabja, in which at least 5000 men, women and children died. The atrocity, which shocked the world, took place in March 1988, but a month later the components and materials of weapons of mass destruction were continuing to arrive in Baghdad from the US.

The Senate report also makes clear that: 'The United States provided the government of Iraq with 'dual use' licensed materials which assisted in the development of Iraqi chemical, biological and missile-system programs.'

This assistance, according to the report, included 'chemical warfare-agent precursors, chemical warfare-agent production facility plans and technical drawings, chemical warfare filling equipment, biological warfare-related materials, missile fabrication equipment and missile system guidance equipment'.

Donald Riegle, then chairman of the committee, said: 'UN inspectors had identified many United States manufactured items that had been exported from the United States to Iraq under licenses issued by the Department of Commerce, and [established] that these items were used to further Iraq's chemical and nuclear weapons development and its missile delivery system development programs.'

Riegle added that, between January 1985 and August 1990, the 'executive branch of our government approved 771 different export licenses for sale of dual-use technology to Iraq. I think that is a devastating record'.

It is thought the information contained in the Senate committee reports is likely to make up much of the 'evidence of proof' that Bush and Blair will reveal in the coming days to justify the US and Britain going to war with Iraq. It is unlikely, however, that the two leaders will admit it was the Western powers that armed Saddam with these weapons of mass destruction.

However, Bush and Blair will also have to prove that Saddam still has chemical, biological and nuclear capabilities. This looks like a difficult case to clinch in view of the fact that Scott Ritter, the UN's former chief weapons inspector in Iraq, says the United Nations destroyed most of Iraq's weapons of mass destruction and doubts that Saddam could have rebuilt his stocks by now.

According to Ritter, between 90% and 95% of Iraq's weapons of mass destruction were des troyed by the UN. He believes the remainder were probably used or destroyed during 'the ravages of the Gulf War'.

Ritter has described himself as a 'card-carrying Republican' who voted for George W Bush. Nevertheless, he has called the president a 'liar' over his claims that Saddam Hussein is a threat to America.

Ritter has also alleged that the manufacture of chemical and biological weapons emits certain gases, which would have been detected by satellite. 'We have seen none of this,' he insists. 'If Iraq was producing weapons today, we would have definitive proof.'

He also dismisses claims that Iraq may have a nuclear weapons capacity or be on the verge of attaining one, saying that gamma-particle atomic radiation from the radioactive materials in the warheads would also have been detected by western surveillance.

The UN's former co-ordinator in Iraq and former UN under-secretary general, Count Hans von Sponeck, has also told the Sunday Herald that he believes the West is lying about Iraq's weapons program.

Von Sponeck visited the Al-Dora and Faluja factories near Baghdad in 1999 after they were 'comprehensively trashed' on the orders of UN inspectors, on the grounds that they were suspected of being chemical weapons plants. He returned to the site late in July this year, with a German TV crew, and said both plants were still wrecked.

'We filmed the evidence of the dishonesty of the claims that they were producing chemical and biological weapons,' von Sponeck has told the Sunday Herald. 'They are indeed in the same destroyed state which we witnessed in 1999. There was no trace of any resumed activity at all.'

http://www.commondreams.org/headlines02/0908-08.htm

***

Rumsfeld 'offered help to Saddam'
Declassified papers leave the White House hawk exposed over his role during the Iran-Iraq war

Julian Borger in Washington
Tuesday December 31, 2002
The Guardian

The Reagan administration and its special Middle East envoy, Donald Rumsfeld, did little to stop Iraq developing weapons of mass destruction in the 1980s, even though they knew Saddam Hussein was using chemical weapons "almost daily" against Iran, it was reported yesterday.
US support for Baghdad during the Iran-Iraq war as a bulwark against Shi'ite militancy has been well known for some time, but using declassified government documents, the Washington Post provided new details yesterday about Mr Rumsfeld's role, and about the extent of the Reagan administration's knowledge of the use of chemical weapons.

The details will embarrass Mr Rumsfeld, who as defence secretary in the Bush administration is one of the leading hawks on Iraq, frequently denouncing it for its past use of such weapons.

The US provided less conventional military equipment than British or German companies but it did allow the export of biological agents, including anthrax; vital ingredients for chemical weapons; and cluster bombs sold by a CIA front organisation in Chile, the report says.

Intelligence on Iranian troop movements was provided, despite detailed knowledge of Iraq's use of nerve gas.

Rick Francona, an ex-army intelligence lieutenant-colonel who served in the US embassy in Baghdad in 1987 and 1988, told the Guardian: "We believed the Iraqis were using mustard gas all through the war, but that was not as sinister as nerve gas.

"They started using tabun [a nerve gas] as early as '83 or '84, but in a very limited way. They were probably figuring out how to use it. And in '88, they developed sarin."

On November 1 1983, the secretary of state, George Shultz, was passed intelligence reports of "almost daily use of CW [chemical weapons]" by Iraq.

However, 25 days later, Ronald Reagan signed a secret order instructing the administration to do "whatever was necessary and legal" to prevent Iraq losing the war.

In December Mr Rumsfeld, hired by President Reagan to serve as a Middle East troubleshooter, met Saddam Hussein in Baghdad and passed on the US willingness to help his regime and restore full diplomatic relations.

Mr Rumsfeld has said that he "cautioned" the Iraqi leader against using banned weapons. But there was no mention of such a warning in state department notes of the meeting.

Howard Teicher, an Iraq specialist in the Reagan White House, testified in a 1995 affidavit that the then CIA director, William Casey, used a Chilean firm, Cardoen, to send cluster bombs to use against Iran's "human wave" attacks.

A 1994 congressional inquiry also found that dozens of biological agents, including various strains of anthrax, had been shipped to Iraq by US companies, under licence from the commerce department.

Furthermore, in 1988, the Dow Chemical company sold $1.5m-worth (£930,000) of pesticides to Iraq despite suspicions they would be used for chemical warfare.

The only occasion that Iraq's use of banned weapons seems to have worried the Reagan administration came in 1988, after Lt Col Francona toured the battlefield on the al-Faw peninsula in southern Iraq and reported signs of sarin gas.

"When I was walking around I saw atropine injectors lying around. We saw decontamination fluid on vehicles, there were no insects," said Mr Francona, who has written a book on shifting US policy to Iraq titled Ally to Adversary. "There was a very quick response from Washington saying, 'Let's stop our cooperation' but it didn't last long - just weeks."

http://www.guardian.co.uk/Iraq/Story/0,2763,866942,00.html

***
The Riegle Report

U.S. Chemical and Biological Warfare-Related Dual Use Exports to Iraq and their Possible Impact on the Health Consequences of the Gulf War

http://www.gulfweb.org/bigdoc/report/riegle1.html

[patlajan]

The whole world supplied Iraq with weapons. At the time Iran was a bigger problem. To say that anthrax or E coli were exclusivly supplied by the U.S. is not true, becuase these microbes are widely available, and one does not need an exlusive relationship with the U.S. to get them.

U.S. support for Iraq increased only after Iraq attacked Iran on its own.

And it's also interesting how your two articles contradict each other. On one side th U.S. pumped Hussein with chemical and bilogical weapons, on the other side claims of weapons of mass destruction are lies.

[Dan]

The whole world supplied Iraq with weapons. At the time Iran was a bigger problem. To say that anthrax or E coli were exclusivly supplied by the U.S. is not true, becuase these microbes are widely available, and one does not need an exlusive relationship with the U.S. to get them.

yes, but my post was in reply to someone who said that the weapons iraqis had were not American at all..

And it's also interesting how your two articles contradict each other. On one side th U.S. pumped Hussein with chemical and bilogical weapons, on the other side claims of weapons of mass destruction are lies.

they are not contradictory.. there is a difference between claims of WMD in the PRESENT and the claims of Saddam having had chemical weapons and used them in the past on Iran, etc. Furthermore, the WMD that Iraq had were all under inspection for years and were destroyed by UN weapons inspectors. Having had WMD is NOT equal to HAVING them RIGHT NOW. So indeed..

[Anonymouse]

Originally posted by patlajan Giving sattelite photoes to Iraq during the war with Iran is hardly "creating" him.
Most of the Iraqi weapons are Russian made. If it was about the money why weren't U.S. weapons manufacturers selling to Iraq in the 70's and 80's? If the Iraqi army attacked Iran or invaded Kuwait with M-16's in their hands that would be "creation" to me.
This idea that you have that someone can be created by someone else and the second person has no responsibility for their actions is yet another reason why you're full of boloney.

But seriously now, why do you hate the way everything works? Were you abused as a child, having women troubles, your parents are overbearing, feeling isolated from society what what? Comon you can tell me.....here's some tissues....let it out....

Now the eggplant decides to pull a surfer and go for a low blow since he can't stand critical minds questioning. In the haze of mass mindedness throughout history, it has always been the individual that will suffer criticism from the masses, and thus the individual always has more to lose by being labeled with smear terms, than the mob has. Thus you aligning yourself with the mob, like surfer, and choosing to abide and agree with what is 'comfortable' to believe, essentially what the majority believe, and not question it, is essentially what people like Bush rely on.

To correct you, his "weapons" are both Russian and U.S. since both countries aided. You forget that it was Russia supporting Iran and the U.S. supporting Iraq. I don't know how ignorant you are on following history, but it was the U.S. that created Saddam, much like the U.S. created bin Laden and Al Qaeda, and days prior to 911 Bush Sr. met with Osama bin Ladens brother, but no one ever mentions these facts, and are simply 'heresy'.

You going into name calling and posting a picture of tissue, only confirms to me in my mind that you are incapable of assessing this on your own, and rely on the nice media outlets to do your thinking for you. It shows me a weak man, much like surfer, that when in the face of things contrary to what you have been spoon fed, you react in discontent and confusion, attacking those who dare to question your thought process, and now you will respond with some other childish xxxx about "no anon youre just [insert proper insult here]".

I guess, you have never thought as individual to know why I question things. Since you are a victim of mass-mindedness, whatever answer I give will be anathema for you.