March 1988. A little too far back. In fact we(U.S.) probably supplied the gas or the ingredients to make it to Sadam.
Politics is such a nasty business.

^^ that is spot on.

Thus the accuracy of the statement that Iraq did have WMDs in its possession. Lets not fool ourselves, the US (defence chiefs, senior politicians) knows how much was used against Iran and the Kurds, and knows how much was supplied in the first place. the reference by someone earlier on about toys in a sandpit is a perfect analogy.

And yet, here at the Australian National University you still get leftwing nutters proclaiming that Iraq has never had weapons in any form, and their use against Iran was really the work of Israel and the US....:damn:

Gas or other chemicals are not WMDs
you need a hell of a lot of gas and very large deployment systems before you can achieve the kind of "mass destruction" you get from WMDs.
Whilst chlorine may not be the most potent of chemicals, many hundreds of tonnes where used in WW2 with only limited effect. To cause mass destruction you would need to release 100s of tonnes quickly in a populated area; impossible with any standard delivery system. Kurdish villages is one thing, mass destruction is another.
Biological and nuclear weapons are the only weapons capable of mass destruction with a single use.

Prahaps a mute point tho.
*edit* I'm not trying to make any political point.

Weapon of mass destruction (WMD) is a term used to describe a munition with the capacity to indiscriminately kill large numbers of living beings. The phrase broadly encompasses several areas of weapon synthesis, including nuclear, biological, chemical (NBC) and, increasingly, radiological weapons.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Weapons...ss_destruction

Some chemical weapons are WMDs, some are not.

There is no publicly known weapons system that can deliver enough chemical material to directly kill more than ten - one hundred thousand people* as a result of chemical exposure in one use** of the weapon.
That's under optimal conditions for chemical weapons, using the most powerful toxins most effectively. The chemical weapons in Iraq didn't come close to this level of effectiveness and even if they did, one hundred thousand people isn't really "mass" destruction by the standards that other modern "wide-effect" weapons, such as nuclear and biological weapons, can achieve with the densely populated cities around the world.

However, where ever you draw the line between destruction and mass destruction, a chemical weapon is only a WMD if it is effective enough to cause mass destruction. Some chemical weapons are, some are not. The ones found in Iraq are not by any sensible standard.
Just like you wouldn't call the chlorine taps in WW1 "mass destruction" weapons, we shouldn't call Iraq's chemical weapons WMD's.
In short: just because it is chemical weapon, doesn't mean it is a WMD.
The common cold could be used as a biological weapon, but it would not be effective enough to be a Biological WMD.

*A wide guess broadly based on a number of different estimates and guesses Iv'e come across.
**We can not count multiple deployments as that would make any weapon a WMD.

Back on topic:

A Marine who served in Afghan and Iraq is hardly a unbiased witness to the conflict in Iraq. A 22 year old Sergeant may have interesting views about the situation there, but not views anyone should use to form a political opinion with, without understanding a lot more in order to put the Marines views in the proper context and be able to view them critically.

One thing the American public doesn’t understand about Iraq
 

Sure.
But the same thing goes for a 44 year old journalist who knows that he'll only be on screen with a catchy news item (and who may sometimes have a political agenda as well)...
:-?

It's always puzzled me why institutions of higher education can be home to some of the dumbest people in society.

I dare to question your proclaim.:cool:

And yes the west was delivering Saddam with material for Chemical weapons.
One (a countryman of me) is put in jail therefore here in the Netherlands.:oops:

When you say "yes, the west", do you mean that this person was a government sales agent representing a western country?

Or was he a private citizen, acting on his own initiative or on behalf of a non-governmental company or organization, looking for a wad of cash to top up their Swiss bank account?

Or do you not see a difference between these?

Well, I see in a way, but schouldn't he be stopped in time by the covernment?
And what about the Frence covernment?

Was the government aware of the illegal nature of the transaction before the material was delivered? If yes, was there another reason why they didn't halt the shipments(s)? Unaware of potential use? Waiting to catch a bigger fish? I'm just asking. Are all the facts known?
I've only considered France western in the geographic sense. :p

Some (WARNING: UNDERSTATEMENT AHEAD!) cynical and sarcastic reading: Oysters and Foie Gras and, By the Way, Saddam Was Hanged.

Oh, everyone has an agenda. Even everyone who has posted here.
With so many different views, agendas and angles on political issues most people either:

a) Decide its all to much and the world is a confusing place and go and make a cuppa tea.

b) Side with the personality, religion, country or people they most identify with.

c) Side against the personality, religion, country or people they least identify with.

Everyone is effected by effected by a, b or c to some extent; some more obviously then others.
Personally I find I never have enough information I can trust and I lack background knowledge of people, places and history. I end up in category 'a'.

'a' is bad because you don't count until you can decide. Someone in 'a' may never make a difference for the better.

'b' is bad because it lacks questioning and your side may be the "wrong" one. Someone in 'b' might not question their guiding government, religion, people or personality.

'c' is bad because it lacks self criticism and the side you are against may be the "right" one. Someone in 'c' might be blinded by their prejudice against people.

'a' and 'b' often go hand in hand, but not always.

Occasionally someone will chose 'd'.
'd' is leading people your self.

'd' is bad because a room full of leaders, by definition can't achieve goals together unless some of the "leaders" are lead by other leaders. Those being lead are no longer 'd' (leaders), they are now 'b' (see above). If all the leaders remain independent then the group as a whole becomes as directionless as 'a'.
And then finally, if you do end up leading people independently, you will almost certainly be corrupted.

The UN is a good example of a room full of leaders.


Its important to know I'm talking about political issues here, not general conflicts such as ongoing war.

So whats the best option if you want to make the "right" choice?
I think the best thing to do is to try and understand all the underlining systems like this. Try to escape the influences of 'b' and 'c', gain all the knowledge you can and then make a compromise. After you do that act on your choice, even if you just change the way you vote next time.

Option 'd' is out of the reach of most people and is almost impossible to get right and stay uncorrupted....unless you are the next Gandhi - Mandela.


This could all be bull **** btw, I'm making it up as I go along and I have no real knowledge of political philosophy! ;)

*edit* Wish I could get my self to write that much back in education, my spell check must be burnt out.
*edit#2* This isnt off-topic, its just meta-topic ;)

You are applying your own definition of what constitutes a large number of people and what kind of delivery in one use makes a WMD.
300 chemical artillery rounds fired in one location is "A" weapon of mass destruction.
The term WMD's first recorded use was the bombing of a town of 5,000 during the Spanish civil war in 1937.

What was found after the invasion was old and useless. It couldn't be termed a WMD. If the coalition had found just one modern up to date container of a chemical/biological or nuclear weapon Bush's reasons for invasion would have been vindicated. None were found.

OK, lets go step, by step here...

You said:
"You are applying your own definition of what constitutes a large number of people and what kind of delivery in one use makes a WMD."

Yes, I was. However, to quote myself:

"where ever you draw the line between destruction and mass destruction, a chemical weapon is only a WMD if it is effective enough to cause mass" destruction." "

You said:
"300 chemical artillery rounds fired in one location is "A" weapon of mass destruction."
"The term WMD's first recorded use was the bombing of a town of 5,000 during the Spanish civil war in 1937."

That's a bit like saying 3,000,000 knife wielding men is a weapon of mass destruction. Clearly not the case. A weapon of mass destruction is denoted by the destruction a single weapon used once does. Its possible to kill millions if you have 3,000,000 knife wielding men and a good opportunity. That does not make it a WMD at all.
There is a big difference between mass destruction as seen at Gernika, Spain and a weapon of mass destruction as seen at Hiroshima.
If the term was used at Gernika, then it's meaning has significantly changed.

You said:
"What was found after the invasion was old and useless."

No, chemical weapons where used with effect by Iraq against it's own people. Not a WMD, but not useless either.


Gah, talk about getting weighed down in definitions.
How ever you describe concepts, it is the concept, not the word that counts.

One thing the American public doesn’t understand about Iraq
 

The Dutchman was a private citizen, a businessman actually, who tried to hide his trade with Saddam from public scrunity. A few years ago he spoke about his connections with Saddam. The Dutch Justice system then started a criminal inquiry, putting one of our top prosecutors (Fred Teeven - for insiders; since last November's elections a Member of Parliament) on the case, which was in legal circles considered a 'mission impossible'. Nevertheless, the businessman, Van Anschat, was convicted for crimes against humanity. I hope for him that he has a Swiss bank account because he will now face civil claims from lawyers of Kurdish victims of Saddam.

But to answer The Avon Lady, this kind of help to Saddam was of course considered illegal, but - as anybody will understand - obscure transactions are very difficult to prevent in an open society.