THAT SO TRUE!! "WE SENT ANTRAX BY ACCIDENT" yea rite! "Why would we have made such a stink after Halubja " Because the chemicals USA gave IRaq were suppose to kill Iranians! And they were until Saddam was getting more desparate And used them on Kurd Cities. Plus Us wanted every to think there innocent! what would the world think if they didnt make a big fuss out of it?

1.) We did not send massive quantities of Anthrax to Iraq we sent a lab sample for agricultural experimentation purposes (I believe its called the Aimes Iowa Strain) and the the Iraqis grew the rest from the sample (its supposedly very simple). For all I know the Sadamites probably got other strains from other sources. In any case I don't think the bathists were ever able to deploy the anthrax operationally during the Iran Iraq war. The chemical plants came from Germany and France (probably a Total/Fina subsiderary).

2.) If the US did not mention the Chemical Attacks then the rest of the world would have thought of us as they do the UN and nobody is accusing them of supplying arms to Sadam. (The UN just takes bribes to look the other way.) I believe at the time the US was the only state (other than obviously Iran) that objected to Sadams use of chemical weapons. Later on several other states followed our lead.

3.) The US did not wait until the Halabja attack to start complaining about Sadam and Chemical Weapons but that was the most famous instance of Sadams use of chemical weapons so it was the one that I remembered.

... also have sth very special for you MIKYYYYYYYY (which answers my first question): http://www.whatreallyhappened.com/rumsfeld-saddam.jpg.... A little late coming to the party on this one, HOGO. You really should read ALL of the threads and posts discussing this NON-event. Jimmy Carter hugged Yassir Arafat on many occasions. Does that infer that there is connection between the US administration and Arafat? (Well, in Carter's case, well, yes) swhitebull - Give us us break, you are OLD news that keeps on returning like a bad coin. AD NAUSEUM.

MISSING THE POINT “1.)did not send massive quantities of Anthrax to Iraq we sent a lab sample for agricultural experimentation purposes (I believe its called the Aimes Iowa Strain) and the the Iraqis grew the rest from the sample (its supposedly very simple).” You are missing the point. Here is what I meant: Why did you give Anthrax (or any other chemical stuff) to a considered terrorist regime when you knew it has dual use? “For all I know the Sadamites probably got other strains from other sources. In any case I don't think the bathists were ever able to deploy the anthrax operationally during the Iran Iraq war.” History says sth else my friend and those photos justify it. “The chemical plants came from Germany and France (probably a Total/Fina subsiderary).” AND “2.) If the US did not mention the Chemical Attacks then the rest of the world would have thought of us as they do the UN and nobody is accusing them of supplying arms to Sadam. (The UN just takes bribes to look the other way.) I believe at the time the US was the only state (other than obviously Iran) that objected to Sadams use of chemical weapons. Later on several other states followed our lead.” Nobody said they (Ger. And Fra.) are innocent and nobody has (yet) claimed that, BUT you claim US is innocent so we are talking about US. ( + Ger. And Fra. protested so late because they knew they have some parts of dirty jobon their hands.) “3.) The US did not wait until the Halabja attack to start complaining about Sadam and Chemical Weapons but that was the most famous instance of Sadams use of chemical weapons so it was the one that I remembered.” Oh, I’m sorry my friend but the photo I just posted (Saddam and Rumsfeld), says sth else. Didn’t you read the quote from US government in NYT. “American politicians pronounce themselves SATISFIED with relations between US and Iraq.” And That’s 5 days after the report of U.N. denouncing the use of Mustard gas and Tuban against Iranian troops. Now maybe u say “how are u sure Mustard gas and … came from US?” That’s not the point; the point is US (the so called protector of democracy, especially during the Cold War) didn’t care sh*t about Iranian people. Do you know what does “satisfied” mean? It means there is nothing to blame about. In that day Rumsfeld could SLAM Saddam but he DIDN’T. ( ****swhitebull**** : “Jimmy Carter hugged Yassir Arafat on many occasions.” YES, but Carter never approved or said he is satisfied with Arafat policies. )

... ( ****swhitebull**** : “Jimmy Carter hugged Yassir Arafat on many occasions.” YES, but Carter never approved or said he is satisfied with Arafat policies. ) .... Actually, Carter was the ONLY president that actively promoted and shilled for Arafat, joining the choir of Arafat sycophants and panderers. Much of this occured after his failed presidency, but the elements were already in place, as evidence of Carter's fawning over arafat at Camp David and subsequent events. This has been WELL documented -AND DISCUSSED - on these pages. BuUt in case you missed it, here is Carter's absolutely disgraceful record: http://www.strategypage.com/messageboards/messages/462-1642.asp swhitebull

What I meant with Arafat policies is the massacre of Israeli people. + if Carter was a mess then more shame for US. Secondly if I'm wrong on this particular issue(Carter) that doesn't mean the rest of my arguments(Saddam,Rumsfeld) is wrong and I STILL STAND FOR IT.(So don't think u(US-i'm not addressing swhitebull-) can escape that easily. Even IF(that's a very very big IF) US didn't give any chemicals to Saddam against Iranians (Which I believe they did), US could very easily stop Saddam after the first attacks on iranian people; but did they do it? N O ,they were more "satisfied" with their relation with Iraq, which makes them as much responsible as Saddam for what followed.

"Kicked out"?  Of Iraq?  Who kicked us out of Iraq and when did that happen?

who kicked out who?