so they blatantly lie and you dont care - Page 12 - U2 Feedback

Go Back   U2 Feedback > Lypton Village > Free Your Mind > Free Your Mind Archive
Click Here to Login
Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
Old 09-11-2003, 08:36 PM   #166
Rock n' Roll Doggie
Join Date: Oct 2001
Posts: 8,876
Local Time: 11:37 AM

"I can't believe you typed that with a straight face. It astounds me."

"Because we were all so desperately worried about these poor Iranians when the west sided with Saddam in the 80s. Let's call a spade a spade and bullshit, bullshit."

#1 It was the Soviet Union that supplied 80% of the weapons and provided 90% of the training to Saddam. I can post the International Institute for Strategic Studies weapons table for Iraq for 1989 if you'd like a breakdown of what weapons the Iraqi military had and where they came from.

#2 The West sided with Iraq verbally but its contributions in terms of weapons are tiny compared to what the Soviet Union was supplying Iraq. The western contributions in terms of money were tiny compared to what the Gulf States gave Iraq. The only reason the West contributed to Saddam during the war was because he was about to lose the war in 1984. If Saddam had completely lost, Iranian forces would have overrun weakly defended Kuwait and Saudi Arabia and slaughtered the Sunni population in Iraq to a degree not unlike what we saw in Bosnia. An Iranian victory would have been far costlier for the region and the world.

#3 It was Saddam that attacked Iran, not the West. The Soviet Union supplied Iraq with military equipment and training to mount such an invasion. Without Soviet equipment and training, the Iraqi invasion of Iran in 1980 would never have been possible. If Iraq had not invaded Iran in 1980, there would not of been a conflict nor hundreds of thousands of Iranian deaths.

The West minor contributions, if anything, helped creat a stalemate between Iraq and Iran which helped to bring the war to an end, there by saving an unknowable number of lives, both Iraqi and Iranian.

STING2 is offline  
Old 09-11-2003, 09:20 PM   #167
Rock n' Roll Doggie
Join Date: Oct 2001
Posts: 8,876
Local Time: 11:37 AM

"All the more reason to start phasing out our dependence on oil through exploration of alternative forms of energy, development of public transportation, and a move to electric and/or hydrogen-powered cars."

I totally agree with this. But:

#1 This has to occur on a global scale.

#2 It must be economically more attractive than oil for it to
successfully occur worldwide.

#3 It is not a quick fix and will take decades to complete.

#4 If or until it is complete, the need to keep Persian Gulf Oil
safe and secure will continue to be a major priority.

"Maybe I'm being shady on some details, but when was the last time Saudi Arabia did anything nice for us--or just left us alone? How many of the 9/11 hijackers were Saudi? And haven't the Saudi ties to al-Qaeda always been much clearer and stronger?"

Saudi Arabia and the United States have had a long relationship of cooperation and friendship since the end of World War II. Saudi Arabia has helped to keep energy prices low which helps the average working class American and there by the American economy. When Saddam turned off the pumps, Saudi Arabia pumped more, keeping the price of oil and energy from rising.

US military forces and pre-positioned equipment have been stationed in Saudi Arabia for decades. Saudi Arabia has been generous with the use of its land and airspace for US military operations in the Gulf for decades. US and Saudi Arabian forces have trained together.

Yes, 15 of the hijackers were from Saudi Arabia. This was specifically planned by Bin Ladin to dupe Americans into believing that Saudi Arabia had attacked the United States, in my opinion.

If 15 American civilians went to France and launched terror attacks on French civilians, would you believe it was the US government that launched the attacks?

It appears there are definitely some type of ties between some members of the Saudi Government and Al Quada. I think this is for a variety of reasons having more to do with protection and internal politics in Saudi Arabia than for Bin Ladin's international goals.

As a whole, there is not any indisputable evidence yet that the Saudi Government is supplying Al Quada to attack the USA and other western targets. As a whole, the Saudi Government is a target for Al Quada.

In addition, the USA's purchase of oil from Saudi Arabia has made the country very wealthy. It would not make any rational sense to do anything that would jeopardize that relationship, which a terrorist attack would clearly do. It does not make any sense to bomb the very business and companies that are making ones country wealthy.

STING2 is offline  
Old 09-11-2003, 09:28 PM   #168
love, blood, life
Join Date: Aug 2002
Posts: 10,882
Local Time: 06:37 AM
I would only like to add that the United States, Germany, and France contributed to Saddams development of its WMD program. All three share responsibility.

Yes, the Soviets contributed conventional weapons and training, but our hands were dirty as well.

Dreadsox is offline  
Old 09-11-2003, 09:58 PM   #169
Rock n' Roll Doggie
Join Date: Oct 2001
Posts: 8,876
Local Time: 11:37 AM
"I would only like to add that the United States, Germany, and France contributed to Saddams development of its WMD program. All three share responsibility."

The US supplied Anthrax materials that were not weaponized and were for medical and scientific purposes. Such materials have been supplied to other countries. While these materials may have indirectly contributed to the Iraqi WMD program, that was never the US intent at the time. Iraq never used Anthrax on the battlefield, partly because it does not produce immediate results and is very sensitive.

The USA's biggest contribution to Saddam's regime during the 1980s was money, the sum being a fraction of the amount supplied by the Gulf States

Iraq already had both a Bio and Chemical weapons program in the early 1970s.

"Yes, the Soviets contributed conventional weapons and training, but our hands were dirty as well."

The Soviet Union supplied most of Iraq's weapons while the USA supplied materials for medical and scientific use and some money. The two are almost not even comparable.

Soviet hands are certainly dirty, but US hands are only guilty of being foolish in this case.

The Soviets did not just contribute conventional weapons, rather they completely armed most of the Iraqi military and trained it as well. 4 months prior to the begining of the first Gulf War, there were still over 2,000 Soviet military advisors in Iraq. Iraqi forces used Soviet Artillery for all of their Chemical weapons attacks, both against Iran, and Iraqi Civilians. In the last 10 years of the Soviet Union, Iraq was the Soviet Unions #1 Client State.
STING2 is offline  
Old 09-11-2003, 11:07 PM   #170
love, blood, life
Join Date: Aug 2002
Posts: 10,882
Local Time: 06:37 AM
[Q]U.S. Had Key Role in Iraq Buildup
Trade in Chemical Arms Allowed Despite Their Use on Iranians, Kurds
Michael Dobbs - Washington Post - December 30, 2002


High on the Bush administration's list of justifications for war against Iraq are President Saddam Hussein's use of chemical weapons, nuclear and biological programs, and his contacts with international terrorists. What U.S. officials rarely acknowledge is that these offenses date back to a period when Hussein was seen in Washington as a valued ally.

Among the people instrumental in tilting U.S. policy toward Baghdad during the 1980-88 Iran-Iraq war was Donald H. Rumsfeld, now defense secretary, whose December 1983 meeting with Hussein as a special presidential envoy paved the way for normalization of U.S.-Iraqi relations. Declassified documents show that Rumsfeld traveled to Baghdad at a time when Iraq was using chemical weapons on an "almost daily" basis in defiance of international conventions.

The story of U.S. involvement with Saddam Hussein in the years before his 1990 attack on Kuwait -- which included large-scale intelligence sharing, supply of cluster bombs through a Chilean front company, and facilitating Iraq's acquisition of chemical and biological precursors -- is a topical example of the underside of U.S. foreign policy. It is a world in which deals can be struck with dictators, human rights violations sometimes overlooked, and accommodations made with arms proliferators, all on the principle that the "enemy of my enemy is my friend."


A review of thousands of declassified government documents and interviews with former policymakers shows that U.S. intelligence and logistical support played a crucial role in shoring up Iraqi defenses against the "human wave" attacks by suicidal Iranian troops. The administrations of Ronald Reagan and George H.W. Bush authorized the sale to Iraq of numerous items that had both military and civilian applications, including poisonous chemicals and deadly biological viruses, such as anthrax and bubonic plague.

Opinions differ among Middle East experts and former government officials about the pre-Iraqi tilt, and whether Washington could have done more to stop the flow to Baghdad of technology for building weapons of mass destruction.

"It was a horrible mistake then, but we have got it right now," says Kenneth M. Pollack, a former CIA military analyst and author of "The Threatening Storm," which makes the case for war with Iraq. "My fellow [CIA] analysts and I were warning at the time that Hussein was a very nasty character. We were constantly fighting the State Department."

"Fundamentally, the policy was justified," argues David Newton, a former U.S. ambassador to Baghdad, who runs an anti-Hussein radio station in Prague. "We were concerned that Iraq should not lose the war with Iran, because that would have threatened Saudi Arabia and the Gulf. Our long-term hope was that Hussein's government would become less repressive and more responsible."


To prevent an Iraqi collapse, the Reagan administration supplied battlefield intelligence on Iranian troop buildups to the Iraqis, sometimes through third parties such as Saudi Arabia. The U.S. tilt toward Iraq was enshrined in National Security Decision Directive 114 of Nov. 26, 1983, one of the few important Reagan era foreign policy decisions that still remains classified. According to former U.S. officials, the directive stated that the United States would do "whatever was necessary and legal" to prevent Iraq from losing the war with Iran.

The presidential directive was issued amid a flurry of reports that Iraqi forces were using chemical weapons in their attempts to hold back the Iranians. In principle, Washington was strongly opposed to chemical warfare, a practice outlawed by the 1925 Geneva Protocol. In practice, U.S. condemnation of Iraqi use of chemical weapons ranked relatively low on the scale of administration priorities, particularly compared with the all-important goal of preventing an Iranian victory.

Thus, on Nov. 1, 1983, a senior State Department official, Jonathan T. Howe, told Secretary of State George P. Shultz that intelligence reports showed that Iraqi troops were resorting to "almost daily use of CW" against the Iranians. But the Reagan administration had already committed itself to a large-scale diplomatic and political overture to Baghdad, culminating in several visits by the president's recently appointed special envoy to the Middle East, Donald H. Rumsfeld.

Secret talking points prepared for the first Rumsfeld visit to Baghdad enshrined some of the language from NSDD 114, including the statement that the United States would regard "any major reversal of Iraq's fortunes as a strategic defeat for the West." When Rumsfeld finally met with Hussein on Dec. 20, he told the Iraqi leader that Washington was ready for a resumption of full diplomatic relations, according to a State Department report of the conversation. Iraqi leaders later described themselves as "extremely pleased" with the Rumsfeld visit, which had "elevated U.S.-Iraqi relations to a new level."

In a September interview with CNN, Rumsfeld said he "cautioned" Hussein about the use of chemical weapons, a claim at odds with declassified State Department notes of his 90-minute meeting with the Iraqi leader. A Pentagon spokesman, Brian Whitman, now says that Rumsfeld raised the issue not with Hussein, but with Iraqi foreign minister Tariq Aziz. The State Department notes show that he mentioned it largely in passing as one of several matters that "inhibited" U.S. efforts to assist Iraq.

Rumsfeld has also said he had "nothing to do" with helping Iraq in its war against Iran. Although former U.S. officials agree that Rumsfeld was not one of the architects of the Reagan administration's tilt toward Iraq -- he was a private citizen when he was appointed Middle East envoy -- the documents show that his visits to Baghdad led to closer U.S.-Iraqi cooperation on a wide variety of fronts. Washington was willing to resume diplomatic relations immediately, but Hussein insisted on delaying such a step until the following year.

As part of its opening to Baghdad, the Reagan administration removed Iraq from the State Department terrorism list in February 1982, despite heated objections from Congress. Without such a move, Teicher says, it would have been "impossible to take even the modest steps we were contemplating" to channel assistance to Baghdad. Iraq -- along with Syria, Libya and South Yemen -- was one of four original countries on the list, which was first drawn up in 1979.

Some former U.S. officials say that removing Iraq from the terrorism list provided an incentive to Hussein to expel the Palestinian guerrilla leader Abu Nidal from Baghdad in 1983. On the other hand, Iraq continued to play host to alleged terrorists throughout the '80s. The most notable was Abu Abbas, leader of the Palestine Liberation Front, who found refuge in Baghdad after being expelled from Tunis for masterminding the 1985 hijacking of the cruise ship Achille Lauro, which resulted in the killing of an elderly American tourist.

Iraq Lobbies for Arms


According to a sworn court affidavit prepared by Teicher in 1995, the United States "actively supported the Iraqi war effort by supplying the Iraqis with billions of dollars of credits, by providing military intelligence and advice to the Iraqis, and by closely monitoring third country arms sales to Iraq to make sure Iraq had the military weaponry required." Teicher said in the affidavit that former CIA director William Casey used a Chilean company, Cardoen, to supply Iraq with cluster bombs that could be used to disrupt the Iranian human wave attacks. Teicher refuses to discuss the affidavit.

At the same time the Reagan administration was facilitating the supply of weapons and military components to Baghdad, it was attempting to cut off supplies to Iran under "Operation Staunch." Those efforts were largely successful, despite the glaring anomaly of the 1986 Iran-contra scandal when the White House publicly admitted trading arms for hostages, in violation of the policy that the United States was trying to impose on the rest of the world.

Although U.S. arms manufacturers were not as deeply involved as German or British companies in selling weaponry to Iraq, the Reagan administration effectively turned a blind eye to the export of "dual use" items such as chemical precursors and steel tubes that can have military and civilian applications. According to several former officials, the State and Commerce departments promoted trade in such items as a way to boost U.S. exports and acquire political leverage over Hussein.

When United Nations weapons inspectors were allowed into Iraq after the 1991 Gulf War, they compiled long lists of chemicals, missile components, and computers from American suppliers, including such household names as Union Carbide and Honeywell, which were being used for military purposes.

A 1994 investigation by the Senate Banking Committee turned up dozens of biological agents shipped to Iraq during the mid-'80s under license from the Commerce Department, including various strains of anthrax, subsequently identified by the Pentagon as a key component of the Iraqi biological warfare program. The Commerce Department also approved the export of insecticides to Iraq, despite widespread suspicions that they were being used for chemical warfare.

The fact that Iraq was using chemical weapons was hardly a secret. In February 1984, an Iraqi military spokesman effectively acknowledged their use by issuing a chilling warning to Iran. "The invaders should know that for every harmful insect, there is an insecticide capable of annihilating it . . . and Iraq possesses this annihilation insecticide."

Chemicals Kill Kurds

In late 1987, the Iraqi air force began using chemical agents against Kurdish resistance forces in northern Iraq that had formed a loose alliance with Iran, according to State Department reports. The attacks, which were part of a "scorched earth" strategy to eliminate rebel-controlled villages, provoked outrage on Capitol Hill and renewed demands for sanctions against Iraq. The State Department and White House were also outraged -- but not to the point of doing anything that might seriously damage relations with Baghdad.

"The U.S.-Iraqi relationship is . . . important to our long-term political and economic objectives," Assistant Secretary of State Richard W. Murphy wrote in a September 1988 memorandum that addressed the chemical weapons question. "We believe that economic sanctions will be useless or counterproductive to influence the Iraqis."

Bush administration spokesmen have cited Hussein's use of chemical weapons "against his own people" -- and particularly the March 1988 attack on the Kurdish village of Halabjah -- to bolster their argument that his regime presents a "grave and gathering danger" to the United States.

The Iraqis continued to use chemical weapons against the Iranians until the end of the Iran-Iraq war. A U.S. air force intelligence officer, Rick Francona, reported finding widespread use of Iraqi nerve gas when he toured the Al Faw peninsula in southern Iraq in the summer of 1988, after its recapture by the Iraqi army. The battlefield was littered with atropine injectors used by panicky Iranian troops as an antidote against Iraqi nerve gas attacks.

Far from declining, the supply of U.S. military intelligence to Iraq actually expanded in 1988, according to a 1999 book by Francona, "Ally to Adversary: an Eyewitness Account of Iraq's Fall from Grace." Informed sources said much of the battlefield intelligence was channeled to the Iraqis by the CIA office in Baghdad.

Although U.S. export controls to Iraq were tightened up in the late 1980s, there were still many loopholes. In December 1988, Dow Chemical sold $1.5 million of pesticides to Iraq, despite U.S. government concerns that they could be used as chemical warfare agents. An Export-Import Bank official reported in a memorandum that he could find "no reason" to stop the sale, despite evidence that the pesticides were "highly toxic" to humans and would cause death "from asphyxiation." [/Q]

#1 History will show that we helped to create this monster.

#2 Dual Use under medical is NOT an excuse when he was using these weapons already. Since the US governement knew he was using these weapons already we should not have sold him the tools to make more, dual use or not.

#3 When we knew he was using these weapons on Iranian troops we were supplying him with troop locations so that he could more effectively use these weapons.

#4 We removed him from the terror list so that these things could be shipped into his country. He was on the terror list and we REMOVED him at a time when he was using chemical agents on people. Why remove him? So he can get DUAL use technology?

#5 After the Gulf War we find that indeed these things were being used to manufacture WMD.


Our hands are dirty.
Dreadsox is offline  
Old 09-11-2003, 11:21 PM   #171
love, blood, life
Join Date: Aug 2002
Posts: 10,882
Local Time: 06:37 AM
How U.S. Arms and Technology Were Transferred to Iraq
Ted Koppel - ABC NEWS Nightline Show # 2690 - Air Date: September 13, 1991

[Q]Remember, Cardoen is from Chile. During the 1980s, the transfer of any kind of weapons technology from the United States to Chile was illegal.

The CIA's position on Cardoen is definitive. The agency told Nightline, "The CIA has never had a relationship of any type with Carlos Cardoen."

Somehow, though, Cardoen arranged for the transfer of cluster bomb technology to Chile, and set up his own factory to build them. As Nightline reported earlier, that technology came from ISC, International Signal and Control, of Lancaster, Pennsylvania. In October of 1984, ISC and Cardoen signed an agreement, in effect carving up the world's cluster bomb market. Cardoen would sell to all those countries with which ISC was prevented, under U.S. law, from doing business.

Could all this have gone on without the knowledge of the U.S. government? Senior Israeli officials have told Nightline that in the 1980s they were informed directly by the U.S. government that Carlos Cardoen was producing cluster bombs, using U.S. technology, and that these were being shipped to Iraq. Furthermore, several ISC executives claim a longstanding relationship with U.S. intelligence.

By 1988, Cardoen was not only selling cluster bombs to the Iraqis, he built them their own cluster bomb factory, like this one in Baghdad. He also provided the Iraqis with thousands of fuses to arm chemical weapons that were used in the Iran-Iraq war. And, according to foreign intelligence reports, Iraq was working on cluster bombs to dispense chemical and biological weapons with Cardoen's help.

By the time Iraq invaded Kuwait, Cardoen was also finishing a plant to produce sophisticated fuses for artillery shells and fuel-air explosives. Some of that advanced technology also came from the United States. [/Q]


[Q]As we've reported over the past few months, the Atlanta branch of an Italian bank, BNL, was able to funnel billions, some of it in U.S. credits, to Iraq's military procurement network. The U.S. government knew and turned a blind eye.

Sophisticated military technology was illegally transferred from a major U.S. company in Lancaster, Pennsylvania to South Africa and Chile and, from there, on to Iraq. The Iraqi-born designer of a chemical weapons plant in Libya set up shop in Florida, producing and then shipping to Iraq chemical weapon components. The CIA, the FBI and other federal agencies were made aware of the operation and did nothing to prevent it.

During the 1980s and into the '90s, senior officials of both the Reagan and Bush administrations encouraged the privatization of foreign policy, certainly towards Iran and Iraq. The policy may have had merit, but they weren't willing or, in some instances, weren't successful in fighting it out on Capital Hill. So they found other ways. They made a mockery of the export control system, they found ways of encouraging foreign governments to do what our laws prohibited. They either knew or, if not, were guilty of the grossest incompetence, that U.S. companies were collaborating with foreign arms merchants in the illegal transfer of American technology that helped Saddam Hussein build his formidable arsenal. [/Q]

Dreadsox is offline  
Old 09-11-2003, 11:36 PM   #172
love, blood, life
Join Date: Aug 2002
Posts: 10,882
Local Time: 06:37 AM
[Q]U.S. Diplomatic and Commercial Relationships with Iraq, 1980 - 2 August 1990
Prepared by Nathaniel Hurd.
15 July 2000 (updated 12 December 2001 by Nathaniel Hurd and Glen Rangwala).

Before 1980
Following the 1967 Arab-Israeli War Iraq severed diplomatic relations with the U.S. In late 1979 the State Department (SD) put Iraq on its list of States sponsoring groups categorized by the SD as "terrorist."[1]

The U.S. Defense Intelligence Agency (DIA) asserted in a report that Iraq has been ‘actively acquiring’ Chemical Weapons [CW] capacities since the mid-1970s.[2]

Despite intelligence reports that Iraq still sponsored groups on the SD's terrorist list, and "apparently without consulting Congress", the Reagan Administration removed Iraq from the State terrorism sponsorship list in 1982.[3] The removal made Iraq eligible for U.S. dual-use and military technology.[4]

A SD report concluded that Iraq continued to support groups on the SD’s terrorist list.[5]
Iraq reportedly began using chemical weapons (CW) against Iranian troops in 1982, and significantly increased CW use in 1983. Reagan’s Secretary of State, George Shultz, said that reports of Iraq using CWs on Iranian military personnel "drifted in" at the year’s end.[6] A declassified CIA report, probably written in late 1987, notes Iraq's use of mustard gas in August 1983, giving further credence to the suggestion that the SD and/or National Security Council (NSC) was well aware of Iraq's use of CW at this time.[7]

Analysts recognized that "civilian" helicopters can be weaponized in a matter of hours and selling a civilian kit can be a way of giving military aid under the guise of civilian assistance.[8] Shortly after removing Iraq from the terrorism sponsorship list, the Reagan administration approved the sale of 60 Hughes helicopters.[9] Later, and despite some objections from the National Security Council (NSC), the Secretaries of Commerce and State (George Baldridge and George Shultz) lobbied the NSC advisor into agreeing to the sale to Iraq of 10 Bell helicopters,[10] officially for crop spraying. See "1988" for note on Iraq using U.S. Helicopters to spray Kurds with chemical weapons.

Later in the year the Reagan Administration secretly began to allow Jordan, Saudi Arabia, Kuwait and Egypt to transfer to Iraq U.S. howitzers, helicopters, bombs and other weapons.[11] Reagan personally asked Italy’s Prime Minister Guilio Andreotti to channel arms to Iraq.[12]

The SD announced on 6 March that, based on "available evidence," it "concluded" that Iraq used "lethal chemical weapons" (specifically mustard gas) in fresh fighting with Iran.[13] On 20 March, U.S. intelligence officials said that they had "what they believe to be incontrovertible evidence that Iraq has used nerve gas in its war with Iran and has almost finished extensive sites for mass-producing the lethal chemical warfare agent".[14]

European-based doctors examined Iranian troops in March 1984 and confirmed exposure to mustard gas.[15] The UN sent expert missions to the battle region in March 1984, February/March 1986, April/May 1987, March/April 1988, July 1988 (twice), and mid-August 1988. These missions detailed and documented Iraq’s CW use.[16]

According to the Washington Post, the CIA began in 1984 secretly to give Iraq intelligence that Iraq uses to "calibrate" its mustard gas attacks on Iranian troops. In August, the CIA establishes a direct Washington-Baghdad intelligence link, and for 18 months, starting in early 1985, the CIA provided Iraq with "data from sensitive U.S. satellite reconnaissance assist Iraqi bombing raids." The Post’s source said that this data was essential to Iraq’s war effort.[17]
The United States re-established full diplomatic ties with Iraq on 26 November,[18] just over a year after Iraq’s first well-publicized CW use and only 8 months after the UN and U.S. reported that Iraq used CWs on Iranian troops.

In 1985 the U.S. House of Representatives passed a bill to put Iraq back on the State terrorism sponsorship list.[19] After the bill’s passage, Shultz wrote to the bill’s sponsor, Rep. Howard Berman, cited the U.S.’ "diplomatic dialogue on this and other sensitive issues, " claimed that "Iraq has effectively distanced itself from international terrorism," and stated that if the U.S. found that Iraq supports groups practicing terrorism "we would promptly return Iraq to the list."[20] Rep. Berman dropped the bill and explicitly cited Shultz’s assurances.[21]

Iraq’s Saad 16 General Establishment’s director wrote a letter to the Commerce Department (CD) detailing the activities in Saad’s 70 laboratories. These activities had the trademarks of ballistic missile development.[22]

The Defense Department’s (DOD) Under Secretary for Trade Security Policy, Stephen Bryen, informed the Commerce Department’s (CD) Assistant Secretary for Trade Administration in November that intelligence linked the Saad 16 research center with ballistic missile development.[23] Between 1985 and 1990, CD approved many computer sales to Iraq that go directly to Saad 16. CD approved over $1 million worth of computer equipment for sale to Saad 16 after Commerce received the above-mentioned November letter from DOD.[24] As of 1991 Saad 16 reportedly contained up to 40% U.S.-origin equipment.[25]

The CD approved exports in January and February to Iraq’s SCUD missile program’s procurement agency. These exports allowed Iraq to extend SCUD range far enough to hit allied soldiers in Saudi Arabia and Israeli civilians in Tel Aviv and Haifa.[26]

On 23 March, London’s Financial Times and several other news organizations reported from Halabja, located in Iraqi Kurdistan, that several days prior Iraq used CWs on Halabja’s Kurds.[27]
In May, two months after the Halabja assault, Peter Burleigh, Assistant Secretary of State in charge of northern Gulf affairs, encouraged U.S.-Iraqi corporate cooperation at a symposium hosted by the U.S.-Iraq Business Forum. The U.S.-Iraq Business Forum had strong (albeit unofficial) ties to the Iraqi government.[28]

The U.S. Senate Foreign Relations Committee sent a team to Turkey to speak to Iraqi Kurdish refugees and assess reports that Iraq "was using chemical weapons on its Kurdish population."[29] This report reaffirmed that between 1984 and 1988 "Iraq repeatedly and effectively used poison gas on Iran," the UN missions’ findings, and the chemical attack on Halabja that left an estimated 4,000 people dead.[30]

Following the Halabja attack and Iraq’s August CW offensive against Iraqi Kurds, the U.S. Senate unanimously passed on 8 September the "Prevention of Genocide Act of 1988" the day after it is introduced.[31] The act cuts off from Iraq U.S. loans, military and non-military assistance, credits, credit guarantees, items subject to export controls, and U.S. imports of Iraqi oil.[32]
Immediately after the bill’s passage the Reagan Administration announced its opposition to the bill,[33] and SD spokesman Charles Redman called the bill "premature".[34] The Administration works with House opponents to a House companion bill, and after numerous legislation compromises and end-of-session haggling, the Senate bill died "on the last day of the legislative session".[35]

According to a 15 September news report, Reagan Administration officials stated that the U.S. intercepted Iraqi military communications marking Iraq’s CW attacks on Kurds.[36]
U.S. intelligence reported in 1991 that the U.S. helicopters sold to Iraq in 1983 were used in 1988 to spray Kurds with chemicals.[37]

"Reagan administration records show that between September and December 1988, 65 licenses were granted for dual-use technology exports. This averages out as an annual rate of 260 licenses, more than double the rate for January through August 1988."[38]

A general note about the Security Council's reaction to Iraq's CW use. Between 1984 and the implementation of the ceasefire on 20 August 1988 the UN Security Council passed six resolutions directly or indirectly related to the "situation between Iran and Iraq." In 1984, Security Council Resolution (SCR) 552 "condemns [Iran's] recent attack on commercial ship en route to and from ports of Kuwait and Saudi Arabia"[39] but it did not pass a resolution on the Iran-Iraq War generally or the UN expert mission's chemical weapons March findings specifically. During all of 1985 the Security Council did not pass a resolution on the "situation between Iran and Iraq" or Iraq's chemical weapons use therein. Although the UN's expert mission concluded in March 1986 that Iraq used chemical weapons on Iranian troops,[40] SCR 582 (1986) symmetrically noted "that both the Islamic Republic of Iran and Iraq are parties to the Protocol for the Prohibition of the Use in War of Asphyxiating, Poisonous and Other Gases, and of Bacteriological Methods of Warfare signed at Geneva on 7 June 1925"[41] and " particular the use of chemical weapons contrary to obligations under the 1925 Protocol".[42] Resolution 588 (1986) did not mention chemical weapons.[43] In 20 July 1987, SCR 598 again deplored "in particular the use chemical weapons contrary to obligations of the 1925 Protocol",[44] but does not elaborate. After considering the expert mission's 25 April 1988 report, the Security Council in Resolution 612 is "dismayed" by chemical weapons' continued use and "more intensive scale".[45] Furthermore, the Council "affirms the necessity that" both parties observe the 1925 Geneva Protocol, "condemns vigorously the continued use of chemical weapons" and "expects both sides to refrain from the future use of chemical weapons".[46] SCR 619 (1988) focused on implementing the United Nations Iran-Iraq Military Observer Group and did not mention chemical weapons.[47] After the ceasefire, the Security Council considered the reports of the expert missions from 20-25 July and 2-19 August 1988 and stated in SCR 620 that it is "deeply dismayed" by the "continued use of chemical weapons" and that "such use against Iranians has become more intense and frequent".[48] Despite identifying Iranians as more frequent chemical weapons targets, the Security Council did not condemn Iraq. Rather, the Security Council "condemns resolutely the use of chemical weapons in the conflict between the Islamic Republic of Iran and Iraq"[49]. All of the subsequent four resolutions, passed between 1989-1990 and relevant to "the situation between Iran and Iraq," pertained to the United Nations Iran-Iraq Military Observer Group and as such omitted any reference to chemical weapons use.[50]

The Security Council could only condemn Iraq by name for using chemical weapons through non-binding Presidential statements, over which permanent members of the Security Council do not have an individual veto. On 21 March 1986, the Security Council President, making a "declaration" and "speaking on behalf of the Security Council," stated that the Council members are "profoundly concerned by the unanimous conclusion of the specialists that chemical weapons on many occasions have been used by Iraqi forces against Iranian troops...[and] the members of the Council strongly condemn this continued use of chemical weapons in clear violation of the Geneva Protocol of 1925 which prohibits the use in war of chemical weapons".[51] The US voted against the issuance of this statement, and the UK, Australia, France and Denmark abstained. However, the concurring votes of the other ten members of the Security Council ensured that this statement constituted the first criticism of Iraq by the Security Council. A similar Presidential statement was made on 14 May 1987, which noted that the Council was "deeply dismayed" about the CW use against Iranian forces and civilians.

In March, CIA director William Webster testified before Congress that Iraq was the largest CW producer in the world.[52]
James Baker received an SD memo stating that Iraq was diligently developing chemical, biological, and new missiles, and that Baker was to "express our interest in broadening U.S.-Iraqi ties" to Iraqi Under-Secretary Hamdoon.[53]

Although the CIA and the Bush Administration knew that Iraq’s Ministry of Industry and Military Industrialization (MIMI) "controlled entities were involved in Iraq's clandestine nuclear, chemical, and biological weapons programs and missile programs ... the Bush administration [approved] dozens of export licenses that [allowed] United States and foreign firms to ship sophisticated U.S. dual-use equipment to MIMI-controlled weapons factories".[54]

By October 1989, when all international banks had cut off loans to Iraq, President Bush signed National Security Directive (NSD) 26 mandating closer links with Iraq and $1 billion in agricultural loan guarantees. These guarantees freed for Iraq hard cash to continue to buy and develop WMDs, and are suspended only on 2 August 1990, the same day that Iraq invaded Kuwait. Richard Haass, then a National Security Council official, and Robert Kimmitt, Under Secretary of State for Political Affairs, also told the Commerce Department (CD) not to single Iraq out for dual-use technology restrictions.[55]

When one American firm twice contacted the CD with concerns that their product could be used for nuclear weapons (NW) and ballistic missiles, the CD simply requested Iraqi written guarantees about civilian use, said that a license and review was unnecessary, and convinced the company that shipment was acceptable.[56]

From July 18 to 1 August (Iraq invaded Kuwait on 2 August) the Bush Administration approved $4.8 million in advanced technology product sales to Iraq. End-buyers included MIMI and Saad 16. Mimi was identified in 1988 as a facility for chemical, biological, and nuclear weapons programs. In 1989 Saad was linked to CW and NW development.[57]
The Bush Administration approved $695,000 worth of advanced data transmission devices the day before Iraq invades Kuwait.[58]

Items sent from the U.S. during the Reagan and Bush Administrations that helped Iraq’s non-conventional weapons programs and that were shipped to known military industrial facilities include:
Computers to develop ballistic missiles and nuclear weapons;[59] machine tools and lasers to extend ballistic missile range;[60] graphics terminals to design and analyze rockets;[61] West Nile Fever virus, a known potential BW agent, sent by the U.S. government’s Centers for Disease Control (CDC);[62] the agents for botulism, tetnus, and anthrax.[63]
One study lists 207 firms from 21 countries that contributed to Iraq’s non-conventional weapons program during and after the Iran-Iraq war. E.g., West German (86); British (18); Austrian (17); French (16); Italian (12); Swiss (11); and American (18).[64]
Throughout the U.S. exports to Iraq, several agencies were supposed to review items relevant to national security or that could be diverted for a nuclear program. The reviewers included the SD, DOD, Energy Department, Subgroup on Nuclear Export Coordination (included representatives from Commerce Dept., Arms Control and Disarmament Agency (ACDA), the intelligence community, and DOD).[65] Sometimes CD did not send items to reviewers. On other occasions, reviewers objected, and CD still approved the items. Stephen Bryen, Deputy Under Secretary of DOD for Trade Security Policy during the second Reagan Administration, claimed that the DOD objected to 40% of applications that CD actually sent to DOD for review. Compare with a 5% DOD objection rate to dual-use technology applications for export to the U.S.S.R. during that same time period.[66]


Excellent list of footnotes!!!!!!

Dreadsox is offline  
Old 09-11-2003, 11:59 PM   #173
love, blood, life
Join Date: Aug 2002
Posts: 10,882
Local Time: 06:37 AM
March, 1986. The United States with Great Britain block all Security Council resolutions condemning Iraq's use of chemical weapons, and on March 21 the US becomes the only country refusing to sign a Security Council statement condemning Iraq's use of these weapons. [10]
Dreadsox is offline  
Old 09-12-2003, 02:01 AM   #174
Rock n' Roll Doggie
Join Date: Oct 2001
Posts: 8,876
Local Time: 11:37 AM
"#1 History will show that we helped to create this monster."

History will show the monster was already in place in 1980 with the means to attack Iran. Helping to prevent Saddam from losing the war against Iran was vital to US interest in the region. Despite this, the US help was marginal compared to what was supplied by the Soviet Union and Gulf States. For example, of the 87 Billion dollars Iraq recieved in financial aid during the war, only 5 Billion dollars came from the USA.

The USA helped prevent Saddam from losing the Iran/Iraq war, but its level of aid was a tiny fraction of the sum total given to Iraq in both money and weapons.

The USA supported a far worse dicator in World War II named Joseph Stalin. The aid given to Joseph Stalin during World War II is still probably greater than any aid program over a 3 year period in history. In that case the USA supplied 80% of the aid.

" #2 Dual Use under medical is NOT an excuse when he was using these weapons already. Since the US governement knew he was using these weapons already we should not have sold him the tools to make more, dual use or not."

Saddam already had production facilities independent of the USA before any "duel use" technology was transfered. While the transfer of duel use technology was stupid, it is not an indication of a specific policy by the USA to arm Iraq with Weapons of Mass Destruction. Duel use technology was transfered during the 1980s to the Soviet Union and China. The Global market is huge and the restrictions on trade are often lax.

Any conventional weapon, lots of different types of technology, materials, can be reconfigured to either fire WMD or facilitate its use or creation in some way. The only way to insure that does not happen at all would have been to set up sanctions on a level that would have effectively crippled the Iraqi war effort, led to Iranian victory and take over of Iraq, the occupation of Kuwait and Saudi Arabia and control of most of the worlds energy supply, in addition to the slaughter of Sunni groups in Iraq.

Supplying the Iraqi war effort with much of the resources mentioned was not an attempt to build some massive Weapons of Mass Destruction complex for Saddam. Its true that somethings should not have been allowed, but the fact is that there was no way to guarantee that money and equipment supplied, important for conventional use, would not be redirected toward non-conventional uses.

Was their risk involved, yes. But the risk and problems caused by an Iranian victory would be overwhelming. Regardless of what US duel use technology might have actually been used for, the Iraqi's were already producing and using their own WMD effectively.

"#3 When we knew he was using these weapons on Iranian troops we were supplying him with troop locations so that he could more effectively use these weapons."

We supplied Saddam with troop locations which helped prevent major Iraqi losses. Knowing Iranian troop locations helped Iraq use any weapon in its arsenol more effectively. It was not done specifically for the targeting of chemical weapons against Iranian troops.

While thousands of Iranians were killed by chemical weapons during the war, most were killed by conventional weapons, SOVIET conventional weapons.

Iraq actually lost multiple battles during the war because it foolishly relied on Chemcial weapons. Chemical and biological weapons are actually not the most effective battlefield weapons. They are most effective against immobile, unsuspecting, civilian populations. A variety of factors makes Chemical and Biological weapons often ineffective for use on the battlefield.

Iraq defeated the Iranian military in the war primarily because of the creation of the Republican Guard who had been widely dispersed before and smaller, Top of the line Soviet Conventional equipment from the 1970s, Soviet training and tactics.

Iraq's conventional military is ultimately what yielded an Iraqi victory in the war. It is what allowed Iraq to take Kuwait and potentially the oil fields in Saudi Arabia.

Chemical and Biological weapons are most effective against unsuspecting, immobile civilian targets. Iraq's most devestating use of Chemical weapons was not against the Iranian military but against its own people.

Nuclear Weapons though do to their immense destruction can be used much more effectively on the battlefield and are not as effected by other conditions that effect Chemical and Biological Weapons.

"#4 We removed him from the terror list so that these things could be shipped into his country. He was on the terror list and we REMOVED him at a time when he was using chemical agents on people. Why remove him? So he can get DUAL use technology?"

We removed him from the terror list because we did not want to be giving aid to a terrorist country period, regardless of what type of aid was given, duel use technology, computers, money, trucks, transport helicopters etc. I believe Joseph Stalin would have been at the top of any terror list in 1941.

"#5 After the Gulf War we find that indeed these things were being used to manufacture WMD."

Iraq was already manufaturing WMD prior to the transfer of any duel use technology by the USA. Again certain duel use items should not have been transfered, others had to important a conventional activity. A Mistake indeed, but not a policy to build up Iraqi WMD capability which they already had.

Iraq survived the war because of its conventional military capability, not its WMD capability despite the significant loss of life it caused. The Building, training in combined arms warefare, and supplying of the Republican guard with modern Soviet conventional military equipment is what saved Iraq and the rest of the Persian Gulf from Iranian domination.

While Chemical and Biological weapons are an incredible threat to civilian populations, their use on the battlefield is mixed. What is most relevant in Saddam's rise to power in Iraq, his war with Iran, his invasion and take over of Kuwait, his threats to Saudi Arabia and take over of the border town of Kafji, his attacks against Israel, are his conventional military. It is also his conventional military and weapons systems that are the platforms for the use of Chemical and Biological Weapons.

The ultimate threat of course would have been Nuclear Weapons which have devastating use no matter what they are used against, when they are used and where. Saddam was prevented from ever producing such weapons through his removal.

I'll put up the Weapon tables though for the Iraqi armed forces as of June 1, 1989 from the International Institute for Strategic Studies. It will clearly show what Weapons were in Iraq's arsenal, specifically naming each and the quantity in possesion by Iraq. I'll also name the country where the weapon system came from.

This will clearly show which country supplied the lions share of equipment that allowed Saddam to invade Iran, remain in power, attack Kuwait, Saudi Arabia, and Israel, and continue to remain in power until his overthrow in April of 2003.

I'll have to wait until this weekend to put that up though.
STING2 is offline  
Old 09-12-2003, 05:58 AM   #175
love, blood, life
Join Date: Aug 2002
Posts: 10,882
Local Time: 06:37 AM
What the Soviets supplied is not in question. Put it up if you must. Stalin has nothing to do with it. What he had in place has nothing to do with it. It also does not matter where their use of Chemical weapons was most devastating. They used them, and President Reagan took steps to keep him off the terror list as was detailed in my posts above.

We removed hiim from the terror list. We provided him with helecopters that were used to disperse checmical weapons. We provided him with cluster bombs and other missle parts illegally.We provided him with the technology to increase the range of scuds (that did enable him to hit Israel and our Troops in Saudi Arabia in the Gulf War).

No matter how much shit the soviets gave him does not change the facts detailed in my prior posts. It does not change the fact that we had our hands dirty. I have read plenty on what the Soviets did and I have argued plenty on this board that the Soviets supplied plenty to Iraq. The fact is, we were trying to pull Iraq into our column during the cold war as well as stop Iran from moving towards our oil supplying nations.

Point is Soviet Guilt does not erase our responsibility for helping legally and illegally by giving him better technology to improve his weapons. It does not change the fact that we are the country that gave him the dual use medical samples at a time when he was using weapons on foreign soldiers and his own people. It does not change the fact that the UN inspectors in the 90's found the dual use technology being used to creat WMD.
Dreadsox is offline  
Old 09-12-2003, 06:15 AM   #176
love, blood, life
Join Date: Aug 2002
Posts: 10,882
Local Time: 06:37 AM
Quick analogy.....

Country A has weapons given by Country C. They do their job however, they are not as effective as the wepons that Country B has.

Country A kills people with the weapons created with the help of items purchased from Country C.

Country A has been condemned by the world for killing in this manner. But Country B refuses to condemn Country A because Country A is at war with a country not liked by country B

Country B gives Country A BETTER Technology to improve and make the weapons more effective. Country B improves the weapons they were condemned for using originally. Country A gives Country B better means to target and deliver the weapons.

To say that Country A ( USA) is NOT GUILTY because Country C (Soviets) gave them the technology first does not take the reponsibility away from us. To be giving him better means to use these items and improve upon them when he was using them makes us AS guilty and makes us STUPID.

If you think that these countries West German, British, Austrian, French, Italian, and the Swiss were supplying Iraq's non-conventional wepaons program without the blessings of the White House in the 80's then I do not know what to say. Our relationship with these nations was different in the 80's and getting our allies to supply him for us at that time does not excuse our responsibility.

But post the Soviet stuff even though I am aware of it, maybe someone else is not. It does not change my argument.
Dreadsox is offline  
Old 09-12-2003, 11:53 AM   #177
Blue Crack Addict
anitram's Avatar
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: NY
Posts: 16,441
Local Time: 07:37 AM
The point is, that it's absolutely OFFENSIVE to suddenly claim some sort of "oh, those poor Iranians, thank God we were moral enough to remove Saddam" when a number of those Iranians died indirectly thanks to your own governments.

It's offensive and it's insulting to those who died. Even if out of 400,000, say 10 died because of what France, Germany and the USA contributed, you are insulting those 10. It's as simple as that.
anitram is online now  
Old 09-12-2003, 08:33 PM   #178
Klaus's Avatar
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: on a one of these small green spots at that blue planet at the end of the milky way
Posts: 2,432
Local Time: 12:37 PM
They did something nice during this iraq war, they did it in the afghanistan war.
They promised to sell the US cheap oil so that they can make these wars.

Imagine a war and all arabic countries stop selling oil to the westenr countries.

Klaus is offline  
Old 09-12-2003, 09:18 PM   #179
Klaus's Avatar
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: on a one of these small green spots at that blue planet at the end of the milky way
Posts: 2,432
Local Time: 12:37 PM
For decades we saw horrible human rights violations our western governments prefered to ignore that, They even helped this *** dictator (and not only him) to get into power, and they helped him to stay in power.
If the US would have said in front of the UN "we made lots of mistakes in the last decades and decided to remove all the dictators we installed in the last decades the chances for a support would have bin much bigger.
But as far as i can remember i heared the following things:

Saddam Hussein is linked to the 9/11 terror attacks (haven't heared about that theory in the last months )

Saddam Hussein is working together with Osama Bin Laden and Alquaide (the oposite might be closer to reality)

The Iraq is a imminent thread, they started to relaunch the cnemical wepons program and the atomic program. (we didn't find any hint for that yet, blix stated a few days ago that as far as he had insight to the documents after the war in his opinion - and to his surprise - the Iraqi government told the truth about the WMDs)
Before the "Showdown" in the UN the German government and german secret services warned their american friends that to their knowledge the facts they are going to present are not verry trustworthy.

2 years ago even former enemies of the expressed solidarity with US and wanted to help the US in a fight against terrorism.
Germany changed their laws to make it possible to support the western world in the global fight against terrorism, we sent more troops to foreign countries than ever after Worldwar II.
We didn't care too much about the money, we sent the mayority of our special forces to hunt for al-quaida members. I'm sure many other countries felt the same about the terror attacks and did what they could do.
It was the big chance for the US to support the International Court which would be a perfect place for these international crimes. Designed to bring justice to people who live in countries where they never have to be affraid that their crimes will bring them into jail.Everyone could have seen that this war against terrorism was caring about justice, not about strategic and economical interests or revenge.

But.. sadly Mr. Bush, his vice president cheny and his defense minister Rumsfeld showed the rest of the world that they didn't care about their opinion. They wanted to do it alone and in the beginning it looked like a bic succes.
Critical friends were unwelcome, Frenchfries were renamed freedom fries, and together with Germany they were banned as "Old Europe" - Irelevant etc...

The quick iraq war with a impressive military strike gave the government the feeling that they can do it alone.
When i saw Mr. Bush in his "Top Gun" style carrier landing Hollywood movies and Reality seemed to be the same.

But the excelent US Soldiers can't compensate the poor work of their Commander in chief.
Noone believes today that Iraq was a threat to the US anymore and therefore not many people trust Mr. Bushs words today. There has bin done huge damage to the country on the international podium.

Today they are asking that the countries who didn't help to free iraq should pay for it (like the DMark from Germany in 1991 for Iraq war of Mr. Bush Senior). But either Mr. Bush forgets that Germany didn't want that war and they wanted another solution (but the US government couldn't wait these 3 days before the war because the threat was too iminent) - or WE forget that we are not a souvereign country, that we are no friends of the US but their colony who sometimes simply should pay the tribute and shut our mouth.

So just 2 years and the international image of the United States changed from a almost historical high to one of the worst points ever.

Klaus is offline  
Old 09-14-2003, 06:13 AM   #180
War Child
iacrobat's Avatar
Join Date: Sep 2001
Location: Toronto
Posts: 585
Local Time: 12:37 PM
Originally posted by nbcrusader

How would you have responded, if at all?
Well, I suppose I would have begun asking why people hate America enough to carry out something like September 11th.

Bush's explanation that they hate America's freedoms was ridiculous: "they hate our freedoms, our freedom of religion, our freedom of speech, our freedom to vote and assemble and disagree with each other." That is an easy way out and he took it from day one. If this were true, then restricting freedoms with the Patriot Act and cracking down on dissent within America is a hypocritical way of fighting "them". "They" are winning because Bush is trampling on the freedoms "they" hate.

I think America played in to the hands of the terrorists by immediately going to war, ignoring the will of the UN and suppressing dissent. America polarised the international community. People are afraid and suspicious of their neighbours. ( ) Complex issues and processes were simplified or ignored. The world became black and white, maybe a good description of how bin Laden sees it too.

From George Bush Senior's inaugural address: "We know how to secure a more just and prosperous life for man on Earth: through free markets, free speech, free elections, and the exercise of free will unhampered by the state." The order is important. Free markets come first.

There is so much anger against Amercia because of it's foreign and economic policy. America does what suits it when it comes to foreign conflicts. It doesn't really fight for democracy, it fights for its economic interests.

America supports or fights dictators and regimes so business can go on as usual. It is not in the interest of America to have stability in third world countries. Imagine if there were democracy and human rights in China and Indonesia, where would America produce it's goods so cheaply?

What angers people is this hypocrisy. America is "a good idea" but is sefl-righteous and it is also the agent of incredible evil. This is difficult for people to reconcile.

September 11th was an opportunity to reflect in and conduct self criticism. I would have responded by re-evaluating my economic and foreign policy (if people are angry for these reasons). Are human rights violations, environmental degradation and reliance on oppressive regimes by Amercian corporations acceptable? Is this evil? Is an economy so reliant on the production and sale of weapons acceptable? Is this evil? People ought to be angry about these things and they are, but the politicians the corporations aren't. The people in power spew meaningless rhetoric meant to be easily swallowed. Rhetoric that reinforces their power and beliefs. Rhetoric that surely responds to the anger and fear of the American people after Sept. 11th.

At the same time, going to war reinforces the beliefs of those who are angry and disillusioned with America. If anything has changed since Sept. 11th, all the feelings that existed before that are stronger.

iacrobat is offline  

Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are Off

All times are GMT -5. The time now is 06:37 AM.

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.8 Beta 1
Copyright ©2000 - 2018, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
Design, images and all things inclusive copyright ©