Saddam Hussein's last weapons deal

"Saddam's intent was to get the expertise from the North Koreans and, potentially, open his own production line."


http://www.ajc.com/news/content/news/1203/01irmissiles.html


n.korea screwed saddam for 10 million...i can see the "priceless" ad now

I hardly find the fact that the Syrian government is denying any culpability in this disturbing matter , to be any way reassuring that they, in fact, are not continuing to sponor and give refuge to numerous terrorist organizations. Assad is a turd, so was his old man. Do some due diligence ,and see for yourself.

it really is unbelievable how uninformed the majority of this country is, and even when the above facts are brought into a discussion with someone whom supports the "war on terror" people just refuse to believe them.

or do people just not care?

as far as public knowledge goes you just have to look at who really controls the mass information stream coming into the US.


as far as i'm concerned the U.S. was trying to choose the "lesser of 2 evils" when supplying saddam w/ weapons in the 80's. it ended up being a mistake but hindsight is always fucking 20/20.

concur w/ industrial_elf well said

-using the "lesser of 2 evils" was just a fuckin figure of speech (by which i mean "figure of speech"

-you mean to tell me that states act in their own best interest? no way! that's crazy talk. ( by the way - i meant this sarcastically, just to clarify )

-is that why people fight wars? geez, never would have figured that out. (more sarcasm)


SIDE NOTE: i'm not trying to start a flame war but for some reason i can see a whole bunch of stuff not related to my posts thrown at me.

SIDE NOTE 2: american hostages in Iran - you know, the takeover of the United States embassy in Tehran on November 4, 1979 and the subsequent holding of United States hostages for 444 days - i have a feeling this was just one of our many reasons, and I don't know if i'd call it "selfish"

ps. Industrial_elf

-----
"Most historians agree that Carter lost the election to Ronald Reagan because of the Hostage Crisis. And ironically, Reagan's win (and the start of the Iran-Iraq war in September 1980) is what prompted their release, which, by the way, occurred the day of Reagan's inauguration, after the U.S. released $8 billion in Iranian assets."

source: www.terrorismvictims.org -yeah, i know the site may be a little biased
-----

[Edited on Dec 04, 2003 by whiterabbit]

friends 4ever!

check yes if you like me
check no if you don't


hehe...nah, i feel you on the cynical view...we'll call you a "realist", like myself.

Whether or not the US supplied Saddam with his initial stock of chem weapons to use against the Iranians is meaningless..., what in the hell does this have to do with Saddam's regime trying to buy a Rodong missle production line? Um, nothing.

What does that have to do with Syria's complicity in the whole deal? Um, nothing.

Okay, so he attempted to buy missile equipment that would allow him to strike US allies from North Korea. We've known he wanted a stronger arsenol of weapons than he was allowed all along. He never actually gained this ability, and even if he had, he still would not have been able to unleash the doomsday scenarios Bush and Cheney continue to talk about.

Ona similar note, there was an AP article in the Monday's Boston globe, entitledIraqi Scientists never revived their long-dead nuclear program , in which several Iraqi nuclear scientists admitted that they lied to Saddam about their ability to produce a bomb all along, that they used the money he kept throwing at them for other things, only ever producing a few grams of enriched uranium, far short of the 40lbs required for a bomb, and that the only reason they weren't exposed is that we destroyed the facilities in the gulf war.

From the sound of things, Saddam was a total schmuck.

[Edited on Dec 05, 2003 by bruiser_boy]

Yes Saddam was a schmuck.
however the Syrians and NK are still a problem..

Fact: A few days before America invaded Iraq Saddam offered, in no uncertain terms, to let American intelligence agecies (i.e. the CIA) send 200 plainclothes inspectors of their own into the country to investigate the existance of WMDs. The fact that this wasn't satisfactory for Bush, who at the time had been given no reason to suspect WMDs, at least as far as UN weapons inspectors were concerned, is cause for alarm. Yes Saddam gassed the Kurds, but yes he also did it with the implicit permission of the White House and if you believe that Saddam wasn't their boy before Bush Sr. set him up, then you need to do more research. I agree with Jimslade in that the article you posted a link too relies on the current administration's sources and sounds like bogus spin which still begs the question: So why wasn't North Korea the target, they were, at least, known to have weapons of mass destruction.

Anyways wrap your head around this misinformation: http://www.whitehouse.gov/response/disarm.html
The fact that this is legitimate white house rhtoric is laughable as most of it has already been proven a falacy. Shame on them.

Is no one bothered by their vague usage of quotes and lack of sources? How much more fabricated can news get?