A Voice in the Wilderness

[JayB]

Confessions of an Anti-Sanctions Activist

by Charles M. Brown

 

On May 22, 2003, the United Nations (U.N.) lifted the sanctions regime it had imposed on Iraq twelve years earlier. The end of the economic embargo invites a review of the "peace" activism that was aimed at bringing down the Iraq sanctions while Saddam Hussein ruled. Anti-sanctions groups sought to relieve the suffering of the Iraqi people. In fact, they became; whether wittingly or unwittingly; mouthpieces for Saddam in the United States. I should know: I have the dubious distinction of having been one of them

Rest of Article...

 

[Jim]

Intersting article from an "insider" with the peace movement, but despite his supposedly first-hand knowledge, conviently lacking in context. Some great quotes:

 

"Our myopia arose largely from the fact that we accepted—or at least did not publicly challenge—the demonstrably false notion that Saddam's regime acted in the best interests of the Iraqi people."

 

Hel-looo! Then why did we buddy-buddy up to him, supply him with chemical and bio-weapons, arm him to the teeth during the Iraq war, and fail to crunch him in the first Gulf war. Ahh, national interests. This is essentially another "bad dog, no bone" story.

[Dru]

JayB said:

Confessions of an Anti-Sanctions Activist

by Charles M. Brown

 

 

 

Good Grief!!!

[JayB]

Jim said:

Intersting article from an "insider" with the peace movement, but despite his supposedly first-hand knowledge, conviently lacking in context. Some great quotes:

 

"Our myopia arose largely from the fact that we accepted—or at least did not publicly challenge—the demonstrably false notion that Saddam's regime acted in the best interests of the Iraqi people."

 

Hel-looo! Then why did we buddy-buddy up to him, supply him with chemical and bio-weapons, arm him to the teeth during the Iraq war, and fail to crunch him in the first Gulf war. Ahh, national interests. This is essentially another "bad dog, no bone" story.

 

Same reason we sided with the Russians during WWII, then spent the remainder of the century in conflict with them. We made an unsavory alliance to neutralize the greater threat, as we percieved it at the time. Duh. This is not a new strategy, and its persistent recurrence throughout history suggests that when one is operating in the real world - hard choices and compromises are an something that one occaisionally has to contend with. I hate to be the one to break this profoundly disconcerting news to you, and regret that they exluded this and many other unpalatable aspects of reality from the curriculum at the Socialist Fanatasy Camp.

 

We were hardly alone in arming Iraq, and our role was conisderably less substantial than the major European powers and the Soviets. Anyone interested in facts - which may well exclude a wide swath of the posters on this board - can find out exactly who sent what to Iraq, and when Here: Trends in Arms Exports to the Middle East Since the End of the Cold War.

[Braumeister]

JayB said:

 

I hate to be the one to break this profoundly disconcerting news to you, and regret that they exluded this and many other unpalatable aspects of reality from the curriculum at the Socialist Fanatasy Camp.

 

Right on! Way to say it like it is, JayB!

[Peter_Puget]

Here is a voice from the Iraqi the Wilderness:

 

 

Khaled Al-Qishtini wrote -

 

 

"The coalition forces will not withdraw from Iraq until they complete their mission. They are in Iraq at the will of the overwhelming majority of the people, and their mission is a noble and blessed one. They strengthen their presence [in Iraq] every day, with forces from other countries [whose leaders have] grasped the nobility of the mission carried out by the coalition forces. This mission is to sow the seeds of legitimacy of rule and of law, to establish a democratic government, to liberate women from the slavery and backwardness to which they are subject, to spread transparency in [public] administration, and to spread rationality and the spirit of science in education and in defending human rights."

 

PP

 

[Jim]

JaYB said "Same reason we sided with the Russians during WWII, then spent the remainder of the century in conflict with them. We made an unsavory alliance to neutralize the greater threat, as we percieved it at the time. Duh. This is not a new strategy, and its persistent recurrence throughout history suggests that when one is operating in the real world - hard choices and compromises are an something that one occaisionally has to contend with. I hate to be the one to break this profoundly disconcerting news to you, and regret that they exluded this and many other unpalatable aspects of reality from the curriculum at the Socialist Fanatasy Camp. "

 

Oh it's clear now. No reason to potentially learn from our mistakes in the past and taking a long-term view of diplomacy, we'll just muck along in our short-term visions. This has proven costly over and over again. You could make a reasonable argument regarding the circumstances in WWII and the Ruskies, but the common enemy kidna falls flat with Iraq and Iran. I'm not disputing the contentions of the article you pointed out - that Iraq was run by a nasty guy who was trying to worm out of the santions using his people as pawns. It's just that there is always a historical amensia associated with these "bad dog" stories. I think the circular logic goes something like this:

 

Iraq is better than Iran so we give chemical and bio weapons to Iraq.

 

Iraqi leader pulls on leash too much and steps out of line. Invades neighbor. Bad dog!

 

US must discipline bad dog - But - leave him in power 'cause heavens knows we might get something worse like an Islamic regime rather than a secular one.

 

Iraq leader thumbs his nose. Look - bad dog has WMD (see number 1). Must discipline bad dog.

 

Give me a break! The old "this is the way the world works" or "it's worked before it will work again" standards are lame. Cue: wave stars and stripes, talk about respecting human rights, discipline bad dog.

 

[Dr_Flash_Amazing]

Peter_Puget said:

Here is a voice from the Iraqi the Wilderness:

 

 

Khaled Al-Qishtini wrote -

 

 

"The coalition forces will not withdraw from Iraq until they complete their mission. They are in Iraq at the will of the overwhelming majority of the people, and their mission is a noble and blessed one. They strengthen their presence [in Iraq] every day, with forces from other countries [whose leaders have] grasped the nobility of the mission carried out by the coalition forces. This mission is to sow the seeds of legitimacy of rule and of law, to establish a democratic government, to liberate women from the slavery and backwardness to which they are subject, to spread transparency in [public] administration, and to spread rationality and the spirit of science in education and in defending human rights."

 

PP

 

Cripes, that reads like satire. Perhaps it is? The last few lines alone especially. George Bush, pushing for "transparency in public administration"?! That'll be the fucking day.

[JayB]

Jim said:

JaYB said "Same reason we sided with the Russians during WWII, then spent the remainder of the century in conflict with them. We made an unsavory alliance to neutralize the greater threat, as we percieved it at the time. Duh. This is not a new strategy, and its persistent recurrence throughout history suggests that when one is operating in the real world - hard choices and compromises are an something that one occaisionally has to contend with. I hate to be the one to break this profoundly disconcerting news to you, and regret that they exluded this and many other unpalatable aspects of reality from the curriculum at the Socialist Fanatasy Camp. "

 

Oh it's clear now. No reason to potentially learn from our mistakes in the past and taking a long-term view of diplomacy, we'll just muck along in our short-term visions. This has proven costly over and over again. You could make a reasonable argument regarding the circumstances in WWII and the Ruskies, but the common enemy kidna falls flat with Iraq and Iran. I'm not disputing the contentions of the article you pointed out - that Iraq was run by a nasty guy who was trying to worm out of the santions using his people as pawns. It's just that there is always a historical amensia associated with these "bad dog" stories. I think the circular logic goes something like this:

 

Iraq is better than Iran so we give chemical and bio weapons to Iraq.

 

Iraqi leader pulls on leash too much and steps out of line. Invades neighbor. Bad dog!

 

US must discipline bad dog - But - leave him in power 'cause heavens knows we might get something worse like an Islamic regime rather than a secular one.

 

Iraq leader thumbs his nose. Look - bad dog has WMD (see number 1). Must discipline bad dog.

 

Give me a break! The old "this is the way the world works" or "it's worked before it will work again" standards are lame. Cue: wave stars and stripes, talk about respecting human rights, discipline bad dog.

 

The article I provided the link to is a bit long, has lots of confusing charts that people with the annoying habbit of using real quantifiable data to support their arguments tend to like, and it is also positively riddled with factual information - so it may not be of any interest to you - but if you can take a break from bidding on the autographed Che Guevara poster on eBay long enough to read it, you may learn a thing or two about who actually sold what to the Iraqis prior to the outbreak of the first Gulf War.

 

We are far from blameless, but the report makes it clear that virtually every European power of any consequence took a very active role in arming Iraq, and the total value of their arms sales to Iraq was an order of magnitude greater than our own. One conclusion that one can draw from this is that the governments in charge of virtually every western nation of any significance took part in arming Iraq. One can then further conclude that their was a broad international agreement that Iran posed a serious threat to their collective interests, and that taking Iraq's side in that conflict was the best way to neutralize it. In so doing the West nourished a monstrous regime. In your view the most ethical action for the West to take was to utter a collective "Oops! Our bad." and leave him in power to continue subjugating his people and threatening his neighbors. How doing so would in any way constitute "learning from our mistakes" is entirely unclear.

 

It seems to me that if one accepts the proposition that the west is responsible for creating Saddam Hussein and keeping him in power, then the West should also assume responsibility for removing him from power and doing everything within our power to replace him with a more humane and responsible regime.

 

 

[Jim]

JayB said:

Jim said:

 

 

 

 

 

if you can take a break from bidding on the autographed Che Guevara poster on eBay long enough to read it, you may learn a thing or two about who actually sold what to the Iraqis prior to the outbreak of the first Gulf War.

 

We are far from blameless, but the report makes it clear that virtually every European power of any consequence took a very active role in arming Iraq, and the total value of their arms sales to Iraq was an order of magnitude greater than our own. One conclusion that one can draw from this is that the governments in charge of virtually every western nation of any significance took part in arming Iraq. One can then further conclude that their was a broad international agreement that Iran posed a serious threat to their collective interests, and that taking Iraq's side in that conflict was the best way to neutralize it. In so doing the West nourished a monstrous regime. In your view the most ethical action for the West to take was to utter a collective "Oops! Our bad." and leave him in power to continue subjugating his people and threatening his neighbors. How doing so would in any way constitute "learning from our mistakes" is entirely unclear.

 

It seems to me that if one accepts the proposition that the west is responsible for creating Saddam Hussein and keeping him in power, then the West should also assume responsibility for removing him from power and doing everything within our power to replace him with a more humane and responsible regime.

 

 

Aside from the personal snide remarks, you have one point. That we should clean up our messes and other countries contributed to the messes. How about this original idea - stop sticking our noses where they are not wanted or needed in the first place. Sure, the europeans aren't clean on this either. There were a lot of money grubbers. See: "Hypocrisy" below.

 

The second point I'd like to make is that we tolerate and even institute repressive regimes as long as they toe the american line. The US was the main force behind the assigination of Salvador Allende -who was democratically elected - and Pinochet was put in his place. Chile then suffered decades of brutal human rights repression. But hey, that guy was OK cause he was our guy. Funny you didn't see a Coalition of the Willing formed to oust him, or what's going on in Saudia Arabia, Egypt, Isarel. Oh - they're on our side, is that the proper response? It's the same in Iraq, he was our guy until he didn't listen to orders anymore.

[Jim]

JayB said:

 

 

The article I provided the link to is a bit long, has lots of confusing charts that people with the annoying habbit of using real quantifiable data to support their arguments tend to like, and it is also positively riddled with factual information - so it may not be of any interest to you -

 

One more small item - while this report does address conventional arms it says nothing about US transfer of WMD technology transfer to Iraq from the US, including bio and chemical starts and technical information. WMD was a main issue in this - or used to be I guess. The information on what we transfered is available in some Congressional defense committee reports - I can post the reference tomorrow if you're not aware of it - don't have it on the work computer.

[Jim]

Sorry for the long post but here's an exerpt from the report: you can read about our glorious exports to Iraq at:

 

http://www.gulflink.osd.mil/medsearch/FocusAreas/riegle_report/report/report_s01.htm#Chapter%201.%20Iraqi%20Chemical%20and%20Biological%20Warfare%20Capability

 

But hey, we're the good guys.

 

U.S. Exports of Biological Materials to Iraq

 

The Senate Committee on Banking, Housing, and Urban Affairs has oversight responsibility for the Export Administration Act. Pursuant to the Act, Committee staff contacted the U.S. Department of Commerce and requested information on the export of biological materials during the years prior to the Gulf War. After receiving this information, we contacted a principal supplier of these materials to determine what, if any, materials were exported to Iraq which might have contributed to an offensive or defensive biological warfare program. Records available from the supplier for the period from 1985 until the present show that during this time, pathogenic (meaning "disease producing"), toxigenic (meaning "poisonous"), and other biological research materials were exported to Iraq pursuant to application and licensing by the U.S. Department of Commerce. Records prior to 1985 were not available, according to the supplier. These exported biological materials were not attenuated or weakened and were capable of reproduction. According to the Department of Defense's own Report to Congress on the Conduct of the Persian Gulf War, released in April 1992: "By the time of the invasion of Kuwait, Iraq had developed biological weapons. It's advanced and aggressive biological warfare program was the most advanced in the Arab world... The program probably began late in the 1970's and concentrated on the development of two agents, botulinum toxin and anthrax bacteria... Large-scale production of these agents began in 1989 at four facilities near Baghdad. Delivery means for biological agents ranged from simple aerial bombs and artillery rockets to surface-to-surface missiles." [55]

 

Included in the approved sales are the following biological materials (which have been considered by various nations for use in war), with their associated disease symptoms:[56]

 

Bacillus Anthracis: anthrax is a disease producing bacteria identified by the Department of Defense in The Conduct of the Persian Gulf War: Final Report to Congress, as being a major component in the Iraqi biological warfare program.

 

Anthrax is an often-fatal infectious disease due to ingestion of spores. It begins abruptly with high fever, difficulty in breathing, and chest pain. The disease eventually results in septicemia (blood poisoning), and the mortality is high. Once septicemia is advanced, antibiotic therapy may prove useless, probably because the exotoxins remain, despite the death of the bacteria.

 

Clostridium Botulinum: a bacterial source of botulinum toxin, which causes vomiting, constipation, thirst, general weakness, headache, fever, dizziness, double vision, dilation of the pupils and paralysis of the muscles involving swallowing. It is often fatal.

 

Histoplasma Capsulatum: causes a disease superficially resembling tuberculosis that may cause pneumonia, enlargement of the liver and spleen, anemia, an influenza-like illness and an acute inflammatory skin disease marked by tender red nodules, usually on the shins. Reactivated infection usually involves the lungs, the brain, spinal membranes, heart, peritoneum, and the adrenals.

 

Brucella Melitensis: a bacteria which can cause chronic fatigue, loss of appetite, profuse sweating when at rest, pain in joints and muscles, insomnia, nausea, and damage to major organs.

 

Clostridium Perfringens: highly toxic bacteria, which cause gas gangrene. The bacteria produce toxins that move along muscle bundles in the body killing cells and producing necrotic tissue that is then favorable for further growth of the bacteria itself. Eventually, these toxins and bacteria enter the bloodstream and cause a systemic illness.

 

In addition, several shipments of Escherichia Coli (E.Coli) and genetic materials, as well as human and bacterial DNA, were shipped directly to the Iraq Atomic Energy Commission.

 

The following is a detailed listing of biological materials, provided by the American Type Culture Collection, which were exported to agencies of the government of Iraq pursuant to the issuance of an export licensed by the U.S. Commerce Department: [57]

 

Date : February 8, 1985

Sent to : Iraq Atomic Energy Agency

Materials Shipped:

 

Ustilago nuda (Jensen) Rostrup

 

Date: February 22, 1985

Sent to: Ministry of Higher Education

Materials Shipped:

 

Histoplasma capsulatum var. farciminosum (ATCC 32136) Class III pathogen

 

Date: July 11, 1985

Sent to: Middle and Near East Regional A

Materials Shipped:

 

Histoplasma capsulatum var. farciminosum (ATCC 32136) Class III pathogen

Date: May 2, 1986

Sent to: Ministry of Higher Education

Materials Shipped:

 

Bacillus Anthracis Cohn (ATCC 10)

Batch # 08-20-82 (2 each)

Class III pathogen.

 

 

Bacillus Subtitles (Ehrenberg) Con (ATCC 82)

Batch # 06-20-84 (2 each)

 

 

Clostridium botulinum Type A (ATCC 3502)

Batch# 07-07-81 (3 each)

Class III Pathogen

 

 

Clostridium perfringens (Weillon and Zuber) Hauduroy, et al (ATCC 3624)

Batch# 10-85SV (2 each)

 

 

Bacillus subtilis (ATCC 6051)

Batch# 12-06-84 (2 each)

 

 

Francisella tularensis var. tularensis Olsufiev (ATCC 6223)

Batch# 05-14-79 (2 each)

Avirulent; suitable for preparations of diagnostic antigens.

 

 

Clostridium tetani (ATCC 9441)

Batch 03-94 (3 each)

Highly toxigenic.

 

 

Clostridium botulinum Type E (ATCC 9564)

Batch# 03-02-79 (2 each)

Class III pathogen

 

 

Clostridium tetani (ATCC 10779)

Batch# 04-24-84S (3 each)

 

 

Clostridium perfringens (ATCC 12916)

Batch# 08-14-80 (2 each)

Agglutinating Type 2.

 

 

Clostridium perfringens (ATCC 13124)

Batch# 08-14-80 (3 each)

Type A, alpha-toxigenic, produces lecithinase C.J. Appl,

 

 

Bacillus Anthracis (ATCC 14185)

Batch# 01-14-80 (3 each)

G.G. Wright (Fort Detrick) V770-NPI-R. Bovine anthrax,

Class III pathogen

 

 

Bacillus Anthracis (ATCC 14578)

Batch# 01-06-78 (2 each)

Class III pathogen.

 

 

Bacillus megaterium (ATCC 14581)

Batch# 04-18-85 (2 each)

 

 

Bacillus megaterium (ATCC 14945)

Batch# 06-21-81 (2 each)

Clostridium botulinum Type E (ATCC 17855)

Batch# 06-21-71

Class III pathogen.

 

 

Bacillus megaterium (ATCC 19213)

Batch# 3-84 (2 each)

 

 

Clostridium botulinum Type A (ATCC 19397)

Batch# 08-18-81 (2 each)

Class III pathogen

 

 

Brucella abortus Biotype 3 (ATCC 23450)

Batch# 08-02-84 (3 each)

Class III pathogen

 

 

Brucella abortus Biotype 9 (ATCC 23455)

Batch# 02-05-68 (3 each)

Class III pathogen

 

 

Brucella melitensis Biotype I (ATCC 23456)

Batch# 03-08-78 (2 each)

Class III pathogen

 

 

Brucella melitensis Biotype 3 (ATCC 23458)

Batch# 01-29-68 (2 each)

Class III pathogen

 

 

Clostridium botulinum Type A (ATCC 25763)

Batch# 8-83 (2 each)

Class III pathogen

 

 

Clostridium botulinum Type F (ATCC 35415)

Batch# 02-02-84 (2 each)

Class III pathogen

 

Date: August 31, 1987

Sent to: State Company for Drug Industries

Materials Shipped:

 

Saccharomyces cerevesiae (ATCC 2601)

Batch# 08-28-08 (1 each)

 

 

Salmonella choleraesuis subsp. choleraesuis Serotype typhi

(ATCC 6539) Batch# 06-86S (1 each)

 

 

Bacillus subtillus (ATCC 6633)

Batch# 10-85 (2 each)

 

 

Klebsiella pneumoniae subsp. pneumoniae (ATCC 10031)

Batch# 08-13-80 (1 each)

 

 

Escherichia coli (ATCC 10536)

Batch# 04-09-80 (1 each)

 

 

Bacillus cereus (11778)

Batch# 05-85SV (2 each)

 

 

Staphylococcus epidermidis (ATCC 12228)

Batch# 11-86s (I each)|

 

 

Bacillus pumilus (ATCC 14884)

Batch# 09-08-80 (2each)

Date : July 11, 1988

Sent to : Iraq Atomic Energy Commission

Materials Shipped:

 

Escherichia coli (ATCC 11303)

Batch# 04-87S

Phage host

 

 

Cauliflower Mosaic Caulimovirus (ATCC45031)

Batch# 06-14-85

Plant virus

 

 

Plasmid in Agrobacterium Turnefaciens (ATCC37349)

Ti plasmid for co-cultivation with plant integration vectors in E.

Coli) Batch# 05-28-85

Date: April 26, 1988

Sent to: Iraq Atomic Energy Commission

Materials Shipped:

 

Hulambda4x-8, clone: human hypoxanthine

phosphoribosyltransferase (HPRT) Chromosome(s) X q26.1 (ATCC

57236) Phage vector; Suggested host: E.coli

 

 

Hulambdal4-8, clone: human hypoxanthine

phosphoribosyltransferase (HPRT) Chromosome(s): X q26.1

(ATCC 57240) Phage vector; Suggested host: E.coli

 

 

Hulambda15, clone: human hypoxanthine

phosphoribosyltransferase (HPRT) Chromosome(s) X q26.1

(ATCC 57242) Phage vector; Suggested host: E.coli

Date: August 31, 1987

Sent to: Iraq Atomic Energy Commission

Materials Shipped:

 

Escherichia coli (ATCC 23846)

Batch# 07-29-83 (1 each)

 

 

Escherichia coli (ATCC 33694)

Batch# 05-87 (1 each)

Date: September 29, 1988

Sent to: Ministry of Trade

Materials Shipped:

 

Bacillus anthracis (ATCC 240)

Batch#05-14-63 (3 each) Class

III pathogen

 

 

Bacillus anthracis (ATCC 938)

Batch#1963 (3 each)

Class III pathogen

 

 

Clostridium perfringens (ATCC 3629)

Batch#10-23-85 (3 each)

 

 

Clostridium perfringens (ATCC 8009)

Batch#03-30-84 (3 each)

 

 

Bacillus anthracis (ATCC 8705)

Batch# 06-27-62 (3 each)

Class III pathogen

 

 

Brucella abortus; (ATCC 9014)

Batch# 05-11-66 (3 each)

Class III pathogen

 

 

Clostridium perfringens (ATCC 10388)

Batch# 06-01-73 (3 each)

 

 

Bacillus anthracis (.ATCC 11966)

Batch# 05-05-70 (3 each)

Class III pathogen

 

 

Clostridium botulinum Type A

Batch# 07-86 (3 each)

Class III pathogen

 

 

Bacillus cereus (ATCC 33018)

Batch# 04-83 (3 each)

 

 

Bacillus ceres (ATCC 33019)

Batch# 03-88 (3 each)

Date : January 31, 1989

Sent to : Iraq Atomic Energy Commission

Materials Shipped:

 

PHPT31, clone: human hypoxanthine

phosphoribosyltransferase (HPRT) Chromosome(s) X q26.1

(ATCC 57057)

 

 

plambda5OO, clone: human hypoxanthine

phosphoribosyltransferase pseudogene (HPRT)

Chromosome(s): 5 p14-pI3 (ATCC 57212)

Date: January 17, 1989

Sent to: Iraq Atomic Energy Commission

Materials Shipped:

 

Hulambda4x-8, clone: human hypoxanthine

phosphoribosyltransferase (HPRT) Chromosome(s) X q26.1

(ATCC 57237) Phage vector Suggested host: E.coli

 

 

Hulambda14, clone: human hypoxanthine

phosphoribosyltransferase (HPRT) Chromosome(s): X q26.1

(ATCC 57240) Cloned from human lymphoblast

Phage vector Suggested host: E.coli

 

 

Hulambda15, clone: human hypoxanthine

phosphoribosyltransferase (HPRT) Chromosome(s) X q26.1

(ATCC 57241) Phage vector Suggested host: E.coli

Additionally, the Centers for Disease Control has compiled a listing of biological materials shipped to Iraq prior to the Gulf War. The listing covers the period from October 1, 1984 (when the CDC began keeping records) through October 13, 1993. The following materials with biological warfare significance were shipped to Iraq during this period:[58]

 

Date: November 28, 1989

Sent to: University of Basrah, College of Science, Department of Biology

Materials Shipped:

 

Enterococcus faecalis

 

 

Enterococcus faecium

 

 

Enterococcus avium

 

 

Enterococcus raffinosus

 

 

Enterococcus gallinarium.

 

 

Enterococcus durans

 

 

Enterococcus hirae

 

 

Streptococcus bovis

(etiologic)

Date: April 21, 1986

Sent to: Officers City Al-Muthanna, Quartret 710, Street 13, Close 69

House 2811, Baghdad, Iraq

Materials Shipped:

 

vial botulinum toxoid

(non-infectious)

Date: March 10, 1986

Sent to: Officers City Al-Muthanna, Quartret 710, Street 13, Close 69

House 28/1, Baghdad, Iraq

Materials Shipped:

 

1 vial botulinum toxoid #A2

(non-infectious)

Date: June 25, 1985

Sent to: University of Baghdad, College of Medicine , Department of Microbiology

Materials Shipped:

 

3 yeast cultures

(etiologic)

Candida. sp.

Date : May21, 1985

Sent to : Basrah, Iraq

Materials Shipped:

 

Lyophilized arbovirus seed

(etiologic)

West Nile Fever Virus

Date: April 26, 1985

Sent to: Minister of Health, Ministry of Health, Baghdad, Iraq

Materials Shipped:

 

8 vials antigen and antisera

(r. rickettsii and r. typhi)

to diagnose rickettsial

infections (non-infectious)

[JayB]

It may be hard for someone outside of the field to believe, but pathogenic strains of bacteria and viruses are used all of the time, all over the globe, for reasons that have very little to do with creating biological weapons. Anthrax is endemic in most livestock around the world, and if one is attempting to determine the efficacy of various antibiotics on it, one would naturally need to have live cultures to test them on. Same is true of all of the other pathogens on the list.

 

Was allowing companies to sell these cultures to Iraq when we knew that they were in the process of developing biological weapons extremely ill-advised? Certainly. But allowing companies to export pathogenic strains to Iraq for undetermined uses is one thing, and a deliberate effort to provide Iraq with a ready made bioweapons program is quite another. It is possible that the US was engaged in such an effort, but this document is far from proving any such thing. If you've got documents in which an agency of the US government explicitly endorses this policy goal and allocates the resources necessary to furnish Iraq with a biological weapons capability, post it.

 

It seems to me that since the US had both the technology and expertise necessary to provide Iraq with all of the bioweapons it could ever possibly want, it would have been much more effective to simply ship them the cultures, reactors, and delivery systems along with the technical personnel necessary to put them into production immediately, rather than allowing the random export pathogens used for a variety of purposes in laboratories all over the world.

[Luna]

Oh this is rich!! First deny that they were sending it and now claim it was likely for good use. Gimme a break - read the cited report dude. Maybe the white house could use that logic train. They need some help in the PR department lately.

[Luna]

Here's a good summary of the mess we made.

 

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

[j_b]

Jim said:The second point I'd like to make is that we tolerate and even institute repressive regimes as long as they toe the american line. The US was the main force behind the assigination of Salvador Allende -who was democratically elected - and Pinochet was put in his place. Chile then suffered decades of brutal human rights repression. But hey, that guy was OK cause he was our guy. Funny you didn't see a Coalition of the Willing formed to oust him, or what's going on in Saudia Arabia, Egypt, Isarel. Oh - they're on our side, is that the proper response? It's the same in Iraq, he was our guy until he didn't listen to orders anymore.

 

one does not even need to go half-way around the world and discuss chile. it's funny how iran is mentioned as the threat that motivated support for saddam when in fact the mullahs got to power in iran because mosques were the only place where opposition to a barbaric regime we installed and sustained was even remotely possible. then as we are supposed to worry about the conservative muslim revolution in the arab world, the us supports the mullahs in afghanistan because it then suit our purpose against the soviet. but don't worry, the spinmeister extraordinaire, will tell all of this happened because we were trying to correct our mistakes. if only they had any credibility left.

[Jim]

Good point. The logical question to ask is how much more stable these regimes would have turned out if we had not installed the Shah in Iran and Saddam in Iraq. Possibly better, but certainly not worse than the current situation.

[lummox]

when ifs and buts are candy and nuts well all have a merry christmas.

[Jim]

Are you Bush's speech writer?

[j_b]

hey, look! another "mistake" that'll have to be corrected. we're for sure "learning", aren't we?

 

"Human rights abuses in Afghanistan are being committed by gunmen and warlords who were propelled into power by the United States and its coalition partners after the Taliban fell in 2001. These men and others have essentially hijacked the country outside of Kabul. With less than a year to go before national elections, Afghanistan's human rights situation appears to be worsening."

Brad Adams Executive Director of the Asia Division of Human Rights Watch

 

http://www.hrw.org/press/2003/07/afghan072903.htm

[Jim]

Maybe we just need to double our budget there to $2 billion a month!