posted February 21, 2003 06:47 PM              

Jakie, did you actually say that we created Bin Laden and Saddam?

posted February 23, 2003 11:22 AM              

Yes, I said that the United States created Saddam Hussein and Bib Laden...and this is not a secret for anybody.

quote:

---

Date: Friday, February 13, 1998 7:47AM
06:22 PM ET 02/12/98

US helped Iraq develop bio, chemical arms-report

LONDON (Reuters) - The United States helped Iraq develop its chemical and biological weapons programs in the 1980s while Britain sold Baghdad the antidote to nerve gas as late as March 1992, Britain's Channel Four television news said Thursday.
The program said it had found U.S. intelligence documents which showed 14 consignments of biological materials were exported from the United States to Iraq between 1985 and 1989.

These included 19 batches of anthrax bacteria and 15 batches of botulinum, the organism that causes botulism. The exports, backed by the State Department, were licensed by the Department of Commerce, it said.

The program said Iraq had bought other toxins from the United States while the atomic energy commission in Baghdad acquired human genetic material and E. coli bacteria for use as a culture medium.

No less than 29 batches of material were sent after Iraq had used gas in an attack on the Kurdish town of Halabja in 1988, killing 5,000 people, it said.

Stephen Bryen, a former senior Pentagon official in the 1980s, said he and a few colleagues had tried hard to stop the exports of sensitive materials.

"They just were stupid, utterly stupid, and the people who did it I don't think had even a slight grasp of what they were doing," he told Channel Four.

He said he had managed to stop a 1988 order from Iraq for 1.5 million doses of atropine, which is used to protect troops from nerve gas.

Channel Four news quoted from a classified U.S. Department of Defense document which it said showed Iraq had bought pralidoxine -- an antidote to nerve gas -- from Britain in March 1992, after the Gulf War.

"This (sale) took place, as I understand it, long before we came into government," British Defense Secretary George Robertson told the program. #5 13-FEB-1998 17:29:59.31 NEWMAIL "We'll investigate it, but I understand it probably was exported on the grounds that it was medication and medications are allowable exports to Iraq today."

Channel Four also said it had uncovered U.S. intelligence documents which showed London and Washington knew as long ago as August 1990 of the existence of Agent 15, a deadly nerve gas.
Robertson, releasing what he said was new information about Iraq's 1991 weapon stocks, on Monday said Iraqi leader Saddam Hussein may have possessed large quantities of Agent 15.

"There may well have been some knowledge of the range of things Saddam might have had at that time but the concrete information has only gradually come forward (in) recent times," Robertson told Channel Four.

(c) REUTERS

---

And if you want to know the whole story, please check this link, from where I took some quotes that I'm posting bellow :
http://www.truthout.org/docs_02/10.01A.nswk.saddam.htm

quote:

---

How Saddam Happened -- America Helped Make a Monster
What to do with him--and what happens after he's gone--

Christopher Dickey and Evan Thomas With Mark Hosenball, Roy Gutman and John Barry

NEWSWEEK
Monday, 23 September, 2002

The last time Donald Rumsfeld saw Saddam Hussein, he gave him a cordial handshake. The date was almost 20 years ago, Dec. 20, 1983; an official Iraqi television crew recorded the historic moment.

The once and future Defense secretary, at the time a private citizen, had been sent by President Ronald Reagan to Baghdad as a special envoy. Saddam Hussein, armed with a pistol on his hip, seemed "vigorous and confident," according to a now declassified State Department cable obtained by NEWSWEEK.

Rumsfeld "conveyed the President's greetings and expressed his pleasure at being in Baghdad," wrote the notetaker. Then the two men got down to business, talking about the need to improve relations between their two countries.

Like most foreign-policy insiders, Rumsfeld was aware that Saddam was a murderous thug who supported terrorists and was trying to build a nuclear weapon. (The Israelis had already bombed Iraq's nuclear reactor at Osirak.) But at the time, America's big worry was Iran, not Iraq.

The Reagan administration feared that the Iranian revolutionaries who had overthrown the shah (and taken hostage American diplomats for 444 days in 1979-81) would overrun the Middle East and its vital oilfields. On the--theory that the enemy of my enemy is my friend, the Reaganites were seeking to support Iraq in a long and bloody war against Iran.

The meeting between Rumsfeld and Saddam was consequential: for the next five years, until Iran finally capitulated, the United States backed Saddam's armies with military intelligence, economic aid and covert supplies of munitions....

...The history of America's relations with Saddam is one of the sorrier tales in American foreign policy....

...The war against Iran was going badly by 1982. Iran's "human wave attacks" threatened to overrun Saddam's armies. Washington decided to give Iraq a helping hand. After Rumsfeld's visit to Baghdad in 1983, U.S. intelligence began supplying the Iraqi dictator with satellite photos showing Iranian deployments. Official documents suggest that America may also have secretly arranged for tanks and other military hardware to be shipped to Iraq in a swap deal--American tanks to Egypt, Egyptian tanks to Iraq...

...According to confidential Commerce Department export-control documents obtained by NEWSWEEK, the shopping list included a computerized database for Saddam's Interior Ministry (presumably to help keep track of political opponents); helicopters to transport Iraqi officials; television cameras for "video surveillance applications"; chemical-analysis equipment for the Iraq Atomic Energy Commission (IAEC), and, most unsettling, numerous shipments of "bacteria/fungi/protozoa" to the IAEC. According to former officials, the bacteria cultures could be used to make biological weapons, including anthrax. The State Department also approved the shipment of 1.5 million atropine injectors, for use against the effects of chemical weapons, but the Pentagon blocked the sale. The helicopters, some American officials later surmised, were used to spray poison gas on the Kurds....

...The United States was much more concerned with protecting Iraqi oil from attacks by Iran as it was shipped through the Persian Gulf....

...Saddam was feeling cocky. With the support of the West, he had defeated the Islamic revolutionaries in Iran. America favored him as a regional pillar; European and American corporations were vying for contracts with Iraq...

---

Again, I apologize if I offended anyone...my intention was just to say what I think and what are my feelings regarding this war.

posted February 24, 2003 04:55 PM            

I wasn't calm about last week and that's why I thought I was finished with this thread. I was frustrated because I thought that I had found a place where there were alot of truth seekers and became quickly disillusioned about that because of this discussion.
But I have meditated on it and decided not to let it upset me so.
Sorry if I angered some with my opinion, that wasn't my intention. I really do like you all for yoursELVES, no matter if our egos disagree on some things.

Umm..I do want to leave this here in case anyone is interested... http://truthout.org/docs_02/022203A.htm

posted February 24, 2003 05:22 PM              

Some positive aspects of this thread:

1) I have gained from this thread is that there is a lot of dispute throughout the world as to war.

2) Advances in technology have helped to link anti-war movements throughout the world giving them more strength and a louder voice.

posted February 24, 2003 05:57 PM            

Let our lite shine around the world...

juniperb

posted February 24, 2003 08:54 PM              

I'm just kidding you know!

posted February 25, 2003 06:57 PM            

So, what you are saying is that a truthseeker is one that would not advocate the liberation of country through war? You became disillusioned because you wanted to find a forum where everybody was seeking the same truth, in essence your truth.

We are all different and have varying opinions concerning this topic. That does not mean we are not seeking a truth or that we are not spiritual, we are just different.

I keep falling back on my former premise regarding liberation.

If someone, anyone, had come to the aid of my ancestors or other American Indian tribes, we would have a much larger population of American Indians and maybe there would be no reservations. Instead many lives were extinguished because they were left to fight a losing battle alone.

If Victorio or Crazy Horse had been asked "Will you potentially sacrifice 10% of your tribal population in return for freedom from systematic eradication caused the powers that be(not just USA, but Spain and Mexico were just as much to blame)?"

I know the answer to that. I know because it is documented and even when Cochise, Geronimo and Victorio faced losing all, they still rallied the people to fight saying "There is a strong chance you will all die, but if we remain prisoners, we will surely die without our freedom". So they became "Indeh" the people that are already dead.

Visit a reservation someday to see the result of not getting involved.

------------------
"Lahn dádzaayú nahikai leh ni' nyelíí k'ehge," Goyathlay (Geronimo)

"Once we moved like the Wind"

posted February 25, 2003 07:32 PM              

I'm anti-christian these days not because of the beleif, but what the establishment did. Star Trek does have the right philosophy on cultural contamination, i'm sad to say.

posted February 25, 2003 07:47 PM            

Pidua,
I'm pretty sick of hearing this tired argument of how we need to 'liberate' Iraq by blowing up tens of thousands of them.
Any serious investigation into the reasoning behind the Bush Administration will show that humanitarian aid is NOT their motivation.
If you were to ask the average Iraqi citizen if they would like the US to come to their aid at the cost of seeing their loved ones blown to smithereens in the process, I don't think they would find that an acceptable solution. ( http://www.csmonitor.com/2003/0221/p07s01-woiq.html , http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article1354.htm )
Ironic that you use the colonization of the Americas as an example as to why we should give a "helping" hand to the Iraqi populous...It's in the same spirit of 'colonization' that we will be invading Iraq. In fact, if you want to draw a parallel between some 'what-if' scenario regarding an intervention for the benefit of the Native Americans, it would be better drawn to the stance that France and others have taken against this imperialistic move by the U.S.

Oh, and did you say 'my truth'? No..truth is no more mine than yours or anyone elses. Truth IS Truth. I was dissillusioned to find so many seekers utterly duped by bogus government propaganda.