Comments about ‘Israel lawmaker claims Hezbollah getting chemicals’

Return to article »

Published: Monday, April 29 2013 7:00 a.m. MDT

Comments
  • Oldest first
  • Newest first
  • Most recommended
JWB
Kaysville, UT

Trickle from Iraq through the big pipeline border of getting rid of quickly chemicals of mass destruction 10 years ago and now to Hezbollah through a smaller conduit makes sense. President Bush got blamed for no-chemical weapons but through the United Nations process through their chemical weapon convention treaty is very similar to the nuclear weapons process. Also, there are members in the security council and regular members that have power to stop or at least hinder the process of the inspections. It is not the best but when you put nations, people and organizations on notice that validates at least the notice.

It is hard enough with politics in the United States of America to get anything done and within the International United Nations' processes, it is even more difficult and that bureaucracy they have formed since 1947 has become a rigid machine. They don't want to make any more mistakes as some believed happened with the partitioning of Israel. It doesn't help when we have our own Ambassador to the United Nations out on the public news media with a multi-faceted aim to state undocumented facts for President Obama when it was not at her level.

JWB
Kaysville, UT

This is from a 1980 Congressional report about nuclear testing in Nevada. These happenings were important as about 5,000 sheep died in Skull Valley/Dugway in 1968 and people got concerned about nuclear fallout. It was only chemical weapons in Dugway that killed the sheep. Our own government helped show Iraq and Syria how to deny involvement.

“Dr. Stephen Brower testified that the government's policy not to compensate the sheepmen was stated to him by Dr. Paul Pearson (then-Chief of the Biological Branch, Division of Medicine, AEC) : ... Dr. Pearson told me .. that the AEC could under no circumstances afford to have a claim established against them and have that precedent set. And he further indicated that the sheepmen could not expect under any circumstances to be reimbursed for that reason."
And, to prevent this precedent from being established, the govern¬ment proceeded to build a case against compensation. As stated by Dr. Brower before the Subcommittee, ". . by the end of 1954 they had a battery of people coming through telling us that the levels of radiation could, not have caused the damage . . . we were just constantly bom¬barded with expert opinions."

JoeBlow
Far East USA, SC

"President Bush got blamed for no-chemical weapons "

Yes JWB. He got blamed. BY HIMSELF

"No one was more shocked and angry than I was when we didn't find the weapons," he writes.
"I had a sickening feeling every time I thought about it. I still do."

Amazing that the you don't believe the man himself. Some people are just in deep partisan denial.

JWB
Kaysville, UT

At the time of the Iraq invasion I was working with a Russian military person who was sure we would find the weapons that Russia helped program to them and was concerned. He knew and I knew they had chemical weapons and used them against their own people. If they didn't really have them, why would Iraq claim they had them? We didn't go into their country's interior in 1991 but should have. We knew of the reports against the Kurds. However, the Chemical Weapon Convention wasn't signed yet which was done in January 1993, right before President Clinton took office. President Bush I got it through the U.N.

Chemical weapons alluded the United Nation's OPCW. The Nuclear process is similar with the UN's International Atomic Energy Agency. Politics is normal with the United Nations and even our State Department. Since 1947, the UN has entrenched itself more into our political arena even with military involvements from NATO and other alliances.

JoeBlow
Far East USA, SC

"If they didn't really have them, why would Iraq claim they had them? "

You have not seen this?

(CNN) -- Saddam Hussein let the world think he had weapons of mass destruction to intimidate Iran and prevent the country from attacking Iraq, according to an FBI agent who interviewed the dictator after his 2003 capture.

JWB
Kaysville, UT

He just made up that the Kurds were killed by his chemical weapons, also? When a person is captured, especially one with any kind of integrity, he will say anything to keep the noose off his neck but that didn't even work. Interviewed by the FBI doesn't always do so well when it is a military person, dictator, and very adept killer they are talking with. The FBI didn't do so well it the marathon bombers, either nor with 9/11 prior engagements. They are supposed to know the pieces of the puzzle. Even Libya had their own stash but Ghadafi gave that up as Iraq was attacked. He was on borrowed time also.

JoeBlow
Far East USA, SC

Oh, so are you playin the ole word game?

Yes, Saddam HAD WMD's in the past. And he used them. That was 1991.

There has been no evidence that he HAD WMD's in 2001.

So, the correct statement would be

"We KNOW Saddam had WMD in 1991. There is NO evidence that he had them in 2001."

What I posted is FACT. You posted conjecture.

worf
Mcallen, TX

Let's hope Obama doesn't make idle threats if Hezbollah is getting chemicals.

to comment

DeseretNews.com encourages a civil dialogue among its readers. We welcome your thoughtful comments.
About comments