Dear Log,
New batty theory of mine: the folks in the US government who sold Saddam Hussein all those weapons back in the days, besides selling him all the scary legal stuff we know about, also sold him some really nasty things (call them "Hamdingers") that we don't know about, but that only they and Hussein know about. They've told him that there's no use trying to use the Hamdingers against US forces, because they don't work -- maybe they never actually worked at all, or maybe the US forces have Hamdinger Overrides that render them useless, or maybe they're just expired now. Hussein replies that, to the contrary, they will work quite nicely against US forces, and will make a nasty mess. And so it's a standoff: if the US forces back down, it could be construed as meaning that they're afraid of him using his Hamdingers (an implication that they really can work). If Hussein backs down, it could be construed as meaning that he thinks his Hamdingers really can't work, and so he needs to avoid a situation where he would otherwise try to use them, since that would reveal that he's defenseless.
What's a Hamdinger? Beats me, but (so my batty theory goes) it's something you don't want to be on the wrong end of (if it actually works); and it's something that you don't want to admit that you sold to Saddam Hussein -- and consider the things that people are already on record as having sold him!
Bigger than a breadbox?
Re:Grand Unified Hamdinger Theory
jordan on 2003-03-19T20:49:10
It's funny, but I've not heard a shred of evidence to back it up.
From what I understand, Americans gave Saddam some Anthrax samples back in the Carter administration that Iraq claimed they needed for medical reasons. Many other countries were given similar samples. The US never gave them weaponized Anthrax nor any information on how to do that.
I don't believe we ever gave Iraq VX, nor instructions on how to make it.
I don't believe we gave him mustard gas, but the instructions on making that are pretty easily attainable. The technology goes back to WWI, after all.
It's thought that Iraq may have Smallpox, because UNSCOM uncovered evidence that they were working with camelpox (a similar virus) in weaponization experiments and there was an outbreak of Smallpox in 1971 from which he could get samples.
What evidence is there that the US gave Iraq any of these agents except those Anthrax samples? Anyone have anything, or is this just a popular slam on the US?
Giving Iraq Anthrax samples is actually a pretty small thing as Anthrax is fairly common in nature, it just saves a bit of work growing it.
Just look at Iraq's military. They've been buying stuff mostly from Russia, France, China and Germany for the last 30 years. If he buys his weapons systems from these countries, where do you think he goes for his Weapons of Mass Destruction?
Re:Grand Unified Hamdinger Theory
waltman on 2003-03-19T22:34:48
This article outlines the evidence.Re:Grand Unified Hamdinger Theory
jordan on 2003-03-20T02:32:54
I don't find this very compelling. All that's really clear was that US and US companies gave samples of some nasty bugs. Oh, and US companies sold them chemicals too numerous to mention.
It's not like the US is France, selling Iraq, the country with the 2nd largest known Petroleum reserves, a nuclear power plant that could produce weapons grade fisile material.
You know, Anthrax and especially, botulism are pretty common microorganisms. Pretty funny how this article throws around things like "Other lethal samples included botulins and E. coli." I've never heard of weaponizing E. coli. There is that new strain that's found in hamburger that's pretty dangerous, especially to children and the elderly, but I don't believe it has any weapons use.
I recently saw James Woolsey on TV expound that he thought there was a strong chance that Iraq had produced the Anthrax found in the letters in Florida and NY after 9/11. Why? Because only 3 countries possessed military grade Anthrax, the US, Russia and Iraq.
Except in the case of bioengineered super-bugs, the challenge with such things is not growing the microbes, but weaponizing them, producing lots of them, keeping them viable and making delivery systems. I see nothing in that article that suggests we gave Iraq any secrets that helped in this area.
I was wrong about the Carter administration sharing Anthrax with Iraq, it seems. I can't find any support for that now. My bad memory.
Re:Grand Unified Hamdinger Theory
gizmo_mathboy on 2003-03-20T03:59:48
Ok, in order to make sure I was clear on the US's role in Iraq's bio/chem/nuke programs I started doing some googling.
Here's what I initially found. My first links pertain to a general overview of the Iran-Iraq War. No real leads here but some interesting info about a UN report. The same site had some stuff on Iraq's Chemical Weapons. I did find a page about the US involvement in the Iran-Iraq war.
Those seems to be rather on the level. I did find a report done by a Swedish group that seemed rather forthright. It pertains to the use of chemical and biological weapons by Iraq.
Then I found two pieces about possible assistance the US gave Iraq. The first was seemed to be from a rather left wing site. Not sure just my impression. The second however was a transcript of a show done by the PBS show Frontline, The Arming of Iraq. This aired in 1990.
So, I still think the US was involved in Iraqi bio/chem weapons programs. It looks like everyone had a hand in it: USA, Britain, France, and Germany. I feel rather burnt out from wading through all of that material. There seems to be a lot of good links at the PBS site about Iraq and its recent history.
I'll stand by my statement that we helped Iraq. I'm not sure as to the degree though.Re:Grand Unified Hamdinger Theory
pudge on 2003-03-26T03:39:25
Note that whatever the US sold to Iraq, we know that Iraq continued to develop more and more dangerous biological and chemical weapons after the Gulf War. So no, Ted missed the head of that nail by a fairly large margin, as usual.:) Re:Grand Unified Hamdinger Theory
gizmo_mathboy on 2003-03-26T04:31:56
Yeah, he does seem to have exaggerated US in involvement somewhat. The US did give him some agents. I couldn't find any good info detailing the amounts and types.
Somehow, I doubt Mr. Rall would check his info if someone called him on it. I learned a bit more about much we helped Iran and Iraq.
As much as I dislike Dubya, it would have been nicer to say that Saddam is our thug. He's getting out of hand and we're taking him down like the rabid dog that he is. If not that, Dubya could have chosen one reason and stuck to it and not try to spin a story of the day.
