it was the americans who supplied the poison gas to saddam, george bush senior was responsible for supplying him, typical imperialist tactics divide and rule.
2006-11-18 04:08:17
·
answer #1
·
answered by the_reporter 2
·
1⤊
1⤋
I got in trouble for posting this before, Rush had to check it out on National Radio and when he found out it was true never mentioned it again.
"Retired Army War College prof. and CIA analyst (6 years) answers questions ranging from the gassing of the Kurds in Halabja [Iraq was not responsible...".
Americans believe what the want, you're a racist if you love the Confederacy or its flag, Saddam did this or that. The CIA reports that Saddam did not gas the Kurds! If you do not believe that file a Freedom of Information Request, see FOIA site below it fills out the request for you (I did ). But see for your self! It was the Iranians
God Bless You and The Southern People.
2006-11-18 03:02:46
·
answer #2
·
answered by Anonymous
·
1⤊
3⤋
The fact of the matter is that Germany was the primary supplier of precursor chemicals and in fact helped Saddam design his CW production facilities.
The US instituted a ban on 'dual-use' chemicals after we discovered that Saddam was using them to make chemical weapons. Europe noted that we did this and offered Saddam those same chemicals.
2006-11-18 03:42:21
·
answer #3
·
answered by MikeGolf 7
·
0⤊
1⤋
Saddam is dead, who tries dead men? To Saddam US supplies were foreign. It doesn't matter who supplied it, its who used it, and used it in that manner, and that's all on Saddam. And Saddam was hung.
2016-05-22 00:37:15
·
answer #4
·
answered by Anonymous
·
0⤊
0⤋
Rumsfeld supplied Saddam with all those weird weapons. US wanted Saddam to destroy the newly emerged Iranian regime. Saddam claimed that he can take over Tehran in 3 days. But what happened? The war lasted eight years, with over a million dead. I have said before, its always America's degree of influence throughout the region agenda. Saddam was a desposible tool when the Gulf War started. Have a look at the link and the picture where Rumsfeld shaking hands with Saddam. That handshake explains everything.
2006-11-18 00:52:45
·
answer #5
·
answered by Zabanya 6
·
3⤊
5⤋
Here are the exact amounts of raw material and who supplied them to Iraq. The delivery system for the chemical weapons used to attack the Kurd civilians was Russian rockets. By far, the largest suppliers of precursors for chemical weapons production were in Singapore (4,515 tons), the Netherlands (4,261 tons), Egypt (2,400 tons), India (2,343 tons), and Federal Republic of Germany (1,027 tons). One Indian company, Exomet Plastics (now part of EPC Industrie) sent 2,292 tons of precursor chemicals to Iraq. The Kim Al-Khaleej firm, located in Singapore and affiliated to United Arab Emirates, supplied more than 4,500 tons of VX, sarin, and mustard gas precursors and production equipment to Iraq.
2006-11-18 01:29:53
·
answer #6
·
answered by jessica a 2
·
1⤊
2⤋
Does anyone posting their nonsense have the slightest understanding of "INTERNATIONAL POLITICS" Alliances change and flow with the times folks, our enemies last week may be our dearest lifelong friends tomorrow. Japan is a good example. May I suggest some classes in Geo-politics.
2006-11-18 01:15:57
·
answer #7
·
answered by netnazivictim 5
·
2⤊
1⤋
You must not watch the news. Saddam is going to go to trial for that. Try proof reading your stuff before you submit it.
2006-11-18 02:33:49
·
answer #8
·
answered by redneckking_99 3
·
2⤊
1⤋
Don’t you feel stupid answering your own questions using a different name? And probably even more stupid knowing that only you are going to give you pathetic, lame, sorry answers “Best Answer”. I’d hate to be a dumb as you….. Check out Mr_Truth, the-reporter, W.M.D and Alpha_Male… Better know as the NOT TO BRIGHT CHEATERS of Yahoo Answers. You would have “0%””Zip””Zero””none””not even one Best answer if it wasn’t for all your fake friends.
2006-11-18 04:31:52
·
answer #9
·
answered by U-R-A cheater 1
·
0⤊
2⤋
Western countries have always been against chemical weapons. They may have supplied arms, but i doubt they would have supplied chemical/biological weapons.
2006-11-18 00:26:11
·
answer #10
·
answered by alan_district 3
·
1⤊
2⤋