Takes One To Know One
I’ve covered this before, but one of the main reasons the Bush Gang is so convinced that they know what kind of nasty war stuff Iraq has is because they sold it to Iraq in the first place, with Rumsfeld acting as main bagman. This report reminds us that one of the main reasons that Washington hijacked the initial UN report on Iraq was so that it could redact the information about which Western companies and organizations (mainly US-based but a fair sprinkling from across Europe as well) supplied Iraq with so many nasty bugs and gases. Of the original 12,000 pages, most of the countries on the UN Security Council (including the current President, Germany) received only 3,000 pages.
Meanwhile, I note that as the drums of war are beating louder, the UN has taken the prudent step of covering their magnificent Guernica reproduction with a shroud. Apparently it wouldn’t do at all to have various militaristic men talking enthusiastically about bombing civilian cities “against a backdrop depicting images of women and children and animals crying with horror and showing the suffering of war“.
Ah but only the US was in a position to supply Iraq with detailed sat surveillance and intercepts that enabled them to target and deeploy their WMD with maximum effect on the hapless Iranians.
The US providing satellite images (if they did) in warfare could be completely legitimate and doesn’t indicate they knew anything about Iraq’s intent to use those satellite images for chemical warfare.
But disregarding that for the momment, your whole argument is completely implausible, because, had Iraq information that would be embarrassing to the US, they surely would be screaming it from the rooftops. And they aren’t.
You never hear Tariq Aziz saying on Nightline: “Why are you americans complaning about chemical weapons? You sold them to us, your provided us with satellite images with the knowledge that we would target Iranian troofs and civilians. Oh, and Ted Koppel, here is a set of documents showing the US knew.”
You don’t hear that, because your j’accusation doesn’t pass the common sense metric.
It seems that in war, as in everything else, there are different standards. For instance, the use of chemical weapons on the battlefield is frowned upon, but when the US showers Iraq with radiological pollution from uranium bullets, causing massive mutations, then that’s somehow tolerated.
http://www.fair.org/extra/0301/blitzer.html
The sad fact is that chemical weapons are the choice technology of poorer nations, while the US has moved on to bigger and better things. It makes sense, therefore, to seek to deny your enemy from using technologies by outlawing them. I’m reminded of how the early European nations with the heaviest investment in longbowmen units fought hardest to outlaw the crossbow.
I’ve previously covered Iraq’s use of gas during its savage, US-directed war against Iran:
http://www.meehawl.com/Blogfiles/2002_10_27_WeekArchive.php#83635592
“had Iraq information that would be embarrassing to the US, they surely would be screaming it from the rooftops. And they aren’t.”
This would imply that governments always employ full disclosure, which is naive. I daresay that many people outside the US are more informaed as to the human rights abuses of its government than are many people within the US. And vica versa for Iraq.
Stick to the argument. You’ve ignroed the argument and moved on to something else — details of chemical weapons. The fact is, the Iraq government has a copy of its own 12,000 page document that they produced. Had where been anything embarrassing to the US in it, they would disclose it to the press. They didn’t, because there was nothing empbarrassing, only dangerous.
Finally, addressing your comment about chemical weapons. It’s seems quite wrong. The issue is much more black and white than you make it out. Chemical weapons that are banned are meant to kill. “Chemical weapons” that are used for non-lethal police action, are like teargas, and their intent is to specifically NOT to kill, but only temporarily disable. Had the russians WANTED to KILL everyone in the opera house the could have just blown up the building. Clearly they didn’t want civilians inside to die and that is why they used some common drug in a strong dosage.