Re: 17,000 deaths a year from the cold

"Ian St. John" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>
> "George" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> >
> > "Ian St. John" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> > news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> > >
> > > "George" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> > > news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> <snip>
> > >
> > > Both Iran and Iraq used thiodyglycol as the precursor. It is
relatively
> > easy
> > > to obtain under the designation of 'pesticide production' and easy to
> > > convert to mustard gas with limited technology. Fingerprinting cannot
> make
> > > fine distinction such as you suggest. You might be able to pinpoint
the
> > > country of origin of the precursor material but you cannot say who
USED
> > the
> > > gas. Both Iran and Iraq could easily get the same material from the
same
> > > exporting country.
> >
> > So now you are saying that we sold precursors to Iran as well?
>
> You have an amazing abiltiy to come up with totally illogical
non-sequitors.
> I did not specify a country. It could as easily be supplies from Germany.
>
> NOR do you take the point that I was not talking about identifying the
> country of origin of the precursor as this is immaterial. It is the USE of
> the material that is important and both countries could be using the same
> supplier of chemical products.
>
> <snip>
> > I can collect a sample of gasoline contaminated soil and tell you,
> > using chemical fingerprinting, if it was produced from Exxon, Chevron,
or
> > BP.
>
> Yes. I am sure you could. Gasoline is a highly variable combination of an
> assortement of different molecules and each company has it's own
'formulas'
> for the resulting product. There should be enough variation that you could
> tell the source of the oil that they produced it by. Most natural deposits
> have unique mixed as the input. On the other hand, chemical fingerprinting
> of table salt is unlikely to be quite so simple.

Not so simple, but doable.

> However, again the question is not who produced the precursors but who
threw
> the CWB. As both countries could have gotten the precursor from the same
> markets there is no necessary distinguishing fingerprint to determine Iran
> mustard gas from Iraq mustard gas.
>
>
> > Having said that, by
> > fingerprinting the thiodyglycol, you can make a reasonable determination
> of
> > whether or not it was made by a US manufacturer.  If it was, then the
> > chances would be good that it came from the US, and hence the gas would
> have
> > been used by the Iraqis.
>
> Or Iranians. It remains to be seen how many shipments slipped through for
> every one that is caught.
> http://www.nti.org/e_research/profiles/iran/chemical/2340.html
> September 1980
> According to Defense and Foreign Affairs, Iran uses Hong Kong as a conduit
> for unspecified strategic materials to Iran imported mainly from the
United
> States. Over the next six years, the source documents that the clandestine
> traffic includes aircraft parts and an attempted sale to Iran of
protective
> masks.
> -Robert Karniol, "Iran's Hong Kong Connection," Defense & Foreign Affairs,
> May 1986, p. 42."
>
> http://www.nti.org/e_research/profiles/Iran/Chemical/2340_2959.html
> First Half of 1987
> Iran purchases some 90 tons of thiodiglycol, a precursor for mustard gas,
> from a US company, Alcolac International, in Maryland.
> -Gordon M. Burck and Charles C. Flowerree, International Handbook on
> Chemical Weapons Proliferation (Westport, Connecticut: Greenwood Press,
> 1991), p. 249.
>
> http://www.nti.org/e_research/profiles/Iran/Chemical/2340_2960.html
> 1 December 1988
> US authorities are investigating an agreement by an US company to transfer
> thiodiglycol to Iran, circumventing US export control laws. The company,
> Alcolac of Baltimore, MD, began shipping the chemical in February 1987 for
> Colimex, a West German company now named Chemco GmbH. The February
shipment
> made first went to Norfolk, VA, where customs officials intercepted the
> shipment and replaced the drums of thiodiglycol with drums of water. The
> agents then tracked the shipment to Singapore, where it was then
> transshipped to Karachi, Pakistan. In Pakistan, the shipment was again
> transferred, this time to an Iranian ship called the SS Iran Ekram. From
> Karachi, the shipment was sent to Bandar Abbas, Iran, where it was
> off-loaded. From there, it made its way to a company in Tehran. [Note:
> Referenced earlier in 1987 chronology.]
> -"Authorities Investigating Alleged Scheme to Ship Nerve Gas to Iran,"
> Associated Press, 1 December 1988.
>
> 1 December 1988
> Peter Walascheck, a West German national accused of illegally trying to
ship
> thiodiglycol to Iran (from Alcolac, a company in Baltimore), sacrifices
his
> $350,000 bond and flees the United States. According to the report,
> Walascheck was ordered to stay at a halfway house, but he never returned
> from his volunteer job. His hearing had been scheduled for 20 December.
> -"West German Convicted in Illegal Chemical Shipment Forfeits Bond,"
> Associated Press, 12 January 1989

Ok, you've convinced me.  I hadn't heard this.

> > >
> > > >
> > > > > The origin of the materials for chemical and biological weapons
was
> > > often
> > > > > the U.S. which backed the Iraqis in their war as a check on the
> power
> > of
> > > > > Islamic Iranian Fundamentalists.
> > > >
> > > > And Belgium, and Germany, etc, etc, etc.  Your point is?
> > >
> > > That the use of chemical weapons in the war was supported by the U.S.
> >
> > Bullshit!  Provide the documents, dweeb.
>
> Done that above.
>
>
http://ocw.mit.edu/NR/rdonlyres/History/21H-615The-Middle-East-in-20th-CenturySpring2003/767BC23B-6871-46F3-9BDC-4568CC2F86D5/0/irancontra.pdf
>
> 1982: Iraq removed from US list of terrorist states, allowing Iraq to
obtain
> credit and loans through the Agric. Dept.'s Commodity Credit Corporation
> (CCC).
>
> Thus allowing Iraq to import precursor chemicals for 'agricultural
> pesticides' with much less scrutiny. The money from the Contras was
> funnelled into this in a black ops that got a lot of people in trouble
> later. But not to be too fair...
>
> "Iran-Iraq War
> The facts are that during the Iran-Iraq war the U.S. supplied Iraq with
> something much more valuable than guns: satellite information on when and
> where the Iranians were going to attack.
>
> Of course, current anti-war activists seize this piece of information
> without putting it into historical context. The information was supplied
> during the height of the Cold War. The main threat to America was the
Soviet
> Union and the biggest fear in the Gulf was the Ayatollah Khomeini.
>
> You remember the chant "death to America"? It almost seems that the
> ayatollah invented it. Ironically, the Ayatollah made his way to Tehran
from
> his home in exile - Paris.
>
> The Reagan administration, aware that the Iranian ayatollah had threatened
> to turn the Gulf into a sea of fire, assisted Saddam so that he would not
> lose the war. The assistance stopped short of helping Saddam win the war.
>
> In fact, when it appeared the Iraqis were on the verge of victory, the
> Reagan administration transferred real weapons to the Iranians. The
infamous
> Iran-Contra scandal involved a large number of badly needed U.S. TOW
> anti-tank missiles that were sold to Iran.
>
> The U.S. missiles proved to be critical to the Iranian defense against
> Iraq's superior Russian tank force. The result was a stalemate and the war
> ended."
>
> ---------------- As usual, America plays both sides and screws
> both ---------

I understand this.  But to say that because we did this that we then
directly supported the use of chemical weapons in the war is a stretch, to
say the least.

> >
> > > > You said above
> > > > that "Chemical weapons do not 'point fingers' back at the
originators
> so
> > >
> > > They do not. If country A uses them or country B, unless there is
> > something
> > > unique about the precursor/production ( which there are not )
> >
> > Yes there is.  There is always something unique about precursors.  Read
> > above.
>
> Nope. You are not identifying the source of the precursor but the source
of
> the arm that threw the bomb. Unless you can tie the fingerprints to a
known
> Iraqi or Iranian. The point has never been who supplied the precursors. It
> has always been who threw the bomb. You keep raggiing at that same red
> herring..
>
> >
> > >you cannot
> > > distinguish which country threw it. There are many examples of this,
> > > including the Kurdish village, which the CIA could not attribute to
one
>
> > side
> > > or the other.
> >
> > So, you think the CIA screwed up the intelligence on Iraq, but your
> willing,
> > for the sake of your argument, to accept their intelligence on the
Kurdish
> > attack?  Are you running for hypocrit of the year, or what?
>
> You manage to ignore the whole point to the statement ("you cannot
> distinguish which country threw it.") by claiming chemical fingerprinting
> which is NOT meaningful in this regard as the precursors could have come
> from anywhere. Either directly or indirectly as I have supported in other
> references.
>
> >
> > > > some
> > > > conflicts have little evidence as to which side used them."  I say
> they
> > > can
> > > > easily be traced.  and Yet you have no problem pointing the finger
at
> > the
> > > US
> > > > for providing chemical precursers despite the fact that you have no
> > > evidence
> > > > whatsoever that Iraq actually used those provided chemicals to make
> the
> > > > weapons in question.
> > >
> > > I have no problem finding who supplied the precursors. That can be
done
> > with
> > > export receipts. My god you are a dim shit. The question is who USED
> them.
> > > And the answer is BOTH countries.
> >
> > Again, you are suggesting that the US supplied both countries with
> > thiodglycol?  And you base this on what?  More CIA imtelligence?  Where
is
> > the data?
>
> Please ream out that dead space between your ears. It seems to have become
> full of shit and incapable of following simple facts.
>
> >
> > > >
> > > > > The Geneva Convention ( to which both are a signatory ) prohibits
> the
> > > use
> > > > of
> > > > > Chemical or Biological weapons but the fact is that both Iran,
Iraq,
> > and
> > > > the
> > > > > U.S. thumb their noses at the convention whenever they like. The
> real
> > > > > recourse for the convention is that once one side uses them, the
> other
> > > is
> > > > > free to do so.
> > > >
> > > > Using that seriously fucked up reasoning, its ok to pollute Canadian
> > > waters
> > > > with our pollution because they are doing it to us.  Your argument
is
> > > flawed
> > > > kimosabi.
> > >
> > > You failed the Logic 0.0009 course. There is no moral evaluation of
what
> > is
> > > ":right" here. When one talks about a protocol or treaty one is
talking
> > > about legal sanction. If morals were being discussed, the U.S.'s
massive
> > > stockpiles and misuse during tests would be the talking point.
> > >
> > > Obviously use of chemical, biological or nuclear weapons is abhorent
and
> > > thus banned in the first place. I have been talking about the
practical
> > > legal ramifications. There is no basis for invasion based on the use
of
> > > Chemical weapons in the Iran/Iraq war. It was not a threat to the U.S.
> nor
> > > is there any sanction from the use during this conflict. The WMD
> > > restrictions stem from the Kuwait war and the U.N restriictions on
> > military
> > > equipment that were imposed.
> >
> > And I have been trying to put a human face to those legal ramifications.
>
> Nope. You have been trying to subsititude bullshit and bafflegab for
facts.
> The 'inhuman face' you are trying to plant is to make accusations of
> allegations that you cannot back up and then claim that because you
painted
> an ugly picture the model must be ugly.
>
>
> > The fact is that Saddam Hussein is a mass murderer who killed tens of
> > thousands to further his political and financial goals, and should be
> tried
> > for crimes against humanity, or if he won't go quietly, should suffer
the
> > same fate as his sons.  Everyone on the planet but you seems to think
this
> > is the case.  What does that say about you, Ian?
>
>
> The point is what the above says about you. You make allegations and
claims
> that you cannot back up and stand by them without fact or evidence. You
are
> obviously in some sort of religious crisis so I will leave you with your
> 'dogma'.
>

So, you are saying that Saddam Hussein was a saint?  Are you suggesting that
he didn't do the things he is accused of, despite the tons of documentation
of his atrocities?  Do you think the tons of documents (2 million at last
count) were all made up, and therefore do not constitute evidence?  Do you
also think Hitler was a good boy?