Ohh, for fuck's sake: http://www.debunking911.com/thermite.htm

It was not a goddamn government conspiracy... It was a plot formed and carried out by a radical Islamic group, who held grievance against the US for infractions they felt were made against the Muslim world. Including: the presence of US bases on holy Saudi land; the interference with Iranian politics (installing the pro-western Shah via coup in the 1970s); the first Gulf war against Iraq; the support of Israel's occupation of the Palestinian territories; etc. etc.

Grow the hell up and realise what is really going on the world, so that governments can learn not to just muscle around Middle Eastern nations, giving rise to such groups which do seek to exploit an angry muslim populace.

Ah the Kurds, I never knew that concentration camps existed, it seems kinda of odd to me. I had thought that intervention with Kurdish affairs ended with Operation Provide Comfort.

Even then I would not agree to the grounds for war in 2003. I would have agreed to them in 1991, when there was a strong international coalition and strong legal and moral pretense with the Iraqi use of chemical and biological weapons against its own people, Iran and the Kurds, as well as the invasion of Kuwait. But its hard to say something like that, knowing that the US bankrolled the Iran Iraq war, that it propped up Saddam Hussein after the CIA blowback from installing the Shah in Iran and the subsequent Islamic revolution. It's hard to support the American effort knowing that their meddling in middle eastern affairs created the very problems they seem to address years later, the aptly called "hes a son of a bitch but our son of a bitch" foreign policy of propping up dictators and despotic rulers, this is not even starting to talk about the ISI, Afghanistan the Mujahedeen and the formation of Al Qaeda.

Personally I think the largest example of international do nothingness is the 800,000 killed during the Rwandan genocide. Somehow Iraq is okay to invade to liberate, Bosnia is okay to invade to liberate but not Darfur and not Rwanda. The UN simply sat and watched a country collapse into internal genocide.

>> ^Farhad2000:
I don't need to ask anyone, I live in Kuwait. People are still sour at Iraqis and Saddam and are still pressing for the new Iraqi regime to honor all post 1991 debts.
But to say that people wanted the removal of Saddam Hussein due to some altruistic feelings is simply false when looking at these issues on a international level. The secular wedge of Iraq divided the Sunni and Shia worlds of Saudi Arabia and Iran, and threatened them at the same time something neither liked but something that was used to great affect by the Americans to secure beneficial trade and oil agreements and massive weapon sales.
Iran didn't start the war, it was Iraq who needed something to unite the people for after the prolong political cleansing that Saddam inflicted on the government.
Hussein Khomeini is in league with the fallen Shah government that was installed in a CIA backed coup, the religious regime that came in was no better then the Shah. But I would not give any voice to someone who is sympathetic to the neoconservative cause.
Yes he was a bad bad man, but to say that the American invasion and removal by force is the best way to deal with such instances is just lunacy.



Here is what I actually said:

"shoot people in their own homes and cities..."
Do you really mean to make it sound like civilians are the intended targets?

"in a preemptive global police action"
Removing a dictator that committed genocide against his own people, annexed a neighboring sovereign country and failed at annexing a second is pre-emptive?

"instigated for monetary purposes"
Really? Even after this video and the well documented down turn the American economy is going through? Are you sure?

"If China or Russia came over here and did the same to us..."
Oh yeah, let's go really far out into left field. Let's pretend that the insurgence in Iraq is fighting to reinstate the toppled Baathist regime. Let's ignore that the true liberation army of Iraq, the Peshmerga army of Iraqi-Kurdistan, is fighting alongside American troops. Let's even pretend that American citizens are just as unhappy with their government as Iraqi's were with Saddam. That's an insult to every man, woman and child now buried in the mass graves of Northern Iraq.


I never suggested what the 'best' way was. I just stated that the current situation in Iraq, as bad as it is, isn't as bad as the genocide that Saddam was continually pursuing. More over, one can hardly look at pre-war Iraq under Saddam and say that some kind of collapse and ensuing civil war wasn't already on the way. You can't say that the factionalism that the American's have blundered into worsening, wasn't being fed even worse by Saddam's heavy handed oppression of all Kurdish and Shiite people.

More importantly, the main point I was addressing is the notion that the video speaks of, the cost to American tax payers of the war. It is pretty ridiculous to suggest that the Iraq war could have been anticipated to be good for the USA's economy by anybody, and so talk of a war based on American greed is just hyperbole. The only benefit to America of removing Saddam is the same enjoyed by many other countries the world over, one less dictator encouraging war, genocide and division. Pretending the disaster that is the current state of Iraq wasn't well in the works since even before the first Gulf War is extraordinarily dishonest(though that lie was pushed the most by Bush/Cheney pre-War)

I don't need to ask anyone, I live in Kuwait. People are still sour at Iraqis and Saddam and are still pressing for the new Iraqi regime to honor all post 1991 debts.

But to say that people wanted the removal of Saddam Hussein due to some altruistic feelings is simply false when looking at these issues on a international level. The secular wedge of Iraq divided the Sunni and Shia worlds of Saudi Arabia and Iran, and threatened them at the same time something neither liked but something that was used to great affect by the Americans to secure beneficial trade and oil agreements and massive weapon sales.

Iran didn't start the war, it was Iraq who needed something to unite the people for after the prolong political cleansing that Saddam inflicted on the government.

Hussein Khomeini is in league with the fallen Shah government that was installed in a CIA backed coup, the religious regime that came in was no better then the Shah. But I would not give any voice to someone who is sympathetic to the neoconservative cause.

Yes he was a bad bad man, but to say that the American invasion and removal by force is the best way to deal with such instances is just lunacy.

Other countries' socialist policies, like in say, the whole of Europe, do quite well compared to us.

Actually, this is causation without correlation. If you go to Europe, living situations are deteriorating. Their massive amounts of welfare have created a situation in which immigrants are coming not for opportunity, but to be subsidized by programs they haven't paid into their whole lives like existing citizens. Sound familiar? Our programs are being strained by the same problem. I won't deny that they've made better decisions with their socialist powers over the past twenty years. If you want to make this an argument about whose dictator is doing a better job at emulating the market, then certainly Europe wins. France, for example, gets 80% of their energy from nuclear power and is the largest energy exporter in Europe. I'm jealous. That's what the market would have chosen. Our dictators, however, have been blocking it for thirty years due to the influence of the radical environmentalist lobby. Our government-directed economy has also pumped billions of forcibly appropriated money into agri-business bio-fuels like ethanol. It reduced the supply of food because it became more profitable after all the subsidies to grow corn for ethanol than some other crop for food. And it takes almost as much energy to create as it produces. Negative net result, that money would have been better off staying in the hands of people who really couldn't afford to have it taken away. We realize this now, but it never needed to happen. Any product that wouldn't be able to compete on the market without being funded with stolen money isn't worth a damn. So why did we think a bill could do something the market couldn't? All subsidies are retarded, they have collusive anti-competitive redistribution written all over them, and that's exactly what we got despite election year promises that it would give us miracles.

In fact, imagine if a stranger comes to your house and says "Hi, I'd like to take some of your money from your paycheck every week because I think I can spend it better than you can on products and services for your life. You look pretty busy, irresponsible, and unintelligent." Would you give it to them? Why would you do that? That's essentially socialism in a nutshell. People spending other people's money on the claim they can do so with greater thrift than the person that earned it.

Another thing that we do different than Europe is maintain a gigantic military empire. Of course their socialist programs are better, they don't have a military industrial complex sucking trillions of dollars away from them. It's really not necessary in the nuclear age. No nuclear power has ever been invaded domestically. Because it's a losing proposition. If you win the ground war, they have nothing to lose so they launch them. But we're idiots over here, we have this manchausen syndrome where our CIA creates problems that eventually blow back in our face, at which point we can launch all out invasions under the pretense of self-defense. This might include installing the Shah in Iran. Or giving bioweapons to Saddam during the Iran-Iraq conflict. Or arming afghani warriors to fight the Soviets. Or paying off Musharraf in Pakistan to be a puppet. Terrorist propaganda becomes effective because of this shit.

Nowhere else in the world has a more libertarian system than us, as near as I can tell, and it handicaps us.

Price fixing interest rates = socialist
Bailout out bankruptcy with forcibly appropriated money = socialist
Allowing one industry to loan out money they don't have, at interest = socialist
Subsidizing one company and not another = socialist
Taxing one company and not another = socialist
Nationalizing private industry to be financed with forcibly appropriated money = socialist
Directing industry and research with forcibly appropriated money = socialist
Declaring lending standards discriminatory to low income people and forcing banks to remove them via the Community Reinvestment Act = socialist
Issuing a non-market determined or constitutional money, banning competing currencies, and taxing dollar debasement gains on gold as if it were income = socialist
Blocking nuclear power for 30 years = socialist
Blocking domestic oil drilling for 20 years = socialist


Actually no, they would just need to get enough market power, and apply it ruthlessly to stomp out competition wherever it rises.

Bullshit, no one but the government has endless streams of capital to buy up anything and everything. Only government monopolies are self-sustaining, because they're the only monopolies financed with forcibly appropriated money.

In your version of the world, AMD shouldn't exist. Aptera Motors shouldn't exist. Right? I mean, giant corporations a thousand times their size existed before they even entered the market. They should have been bought out. Oh, wait, what's that? Not all companies are publicly traded.

The reality is, in order for a MARKET monopoly (note: in an environment where they don't have access to government specific powers like inflation and subsidization) to stay that way is to continue to offering the best product at the best price. Because then there's no window, no opportunity for someone else to come in and eat into that marketshare. If a company is delivering crap or overcharging, however, that immediately opens a window for someone else to come in. That's how AMD got so large, Intel was doing exactly that with netburst architecture. Even with a monopoly position, competition was waiting in the wings.

Suppose Microsoft took XP off the market and put Windows 3.1 on the shelf? Do you think they wouldn't go bankrupt? Do you think a competitor wouldn't arise to take their place? Because they're an all-powerful monopoly, right? They don't have to deliver shit, they can just buy Macintosh and anyone else while they pay thousands of programmers to create a product that doesn't sell.

Doh. Someone doesn't understand basic market principles.

One of my favorites from the roaring 20's was the rate war. Slash your prices to nearly nothing, and let your company lose a lot of money, on the premise that the smaller company will go bankrupt before you do.

Actually, large businesses with lots of workers have far more overhead and are much more inefficiently run. That's why most businesses today are small businesses. My mother owns an advertising business for wedding directories with no one but herself employed. A local newspaper owned by the Gannett company recently created a staff of twenty people to try and compete with her. They lasted two years before the magazine ended the operation. It was costing way more money than it was bringing in, and the so-called greedy megagiant slashed it.

Nuttery, Ron Paul is the only politician who believes in the law? Seriously, that's what you're saying? He's probably the only Republican who believes in the law being supreme, but there's more than a few Democrats who believe in the supremacy of law (including some joker with a law degree from Harvard running for President...).

Supreme law is the constitution doofus. It's the law that came before all other laws, it's the laws against government to prevent them from becoming a tyrannical, collusive nuthouse like all other governments before it by assessing which powers, which enablements, it shouldn't have under any circumstances. And inflation was one of them. But after a couple hundred years, people became complacent, arrogant, and ignorant, like yourself, and politicians found that they could ignore it with impunity. There was no longer a bunch of gun-toting, tea-hating radicals ready to hang them on the nearest tree when they broke it. There was nothing but the opposing party. But that party loves to spend, too. So they compromise by allowing the other to break it so long as they get to break it in another way. Remember how the bailout failed and then got passed? They put some extra pork in there to get the votes they needed. Rum and arrowheads...

http://www.greenfaucet.com/economy/porky-the-bailout-bill/19680

Welcome to our country, and the socialist enablements that make this spending possible.

No, but he can still bribe the politicians to look the other way on violation of rights. They do it now, and I'm not sure why it would change, just because the companies have more money to spend (according to your theory).

The bottom line here is that attacking Democrats as being socialist is a huge fucking straw man. We like the free market, and we want it to work.

No, you don't, You don't even know what it is.

Most investment banks are now crying out to be regulated in the wake of this credit crisis, and given that they bribed the government into deregulating them in the first place, that should tell you something.

They're not crying to be regulated, they're crying to be bailed out after being regulated. What do you think regulation is exactly? Do you realize that the fundamental way in which banks operate is fraudulent? How do you regulate that? How do you oversee to make sure fraud is being conducted in the best way possible?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fractional_reserve_banking#Money_creation

This is the type of nonsense I hear from the republicrat camp. Regulation, the buzzword of the day. It's meaningless. To "regulate" the bank runs this system was causing, the Federal Reserve was created to backstop bankruptcy. Yes, failure, that free market pinnacle that makes private business suffer and fear consequences for risk and imprudent policy. Or how about the FDIC, FEDERAL GOVERNMENT INSURANCE on deposits. Don't worry, now you don't have to fear about losing your deposit on this scam industry. We've regulated it with the FDIC. OOPS, THE FEAR OF LOSING ONE'S DEPOSIT WAS WHAT DETERRED PEOPLE FROM GIVING IT TO HIGHLY LEVERAGED INVESTMENT BANKS OFFERING ABNORMAL YIELDS, CAUSING THAT BUSINESS MODEL TO GROW, CAUSING OTHER BANKS TO FOLLOW SUIT IN ORDER TO COMPETE.

The problem is regulation on fraudulent activity that should have never been allowed. It slowly but surely eliminated basic deterrents and self-regulating principles by backstopping risk and rewarding bad behavior.

Tags for this video have been changed from 'cia, iran, pbs, ron paul, foreign policy' to 'cia, iran, pbs, ron paul, foreign policy, mosaddeq, shah, pahlavi, khomeini' - edited by my15minutes

We can disagree about Al Jazeera. They've improved in the last year or two, but they lost my trust a while ago and will have to do a lot to regain it.

I certainly agree that big Corporations (international and domestic) need to be hacked up a bit. They have far to much power and influence. I do NOT however buy that they control whether the US goes to war or not. I do NOT believe Iraq was about oil. We haven't seen a drop of it and it has cost us hundreds of billions of dollars, a tremendous amount of lives, and more popularity and international influence. Anti-war activists and leftists love to say oil oil oil as much as they can to make those that supported the war look like evil corporate sell-outs. It's a very common political partisan warfare technique VERY often utilized by the left. (The right has its own devious techniques, but the left has mastered this particular one.) Anyway, arguing Iraq is a dead stalemate every time, so it's pointless to go on about it. Bottom line, corps have too much power, but not all the power, AND not all corporations are run by demons bent on greed at all costs. You need a certain breed of board members for that sort of heartlessness.

"Ordinary People" don't want war. That is true. But they do want certain things to be and others not to be and they don't want to be the ones responsible for what it takes to make those things be or not be. For example. The west (primarily America at this point) sees the sudden rise and dominance of staunch Islamic culture in western Europe and does not like what it sees. America is all for religious freedom--heck, we were founded on the concept--but America also values secular governing as well as some level of assimilation of immigrants. In other words, come to America, but if you don't want to be an American, if you want to be a somewhere-else-ian living in America trying to impose somewhere-else-ia's laws, please stay in somewhere-else-ia. Makes sense. America has a set of values, laws, and traditions it holds dear. Seeing sections of western European nations suddenly under a pseudo-official Sharia Law makes most Americans cringe and worry about their rights and their culture. Americans say, "we don't want that in our nation" but they don't want to be responsible for preventing it (or other things). People love to protest things while reaping their benefits. Sad state of affairs. (I'm not saying that example was a war-related one, but it fits otherwise.) One of the major functions of governments and leaders is to make unpopular decisions that are necessary. They lose popularity and even become demonized by some, but the job is done and the public can benefit and still feel innocent about it.

As for the US and S Ossentia? 1%. That is the amount of western oil that comes through that pipeline. We don't need it. We wouldn't START a fight over it, but we would defend it against an aggressor as it is in fact of western interest. We didn't need to fight over it as it was in no danger and we were in no way in danger of losing it. America has no vested interest in S Ossentia. A 1% loss in supply is barely a hick-up, especially as oil demand is now decreasing here at a record pace.

As for America moving ships closer to Iran? GOOD!! Iran has repeated threatened to shut down a HUGE tanker route. Since Israel is scared to death (and rightly so) that they might get nuked in the next couple years, which fits with Ahmadinejad's 12th Imam religious views, they might wind up attacking Iran's uranium enrichment plants. It will CERTAINLY happen if Iran tests a nuclear weapon as N.Korea recently did. If that happens, we still need that route open. If Iran shuts it down, that's a major problem for us here, even if we don't drop a single bomb in that country. This is an almost inevitable confrontation. The USA MUST not fire any first shots though. Not this time. Not ever again. However, did we start this devastating war in Georgia to move our ships? No. That idea REQUIRES that you believe that all those with power in the US are truly evil mass-murders, plain and simple, purely literally. It is fine to think that we may have taken advantage of the situation to make a tactical move, but starting it for that end is a little off the charts. Having forces in an allied nation is not surprising. That does NOT by any means mean we started it or encouraged it in any way shape or form. That leap is loaded with fallacies.

I am far too long winded.

In reply to this comment by Irishman:
Al Jazeera is an excellent source of news, many BBC journalists work with them and two British journos I know speak very highly to their integrity.

I do indeed distrust the US government as much as I distrust the British government, and I have lived through a 30 year conflict with the British that has opened my eyes to the propaganda regarding international affairs in British news, including the BBC.

It's not a case of me buying into any particular news story. The US has a military presence there to protect oil interests - that's a plain fact. That's what rings the alarm bells for me when suddenly there's a conflict.

It's not about assigning blame, I'm not interested in trying to show where blame lies. That's a childish game and a distraction. Bush is not the emperor at all, I do not believe for a second that Bush is in control of anything whatsoever, the idea that the man is a statesman running a country is plainly ridiculous. He is as much a puppet of corporate America as the Shah in Iran was before the people rose up and put him out of power.

It's all about perception - *why* do you think it is that the same people who think that America blew up the towers to start a war are the people who believe America is behind this conflict? What is at the heart of that perception? It's because the official version of events doesn't ring true to people who have lived through propaganda in their own country.

What is happening in Russia is part of the wider global conflict involving the superpowers, and it's all over resources and investments on a scale that ordinary people can barely comprehend. Russia, China and America/UK are slowly hardening their military and strategic positions around the world.

I don't know the reason why, it could be the beginning of the merging of the 4 big monetary unions into a global economy and central bank/government, it could be that each of them wants greater regional control of the planet, it could be that they are all working together toward a single goal, it could be that they are preparing to go up against each other.

Ordinary people do not want war, the only people who benefit are the super rich and the powerful. Russia rolled mini battlefield nukes into S Ossetia last night, and while the masses of the planet including you and me debate about what is really going on and who is at fault, people are getting slaughtered.

Maybe it's time we put our time and efforts into really trying to get people to talk about peace. Enough really is enough.

Thanks for your message




In reply to this comment by Doc_M:
Taking the last part first, I disagree. That aside, I get news from quite a few sources. I am painfully aware of the bias on both sides of these sources. However, based on study, I trust some more than others. For example, Al Jazeera... black listed, "opinion journalists"... suspect, Al Franken and Sean Hanity... grudge match? That's entertainment. My statement that a need for loathing was required to buy this new story 3 days after the war suddenly and almost inexplicably begain was not meant to offend but merely to exaggerate the point that people who tend to distrust the US tend to blame everything in the world on them, even when the coals aren't even ready for burgers. These are the same people who think we detonated our own buildings to start a war over oil, when neither of those clauses is true.

News on this current struggle is so mired in propaganda and selective publication right now, it is hard to make heads or tails of who is at fault, but blaming the US and namely the Bush Admin. is so predictable a cop-out it's cliche anymore. Bush is not the Emperor Palpatine and America is not the Galactic Empire. heh.

In reply to this comment by Irishman:
It seems they are outing America anyway, Osettians are claiming that the 'west' is behind the Georgian attacks - being reported now on BBC and international news. Of course there is no way for you or I to know one way or the other.

Why do I have to assume a hatred and loathing of America? I'm not claiming anything, and I'm not narrow minded or naive enough to only post news clips which I happen to believe or which happen to fit my own personal ideaology. No need to be defensive. It's not people like us who are making these things happen, we are mere bystanders.

I'm trying to get all the news I can as it rolls in, watching it unfold on the news in different countries gives you a much wider picture rather than sticking to one single news source. The *way* it's being reported in different countries is *as* interesting, if not *more* interesting than the content of the reports.

You aren't convinced by this because you have a preconceived notion that it is 'ludicrous'. That's your culture talking, not you.

In reply to this comment by Doc_M:
I'm not convinced. It still appears to me to be conspiracy theory hogwash. In my eyes, it would require a SERIOUS loathing of America to assume such a thing is true on a whim. America did not "orchestrate" any Georgian action. That's just ludicrous. They would out us since they're being obliterated at the moment, since we're not helping. You have to assume that America is EVIL in order to assume these things. If a naval move is made at the same time, than it is because America is taking the opportunity that has been laid before them. Prime time for easy action.

In reply to this comment by Irishman:
It sounds like it, but it isn't...

http://news.google.co.uk/news?hl=en&q=warships%20gulf&um=1&ie=UTF-8&sa=N&tab=wn



In reply to this comment by Doc_M:
>> ^Memorare:
read an article today suggesting the aggressive move by Georgia was orchestrated by the US as a strategic diversion to keep Russia busy during a naval blockade of Iran. shrug


Sounds like a bunch of conspiracy theory crap to me. Propaganda.

6 Arabs who claimed to be from Khuzestan took 26 workers hostage in the Iranian embassy. Their demands were:

1. Autonomy for Arabistan
2. The release of 91 political prisoners held in Iran

The 91 political prisoners were executed on the first day of the seige.



This happened the year after Iranian students stormed the US embassy in Tehran after the Iranian people revolted against the Shah, Mohammad Reza Pahlavi who was put in power after a CIA funded coup.

The US military launched a rescue mission (Operation Eagle Claw) which failed killing 8 soliders. This led to Jimmy Carter loosing the election, and ended up strengthening the position of the Ayatollah Khomeini and radicalising anti-American forces in Iran.



This clip of the SAS storming the embassy in 1980 is unfortunately all that most people remember from those very scary times. We would do well to remember what is known historically as 'America's first war with militant Islam', with all the propaganda about Iranian nukes that is dribbling out of the evil frothing mouth of corporate American media these days.

America should stick to its constitution and stop meddling in other countries affairs.

The people of Iran rose up against the Shah put there by the Americans. Now America wants to use force and refuses to take part in talks with Iran supported by Russia and China.

Iran is strategically important to America, they have been trying for years to bully their way in there.

The only country with nukes in the middle east is America, by proxy, in Israel.

>> ^dead_tofu:
chubby or not, there is not a single prove that any of the hijackers had connection to osama. i know that sounds far out, but prove me wrong.... there isnt any prove...oh, there was a 100.000 dollars transfer to muhammed atta from a pakistani general.... pakistan being a military dictatorship....supported by u.s......this is so weird.... ever seen "zeitgeist"?


Have your tinfoil hat sources made mention of an Ahmad Shah Massoud? I'm sure they have been careful to ignore any mention of him. He was the military leader of the "United Islamic Front for the Salvation of Afghanistan". In April 2001 he spoke to the EU and warned them of strong ties between the Taliban and Al-Qaida, and that a major terrorist attack was imminent. On Spetember 9th, 2001 he was assassinated in Northern Afghanistan. His death on the 10th made papers all over the world, but the next day's events left his death largely forgotten. Would you still like to insist the tapes are fake? Even though a prominent Afghan military leader who warned of Al-Qaida planning exactly the kind of attack made on 9/11 was assassinated 2 days prior to it?

The following is from a Newsweek article read by Sen. Byrd (D, WV) during a congressional hearing on September 20, 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. Time and again, America turned a blind eye to Saddam's predations, saw him as the lesser evil or flinched at the chance to unseat him. No single policymaker or administration deserves blame for creating, or at least tolerating, a monster; many of their decisions seemed reasonable at the time. Even so, there are moments in this clumsy dance with the Devil that make one cringe. It is hard to believe that, during most of the 1980s, America knowingly permitted the Iraq Atomic Energy Commission to import bacterial cultures that might be used to build biological weapons...

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. Over the protest of some Pentagon skeptics, the Reagan administration began allowing the Iraqis to buy a wide variety of "dual use" equipment and materials from American suppliers. 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 bacterial 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 almost certainly knew from its own satellite imagery that Saddam was using chemical weapons against Iranian troops. When Saddam bombed Kurdish rebels and civilians with a lethal cocktail of mustard gas, sarin, tabun and VX in 1988, the Reagan administration first blamed Iran, before acknowledging, under pressure from congressional Democrats, that the culprits were Saddam's own forces.

The United States was much more concerned with protecting Iraqi oil from attacks by Iran as it was shipped through the Persian Gulf. In 1987, an Iraqi Exocet missile hit an American destroyer, the USS Stark, in the Persian Gulf, killing 37 crewmen. Incredibly, the United States excused Iraq for making an unintentional mistake and instead used the incident to accuse Iran of escalating the war in the gulf. The American tilt to Iraq became more pronounced. U.S. commandos began blowing up Iranian oil platforms and attacking Iranian patrol boats. In 1988, an American warship in the gulf accidentally shot down an Iranian Airbus, killing 290 civilians. Within a few weeks, Iran, exhausted and fearing American intervention, gave up its war with Iraq.

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. He was visited by congressional delegations led by Sens. Bob Dole of Kansas and Alan Simpson of Wyoming, who were eager to promote American farm and business interests. But Saddam's megalomania was on the rise, and he overplayed his hand. In 1990, a U.S. Customs sting operation snared several Iraqi agents who were trying to buy electronic equipment used to make triggers for nuclear bombs. Not long after, Saddam gained the world's attention by threatening "to burn Israel to the ground." At the Pentagon, analysts began to warn that Saddam was a growing menace, especially after he tried to buy some American-made high-tech furnaces useful for making nuclear-bomb parts. Yet other officials in Congress and in the Bush administration continued to see him as a useful, if distasteful, regional strongman. The State Department was equivocating with Saddam right up to the moment he invaded Kuwait in August 1990.

Mr. President, I referred to this Newsweek article yesterday at a hearing of the Senate Armed Services Committee. Specifically, during the hearing, I asked Secretary Rumsfeld:

"Mr. Secretary, to your knowledge, did the United States help Iraq to acquire the building blocks of biological weapons during the Iran-Iraq war? Are we in fact now facing the possibility of reaping what we have sewn?"

The Secretary quickly and flatly denied any knowledge but said he would review Pentagon records.

I suggest that the administration speed up that review. My concerns and the concerns of others have grown.

A letter from the Centers For Disease Control and Prevention, which I shall submit for the Record, shows very clearly that the United States is, in fact, preparing to reap what it has sewn. A letter written in 1995 by former CDC Director David Satcher to former Senator Donald W. Riegle, Jr., points out that the U.S. Government provided nearly two dozen viral and bacterial samples to Iraqi scientists in 1985--samples that included the plague, botulism, and anthrax, among other deadly diseases.

According to the letter from Dr. Satcher to former Senator Donald Riegle, many of the materials were hand carried by an Iraqi scientist to Iraq after he had spent 3 months training in the CDC laboratory.

The Armed Services Committee is requesting information from the Departments of Commerce, State, and Defense on the history of the United States, providing the building blocks for weapons of mass destruction to Iraq. I recommend that the Department of Health and Human Services also be included in that request.

The American people do not need obfuscation and denial. The American people need the truth. The American people need to know whether the United States is in large part responsible for the very Iraqi weapons of mass destruction which the administration now seeks to destroy.

We may very well have created the monster that we seek to eliminate. The Senate deserves to know the whole story. The American people deserve answers to the whole story.

They conveniently forget to mention the CIA-backed coup against Mossadeq that installed the Shah as fascist dictator, and how the US secretly sold weapons to both sides during the Iran-Iraq war.

The Iran Hostage Crisis was direct blowback from the Mossadeq affair.

The first frames tell you everything you need. The 2 arches holding swords are from Baghdad Iraq. The rest of the video is from the 8 year war and hostage crisis. Ridiculous.

Lets comfortably forget that the CIA backed the rule of the despotic Shah of Iran.

^Biminim:^

Does that mean that the situation McCain is referring to was actually a problem solved by Jimmy Carter and not Reagan at all?

In reply to this comment by Biminim:
I am not a McCain fan, but I have to respond to this. These are two DIFFERENT hostage situations. The one that McCain is referring to is the embassy hostage situation that was resolved the day Reagan took office in 1981. The Iran-Contra affair was about American hostages in Lebanon under the control of Hezbollah who were ransomed with weapons trans-shipped through Israel. Now, while there is deep speculation that the first hostage situation--our embassy staff taken in Tehran when Carter allowed the deposed Shah into the U.S. for cancer treatments--was resolved because of some back-channel dealings, including a rumor that George H.W. Bush went to Paris and met with Iranians to STALL the release of the hostages until after the U.S. election of 1980, these are two completely different situations. The first took place in 1981, the second in 1985/6. So McCain is technically right.

I am not a McCain fan, but I have to respond to this. These are two DIFFERENT hostage situations. The one that McCain is referring to is the embassy hostage situation that was resolved the day Reagan took office in 1981. The Iran-Contra affair was about American hostages in Lebanon under the control of Hezbollah who were ransomed with weapons trans-shipped through Israel. Now, while there is deep speculation that the first hostage situation--our embassy staff taken in Tehran when Carter allowed the deposed Shah into the U.S. for cancer treatments--was resolved because of some back-channel dealings, including a rumor that George H.W. Bush went to Paris and met with Iranians to STALL the release of the hostages until after the U.S. election of 1980, these are two completely different situations. The first took place in 1981, the second in 1985/6. So McCain is technically right.