1. You propose there are no WMD's in Iraq.
\r\n\r\n
2. You propose Iraq has WMD because we provided them with samples.

There is no doubt that Iraq has HAD chemical weapons. The question is, do they still HAVE them?

Another issue in all of this is the policy of pre-emption. Read what Lincoln had to say on the matter; it is quite germane to the issue of executive power in the US. If nothing else, take the policy as enumerated by the current administration and take it to its logical conclusions, extrapolate likely results, and think about whether that's good for the United States or not.

[link|http://www.futurenet.org/iraq/moresaddamthreat.htm|http://www.futurenet...esaddamthreat.htm]

The samples were provided for medical research, and were provided by the Centers for Disease Control before the Iraq biological program was made public. They were supposed to research possible cures, in the event someone else (like Iran) used bio on them.

If you really believe that, I have some great houses in Hochelaga to sell you.

OTOH, I've already posted evidence about this. There was a very revealing documentary on CBC last week (Fifth Estate) about the sale of chemical weapon enablers to Iraq that had some Reagan era stooges squirming as they denied any possible knowledge that Hussein was going to use them to make chemical weapons. Here are some links:

[link|http://www.cbc.ca/fifth/kurds/alliance.html|http://www.cbc.ca/fi...rds/alliance.html]

"Certainly there was pressure to sell and there was the argument, if the contract doesn\ufffdt go to an American you can be darn sure it\ufffds gonna go to a German, British, French manufacturer and trucks were one example. Civilian helicopters were a dicier decision. Could they be turned into the equivalent of an attack helicopter?" ... "You know, we don\ufffdt like that, that\ufffds a very dangerous thing, and of course Halabja is a perfect example of what you do with helicopters filled with chemicals." — Dr. Stephen Bryen, a Pentagon official in charge of monitoring technology exports during the Reagan administration.

[link|http://www.cbc.ca/fifth/kurds/president_kurdistan.pdf|http://www.cbc.ca/fi...ent_kurdistan.pdf]

He is circumspect, because he's hoping that the US won't hang them out to dry like they did in '88. He does, however, point out that chem protective gear promised them before the war started has yet to arrive. The interview was conducted on 15 March this year.

[link|http://www.cbc.ca/fifth/kurds/battle.html|http://www.cbc.ca/fi...kurds/battle.html]

"It was a moment of recognition. And I put together the use of chemical weapons against villages far from the Iranian border in places that could have nothing to do with the Iran/Iraq war and put that together with the systemic destruction of villages that I\ufffdd seen before. The conclusion was that this regime was committing genocide. And I felt that we had to do something about it." .. after a visit to document the gassings .. "I sat down and dictated, in about an hour, a bill to my secretary. I imposed every sanction on Iraq that I could think of. The legislation banned oil sales, required U.S. to oppose loans, cut off $700 million in agricultural and export credits and banned any export requiring a licence. I drafted this, and said what should we call it?" — Peter Galbraith, senior advisor to the US Senate Foreign Relations Committee (1979-1993).

"It\ufffds very hard to be FOR genocide, or against people who are against genocide, but I couldn\ufffdt see anything in that resolution that could prevent any single drop of blood being shed. All I could see was that it was doing harm to the U.S., rather than to the perpetrators of the alleged genocide." &emdash; Bill Frenzell, Congressman from Minnesota in 1988. Hey, at least he had the courage to be public about it, unlike some others.

Galbraith again: "They included the agriculture lobbyists \ufffd the Rice Millers Association. Being from New England, I thought rice came from South East Asia and I was surprised to learn that \ufffd of rice grown in Arkansas was being exported to Iraq. In fact in all these messages, and the people I spoke with, there was no interest in what was happening to the Kurds. It was purely about their economical interests and the problems this legislation would cause for them." .. eventually, Reagan let it be known he would veto the legislation, terming sanctions 'premature' .. "What would have made it ripe for action? The killing of all the Kurds? It was an absurd statement."

Also, chemical weapons require no samples, and many can be produced quite easily. Yay ultraviolence.

Hey, surprise! However, the raw materials for said weapons can be harder to come by. For example, the sale of chlorine to Iraq has long been banned, as its a dual use chemical, used both in water purification and in chemical weapons. Furthermore, the equipment used to make chlorine in quantity has also been banned under the sanctions as a dual use technology.

I leave the effects of the ban on the purchase of chlorine on water quality in Iraqi cities to your imagination. Since it's pretty much a necessity in that activity, I'm sure that there are factories in Iraq that produce it; otherwise, there would be no such thing as safe water to drink in their urban centres. Does that mean they have chemical weapons?

Of course, I feel that I have to point out that the forgoing in no way means that I think Saddam is good and the US bad. Saddam is evil. However, considering that it's largely the same crew in charge now as was in charge then, is there any wonder that some people are perhaps a little sceptical about the stated "liberationist" intentions of the US?