View previous topic :: View next topic |
Author |
Message |
bacasper

Joined: 26 Mar 2007
|
Posted: Sat Feb 27, 2010 7:43 pm Post subject: Did Fed finance Saddam's weapons? |
|
|
Did the US Federal Reserve finance Saddam Hussein�s weapon purchases?
Published 27 February, 2010, 18:51
As Congress debates legislation to make the US Federal Reserve less secretive, Republican Ron Paul said the Bank loaned Iraq billions of dollars to buy US weapons in the 1980s.
...
On the rocky road to that elusive goal, Paul appeared this week alongside fellow lawmakers on Capitol Hill where they had the pleasure of putting Chairman of the Federal Reserve Ben Bernanke in the hot seat for a painful Q&A session. Bernanke, incidentally, is the guy who ran the money-printing machines at full speed to bail out the American economy, if not the entire globalization project itself, following the Collapse of 2007.
Paul, who regularly provides the fireworks to otherwise drab Congressional hearings due to his profound knowledge of the issues, slammed the �cozy relationship� that now exists between lawmakers and the Federal Reserve Bank, which creates what the congressman from Texas has labeled the �inflationary tax.�
�There has been a political cozy relationship between Congress and the Federal Reserve,� said Paul, addressing his comments at Bernanke. �The Congress has been derelict in its duties to provide oversight�Congress can keep spending and getting reelected. They don�t have to raise taxes, so the Fed can act as a taxing authority: you print the money, [which] dilutes the value of the money, prices go up, and price inflation is a tax and when people pay a lot more for their medical care than they used to they ought to think about the inflationary tax.�
Paul then discussed the lack of transparency in the Federal Reserve, and how this may have contributed to more than one under-the-table transaction that worked to disrupt US foreign policy.
�I would like to get to more specifics on the �transparency bill� because it has been reported in the past that during the 1980s the Fed actually facilitated a $5.5 billion dollar loan to Saddam Hussein, and then he bought weapons from our military industrial complex,� Paul said, adding that was also the time when the Iraqi dictator invested in a nuclear reactor.
full story at link |
|
Back to top |
|
 |
caniff
Joined: 03 Feb 2004 Location: All over the map
|
Posted: Sun Feb 28, 2010 2:42 am Post subject: |
|
|
The military-industrial complex has to make money same as the next guy. |
|
Back to top |
|
 |
T-J

Joined: 10 Oct 2008 Location: Seoul EunpyungGu Yeonsinnae
|
Posted: Sun Feb 28, 2010 6:39 pm Post subject: |
|
|
But Saddam didn't have any weapons.... |
|
Back to top |
|
 |
catman

Joined: 18 Jul 2004
|
Posted: Sun Feb 28, 2010 7:20 pm Post subject: |
|
|
T-J wrote: |
But Saddam didn't have any weapons.... |
Not in 2003. |
|
Back to top |
|
 |
bacasper

Joined: 26 Mar 2007
|
Posted: Sun Feb 28, 2010 9:47 pm Post subject: |
|
|
T-J wrote: |
But Saddam didn't have any weapons.... |
Oh, he had weapons. From where do you think he got the poison gas he used on the Kurds?
He just didn't have WMDs. |
|
Back to top |
|
 |
jaykimf
Joined: 24 Apr 2004
|
Posted: Mon Mar 01, 2010 7:23 am Post subject: |
|
|
bacasper wrote: |
T-J wrote: |
But Saddam didn't have any weapons.... |
Oh, he had weapons. From where do you think he got the poison gas he used on the Kurds?
He just didn't have WMDs. |
Isn't poison gas a WMD? |
|
Back to top |
|
 |
T-J

Joined: 10 Oct 2008 Location: Seoul EunpyungGu Yeonsinnae
|
Posted: Mon Mar 01, 2010 4:31 pm Post subject: |
|
|
jaykimf wrote: |
bacasper wrote: |
T-J wrote: |
But Saddam didn't have any weapons.... |
Oh, he had weapons. From where do you think he got the poison gas he used on the Kurds?
He just didn't have WMDs. |
Isn't poison gas a WMD? |
Apparently in the opinion of some it is not. |
|
Back to top |
|
 |
TheUrbanMyth
Joined: 28 Jan 2003 Location: Retired
|
Posted: Mon Mar 01, 2010 6:46 pm Post subject: |
|
|
bacasper wrote: |
T-J wrote: |
But Saddam didn't have any weapons.... |
Oh, he had weapons. From where do you think he got the poison gas he used on the Kurds?
He just didn't have WMDs. |
In Halabja, between 3,200-5000 people were killed, and between 7000-10,000 injured by a poison gas attack.
I'd say that qualifies as a WMD. |
|
Back to top |
|
 |
RufusW
Joined: 14 Jun 2008 Location: Busan
|
Posted: Mon Mar 01, 2010 9:29 pm Post subject: |
|
|
"WMDs" inferred nuclear weapons. |
|
Back to top |
|
 |
TheUrbanMyth
Joined: 28 Jan 2003 Location: Retired
|
Posted: Tue Mar 02, 2010 3:55 pm Post subject: |
|
|
RufusW wrote: |
"WMDs" inferred nuclear weapons. |
Actually the most widely used definition of WMDs (in U.S official documents) includes chemical and biological weapons as well. |
|
Back to top |
|
 |
Fox

Joined: 04 Mar 2009
|
Posted: Tue Mar 02, 2010 4:55 pm Post subject: |
|
|
RufusW wrote: |
"WMDs" inferred nuclear weapons. |
Not to anyone who knows what a WMD is. I'm far more scared of biological and chemical weapons than nuclear ones, honestly. Especially biologicals; a well crafted biological weapon could decimate an entire nation's population.
That said, it's still not why Iraq was invaded. |
|
Back to top |
|
 |
RufusW
Joined: 14 Jun 2008 Location: Busan
|
Posted: Tue Mar 02, 2010 5:19 pm Post subject: |
|
|
I was referring to the inferring that had been done during the lead up to the Iraq war. Nobody was scared of Saddam launching poisonous gas towards Europe.
Anyway, wasn't America's sponsoring of Iraq well known before this?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iran%E2%80%93Iraq_War |
|
Back to top |
|
 |
|