Jump to content

Reality - the U.S. Armed Saddam and Iraq


Guest BlackJesus

Recommended Posts

Guest BlackJesus
[i]did others arm them also yes, but others also didn't ilegally invade them like we did.... [/i]

[u]U.S. Had Key Role in Iraq Buildup
Trade in Chemical Arms Allowed Despite Their Use on Iranians, Kurds
By Michael Dobbs
Washington Post Staff Writer
Monday, December 30, 2002
[/u]

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."

Throughout the 1980s, Hussein's Iraq was the sworn enemy of Iran, then still in the throes of an Islamic revolution. U.S. officials saw Baghdad as a bulwark against militant Shiite extremism and the fall of pro-American states such as Kuwait, Saudi Arabia, and even Jordan -- a Middle East version of the "domino theory" in Southeast Asia. That was enough to turn Hussein into a strategic partner and for U.S. diplomats in Baghdad to routinely refer to Iraqi forces as "the good guys," in contrast to the Iranians, who were depicted as "the bad guys."

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."

What makes present-day Hussein different from the Hussein of the 1980s, say Middle East experts, is the mellowing of the Iranian revolution and the August 1990 invasion of Kuwait that transformed the Iraqi dictator, almost overnight, from awkward ally into mortal enemy. In addition, the United States itself has changed. As a result of the Sept. 11, 2001, terrorist attacks on New York and Washington, U.S. policymakers take a much more alarmist view of the threat posed by the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction.

U.S. Shifts in Iran-Iraq War

When the Iran-Iraq war began in September 1980, with an Iraqi attack across the Shatt al Arab waterway that leads to the Persian Gulf, the United States was a bystander. The United States did not have diplomatic relations with either Baghdad or Tehran. U.S. officials had almost as little sympathy for Hussein's dictatorial brand of Arab nationalism as for the Islamic fundamentalism espoused by Iran's Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini. As long as the two countries fought their way to a stalemate, nobody in Washington was disposed to intervene.

By the summer of 1982, however, the strategic picture had changed dramatically. After its initial gains, Iraq was on the defensive, and Iranian troops had advanced to within a few miles of Basra, Iraq's second largest city. U.S. intelligence information suggested the Iranians might achieve a breakthrough on the Basra front, destabilizing Kuwait, the Gulf states, and even Saudi Arabia, thereby threatening U.S. oil supplies.

"You have to understand the geostrategic context, which was very different from where we are now," said Howard Teicher, a former National Security Council official, who worked on Iraqi policy during the Reagan administration. "Realpolitik dictated that we act to prevent the situation from getting worse."

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

While Rumsfeld was talking to Hussein and Aziz in Baghdad, Iraqi diplomats and weapons merchants were fanning out across Western capitals for a diplomatic charm offensive-cum-arms buying spree. In Washington, the key figure was the Iraqi chargé d'affaires, Nizar Hamdoon, a fluent English speaker who impressed Reagan administration officials as one of the most skillful lobbyists in town.

"He arrived with a blue shirt and a white tie, straight out of the mafia," recalled Geoffrey Kemp, a Middle East specialist in the Reagan White House. "Within six months, he was hosting suave dinner parties at his residence, which he parlayed into a formidable lobbying effort. He was particularly effective with the American Jewish community."

One of Hamdoon's favorite props, says Kemp, was a green Islamic scarf allegedly found on the body of an Iranian soldier. The scarf was decorated with a map of the Middle East showing a series of arrows pointing toward Jerusalem. Hamdoon used to "parade the scarf" to conferences and congressional hearings as proof that an Iranian victory over Iraq would result in "Israel becoming a victim along with the Arabs."

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."

The U.S. policy of cultivating Hussein as a moderate and reasonable Arab leader continued right up until he invaded Kuwait in August 1990, documents show. When the then-U.S. ambassador to Baghdad, April Glaspie, met with Hussein on July 25, 1990, a week before the Iraqi attack on Kuwait, she assured him that Bush "wanted better and deeper relations," according to an Iraqi transcript of the conversation. "President Bush is an intelligent man," the ambassador told Hussein, referring to the father of the current president. "He is not going to declare an economic war against Iraq."

"Everybody was wrong in their assessment of Saddam," said Joe Wilson, Glaspie's former deputy at the U.S. embassy in Baghdad, and the last U.S. official to meet with Hussein. "Everybody in the Arab world told us that the best way to deal with Saddam was to develop a set of economic and commercial relationships that would have the effect of moderating his behavior. History will demonstrate that this was a miscalculation."


___________________________________________

[b][u]Arming Iraq and the Path to War, by John King[/u][/b]

2003-03-31 | This is an accurate chronology of United States' involvement in the arming of Iraq during the Iraq-Iran war. It is a powerful indictment of the current bush administration attempt to sell war as a component of his war on terrorism. It reveals our ambitions in Iraq to be just another chapter in the attempt to regain a foothold in the Mideast following the fall of the Shah of Iran.

A crisis always has a history, and the current crisis with Iraq is no exception. Below are some relevant dates.

September 1980. Iraq invades Iran. The beginning of the Iraq-Iran war. (8)

February 1982. Despite objections from Congress, President Reagan removes Iraq from its list of known terrorist countries. (1)

December 1982. Hughes Aircraft ships 60 Defender helicopters to Iraq. (9)

1982-1988. Defense Intelligence Agency provides detailed information for Iraq on Iranian deployments, tactical planning for battles, plans for air strikes and bomb damage assessments. (4)

November 1983. A National Security Directive states that the U.S would do "whatever was necessary and legal" to prevent Iraq from losing its war with Iran. (1) (15)

November 1983. Banca Nazionale del Lavoro of Italy and its Branch in Atlanta begin to funnel $5 billion in unreported loans to Iraq. Iraq, with the blessing and official approval of the U.S. government, purchased computer controlled machine tools, computers, scientific instruments, special alloy steel and aluminum, chemicals, and other industrial goods for Iraq's missile, chemical, biological and nuclear weapons programs. (14)

October 1983. The Reagan Administration begins secretly allowing Jordan, Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, and Egypt to transfer United States weapons, including Howitzers, Huey helicopters, and bombs to Iraq. These shipments violated the Arms Export Control Act. (16)

November 1983. George Schultz, the Secretary of State, is given intelligence reports showing that Iraqi troops are daily using chemical weapons against the Iranians. (1)

December 20 1983. Donald Rumsfeld, then a civilian and now Defense Secretary, meets with Saddam Hussein to assure him of US friendship and materials support. (1) (15)

July 1984. CIA begins giving Iraq intelligence necessary to calibrate its mustard gas attacks on Iranian troops. (19)

January 14 1984. State Department memo acknowledges United States shipment of "dual-use" export hardware and technology. Dual use items are civilian items such as heavy trucks, armored ambulances and communications gear as well as industrial technology that can have a military application. (2)

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 U.S. becomes the only country refusing to sign a Security Council statement condemning Iraq's use of these weapons. (10)

May 1986. The U.S. Department of Commerce licenses 70 biological exports to Iraq between May of 1985 and 1989, including at least 21 batches of lethal strains of anthrax. (3)

May 1986. US Department of Commerce approves shipment of weapons grade botulin poison to Iraq. (7)

March 1987. President Reagan bows to the findings of the Tower Commission admitting the sale of arms to Iran in exchange for hostages. Oliver North uses the profits from the sale to fund an illegal war in Nicaragua. (17)

Late 1987. The Iraqi Air Force begins using chemical agents against Kurdish resistance forces in northern Iraq. (1)

February 1988. Saddam Hussein begins the "Anfal" campaign against the Kurds of northern Iraq. The Iraq regime used chemical weapons against the Kurds killing over 100,000 civilians and destroying over 1,200 Kurdish villages. (8)

April 1988. US Department of Commerce approves shipment of chemicals used in manufacture of mustard gas. (7)

August 1988. Four major battles were fought from April to August 1988, in which the Iraqis massively and effectively used chemical weapons to defeat the Iranians. Nerve gas and blister agents such as mustard gas are used. By this time the U.S. Defense Intelligence Agency is heavily involved with Saddam Hussein in battle plan assistance, intelligence gathering and post battle debriefing. In the last major battle with of the war, 65,000 Iranians are killed, many with poison gas. Use of chemical weapons in war is in violation of the Geneva accords of 1925. (6) (13)

August 1988. Iraq and Iran declare a cease fire. (8)

August 1988. Five days after the cease fire Saddam Hussein sends his planes and helicopters to northern Iraq to begin massive chemical attacks against the Kurds. (8)

September 1988. U.S. Department of Commerce approves shipment of weapons grade anthrax and botulinum to Iraq. (7)

September 1988. Richard Murphy, Assistant Secretary of State: "The US-Iraqi relationship is... important to our long-term political and economic objectives." (15)

December 1988. Dow chemical sells $1.5 million in pesticides to Iraq despite knowledge that these would be used in chemical weapons. (1)

July 25, 1990. U.S. Ambassador to Baghdad meets with Hussein to assure him that President Bush "wanted better and deeper relations." Many believe this visit was a trap set for Hussein. A month later Hussein invaded Kuwait thinking the U.S. would not respond. (12)

August 1990. Iraq invades Kuwait. The precursor to the Gulf War. (8)

July 1991. The Financial Times of London reveals that a Florida chemical company had produced and shipped cyanide to Iraq during the 80's using a special CIA courier. Cyanide was used extensively against the Iranians. (11)

August 1991. Christopher Droguol of Atlanta's branch of Banca Nazionale del Lavoro is arrested for his role in supplying loans to Iraq for the purchase of military supplies. He is charged with 347 counts of felony. Droguol is found guilty, but U.S. officials plead innocent of any knowledge of his crime. (14)

June 1992. Ted Koppel of ABC Nightline reports: "It is becoming increasingly clear that George Bush, Sr., operating largely behind the scenes throughout the 1980s, initiated and supported much of the financing, intelligence, and military help that built Saddam's Iraq into [an aggressive power]." (5)

July 1992. "The Bush administration deliberately, not inadvertently, helped to arm Iraq by allowing U.S. technology to be shipped to Iraqi military and to Iraqi defense factories... Throughout the course of the Bush administration, U.S. and foreign firms were granted export licenses to ship U.S. technology directly to Iraqi weapons facilities despite ample evidence showing that these factories were producing weapons." Representative Henry Gonzalez, Texas, testimony before the House. (18)

February 1994. Senator Riegle from Michigan, chairman of the Senate Banking Committee, testifies before the senate revealing large U.S. shipments of dual-use biological and chemical agents to Iraq that may have been used against U.S. troops in the Gulf War and probably was the cause of the illness known as Gulf War Syndrome. (7)

August 2002. "The use of gas [during the Iran-Iraq war] on the battle field by the Iraqis was not a matter of deep strategic concern... We were desperate to make sure that Iraq did not lose." Colonel Walter Lang, former senior U.S. Defense Intelligence officer tells the New York Times. (4)

This chronology of the United States' sordid involvement in the arming of Iraq can be summarized in this way: the United States used methods both legal and illegal to help build Saddam's army into the most powerful army in the Mideast outside of Israel. The U.S. supplied chemical and biological agents and technology to Iraq when it knew Iraq was using chemical weapons against the Iranians. The U.S. supplied the materials and technology for these weapons of mass destruction to Iraq at a time when it was known that Saddam was using this technology to kill his Kurdish citizens. The United States supplied intelligence and battle planning information to Iraq when those battle plans included the use of cyanide, mustard gas and nerve agents. The United States blocked U.N. censure of Iraq's use of chemical weapons. The United States did not act alone in this effort. The Soviet Union was the largest weapons supplier, but England, France and Germany were also involved in the shipment of arms and technology.

So what do these events have to do with the current conflict?

Just this: If we do go to war with Iraq, it is important to know why! War will not really be about terrorism! Twenty years ago the United States threw its support behind Saddam Hussein in a geopolitical bid for enhanced access to oil. The trajectory given him by our support lead directly to the Gulf War and to the current crises. War, after all, will be about a history of misdeeds and miscalculations. And war will not be about morality. War will be about cynicism, deceit and a thirst for oil that knows no boundaries.

John King
Long Prairie, MN, USA.

(ED. Note: Although this article was written before the attack began, the analysis still rings true.)

Sources

1. Washingtonpost.com. December 30, 2002
2. Jonathan Broder. Nuclear times, Winter 1990-91
3. Kurt Nimno. AlterNet. September 23, 2002
4. Newyorktimes.com. August 29, 2002
5. ABC Nightline. June 9, 1992
6. Counter Punch, October 10, 2002
7. Riegle Report: Dual Use Exports. Senate Committee on Banking. May 25, 1994
8. Timeline: A walk Through Iraq's History. U.S. Department of State
9. Doing Business: The Arming of Iraq. Daniel Robichear
10. Glen Rangwala. Labor Left Briefing, 16 September, 2002
11. Financial Times of London. July 3, 1991
12. Elson E. Boles. Counter Punch. October 10, 2002
13. Iran-Iraq War, 1980-1988. Iranchamber.com
14. Columbia Journalism Review. March/April 1993. Iraqgate
15. Times Online. December 31, 2002. How U.S. Helped Iraq Build Deadly Arsenal
16. Bush's Secret Mission. The New Yorker Magazine. November 2, 1992
17. Grolier Multimedia Encyclopedia: Iran-Contra Affair
18. Congressional Record. July 27, 1992. Representative Henry B. Gonzalez
19. Bob Woodward. CIA Aiding Iraq in Gulf War. Washington Post.
15 December, 1986
20. WWW.gendercide.com
[url="http://www.gendercide.com/"]http://www.gendercide.com/[/url] Case Study: The Anfal Campaign
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest steggyD
Alright, I guess I will post it here. The government did not arm anyone. Companies sold items to Iraq. The anthrax was shipped to the Ministry of Higher Education. The intention of the strain was for vaccination purposes, medical research. If i were part of the US Department of Commerce at the time, I would find it to be legitimate. They are at war, right? The strains were not sent with any warheads.

Just think, there is a much tighter leash on items such as this now, because of past happenings. I tend to lean towards it being more of a mishap than an intentional arming Iraqis with biological weapons meant to kill Iranians.

But you'll believe your view of it all, that's fine by me.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest BlackJesus
[i][b]right after we watched Saddam Gas the Kurds we said

"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." [/b][/i]
[i]
now we dig up the mass graves, strut them on FoxNews... and act like we give a shit.... [img]http://forum.go-bengals.com/public/style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/23.gif[/img]
[/i]
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest oldschooler
The Kurds were gassed with Mustard gas which is a nerve agent.

[quote]In August 1988, shortly after the ceasefire that ended the Iran-Iraq war, the government of Saddam Hussein launched a major military offensive against the Kurds in northern Iraq, sending tens of thousand of refugees who either witnessed or showed physical symptoms of chemical weapons attacks.[/quote]

[quote]At Porton Down, analysis by gas chromatography and mass spectrometry found that six soil samples taken from the first two craters contained mustard agent and/or thiodiglycol, a compound produced by the hydrolysis (breakdown by water) of mustard, 1,4- thioxane and 1,4-dithiane, were also detected in these samples.[/quote]


[url="http://www.phrusa.org/research/chemical_weapons/chemiraqgas2.html"]http://www.phrusa.org/research/chemical_we...emiraqgas2.html[/url]

1987-1988 - Iraq uses chemical weapons (hydrogen cyanide, mustard gas) in its Anfal Campaign against the Kurds, most notably in the Halabja Massacre of 1988


1985-1991 - Iraq develops an offensive biological weapons capability including anthrax, botulium toxin, and [b]aflatoxin [/b]

[url="http://virtual.yosemite.cc.ca.us/higginbothamr/International%20Politics/CBW/cbw%20chronologyl.htm"]http://virtual.yosemite.cc.ca.us/higginbot...chronologyl.htm[/url]

[b]August, 1983 - Iraq begins using chemical weapons (mustard gas), in Iran-Iraq War [/b]

[b]Iraqi Scientist Reports on German, Other Help for Iraq Chemical Weapons Program
Article by Dr Khalil Ibrahim Al Isa, a nuclear science researcher, in Paris: Fresh information on the Iraqi chemical program; Iraqi money and German brains cooperated in building chemical weapons[/b]

[url="http://www.fas.org/nuke/guide/iraq/cw/az120103.html"]http://www.fas.org/nuke/guide/iraq/cw/az120103.html[/url]

[b]Chemical Weapons Programs: History[/b]

[url="http://www.fas.org/nuke/guide/iraq/cw/program.htm"]http://www.fas.org/nuke/guide/iraq/cw/program.htm[/url]
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest oldschooler

[quote]did others arm them also yes, but others also didn't ilegally invade them like we did....[/quote]



This routine of yours is growing VERY old.

If you think it was illegal...then where are the charges ?
I don`t see how it is illegal to make a country abide by the
terms of their surrender...ecspecially when you gave them
11 years to do so...


And Yes we did supply Iraq with materials that could have
been used to make weapons.But stores supply materials
that could be made into Crystal Meth...they also supply
materials that could be made into pipe bombs.
Whose fault is it if people make Crystal Meth or pipe
bombs ? The stores that carry the supplies or the people
that ACTUALLY make and/or USE the shit ?






:headbang:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest BlackJesus
[quote]And Yes we did supply Iraq with materials that could have
been used to make weapons.But stores supply materials
that could be made into Crystal Meth...they also supply
materials that could be made into pipe bombs.
Whose fault is it if people make Crystal Meth or pipe
bombs ? The stores that carry the supplies or the people
that ACTUALLY make and/or USE the shit ?[/quote]

[i][b]But stores don't burst in your house, and shoot up your family claiming... we can't let him have these wal mart products....after they were at your BBQ last week and did meth with you[/b][/i]
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest steggyD
[quote name='BlackJesus' date='Aug 12 2005, 02:20 PM'][i][b]But stores don't burst in your house, and shoot up your family claiming... we can't let him have these wal mart products....after they were at your BBQ last week and did meth with you[/b][/i]
[right][post="129499"]<{POST_SNAPBACK}>[/post][/right][/quote]
But the police do...
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest BlackJesus
[quote]But the police do...[/quote]

[i][b]police supply meth to people, use meth with the same guys and then burst in the next week shoot up their family and arrest them for it..... [/b][/i]
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest steggyD
[quote name='BlackJesus' date='Aug 12 2005, 02:28 PM'][i][b]police supply meth to people, use meth with the same guys and then burst in the next week shoot up their family and arrest them for it..... [/b][/i]
[right][post="129510"]<{POST_SNAPBACK}>[/post][/right][/quote]
No. Listen, BJ. Companies sold these items to Iraq. Then the goverment went in to Iraq. The same as companies sell items to make meth, then the goverment(police) arrest you when you use them wrong.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest oldschooler
[quote name='BlackJesus' date='Aug 12 2005, 12:20 PM'][i][b]But stores don't burst in your house, and shoot up your family claiming... we can't let him have these wal mart products....after they were at your BBQ last week and did meth with you[/b][/i]
[right][post="129499"]<{POST_SNAPBACK}>[/post][/right][/quote]



We supplied MATERIALS that COULD make chemical and
biological weapons.


And if people take MATERIALS that are sold at stores
and make Crystal Meth or pipe bombs then yes there is
reasons for the cops to bust their doors in and say you
can not have these MATERIALS !



So just like if you took materials and made a bomb
or crystal meth...it would be YOUR fault ...not the
person that sold the shit to you...
Saddam was the one that did wrong.
But you want to blame the U.S. for his lunacy and defiance.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest BlackJesus
[quote]No. Listen, BJ. Companies sold these items to Iraq.[/quote]

[i][b]Oh you are one of those that don't realize that Washington is just a large conglomerate of companies each with their own representation....

that's cute [/b][/i] [img]http://forum.go-bengals.com/public/style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/angel.gif[/img]
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest bengalrick
[quote name='BlackJesus' date='Aug 12 2005, 01:48 PM'][i][b]Oh you are one of those that don't realize that Washington is just a large conglomerate of companies each with their own representation....

that's cute [/b][/i] [img]http://forum.go-bengals.com/public/style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/angel.gif[/img]
[right][post="129531"]<{POST_SNAPBACK}>[/post][/right][/quote]

taken from your timeline in able danger thread that bj posted:

[i]December, 1988. Dow chemical sells $1.5 million in pesticides to Iraq despite knowledge that these would be used in chemical weapons. (1) [/i]

i had no idea that [url="http://www.dow.com/homepage/index.html"]the dow company[/url] was a front for the us gov't... riiiight....
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Hey BJ, is Wal Mart responsible for ppl making and using crystal meth because they sell lighter fluid, Sudafed, and whatever other common household items they use to make the stuff?

Point is, ALOT of stuff can be used for purposes other than what it was intended for. Simply because we had a favorable trading policy with a country in the past doesnt mean we were intentionally arming them as you imply.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest BlackJesus
[i][b]under your guys definitions.... can someone ever arm someone else...

"we were giving them missles only in case of Aliens"

If you think that the US doesn't selectively back asshole dictators all the time, and then have them turn on us (Mao, Saddam,Shah, Hell even Castro was willing to work with the US in the begining)..... then you drink the kool aid and there is no cure.


[/b][/i]
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest BengalBacker
We back whoever it's in our best interest to back, at the time we're backing them. That means we sometimes back bad guys. So what? We may not always get it right, but sometimes that's hard to measure. You have to consider the possible ramifications of doing it differently.

I want my government doing what's best for my country. You can argue that what they do isn't always what's best for our country, but you will usually have the benefit of hindsight, and again, you have to consider what might have happened otherwise.

Should we have let Russia take Afghanistan? Should we have let Saddam have Kuwait? Should we have let Germany take Europe? If we have to buddy up to bad guys to accomplish what needs to be done, so be it.

Now you can call that imperialistic or whatever, but if you're sitting at home in your air conditioned home, reading this on your computer with your high speed internet, maybe you'll be watching your big screen tv later with your cable service or dish, and you have a reasonably new car in the driveway and enough disposable income to go to some Bengal games, buy a bunch of Bengals gear, fly somewhere for a nice vacation once in a while.... If you have those things and don't want to give them up, yet you still want to bitch about the imperialist, capitalist society you live in, in my eyes you're a hypocrite. It's easy to talk the talk.

BJ, I know you have lived in places and seen things most of us haven't, and I guess you intend to use your education to try to make a difference in those places. That's commendable if you feel so strongly about it. But I get the impression that you're currently enjoying the fruits of things made possible by the very things you despise. If the government had been ran the way you wish since the inception of this country, I think it's safe to say that none of our lives would be even remotely similar to what they are today. You probably believe it would more Utopian. I doubt we would have survived.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest BlackJesus
[i][b]Backer....

it seems like you are saying that the US would not be as economically poweful if we didn't arm dictators every now and then. I disagree. In fact I think the US would be even more economically productive if instead of spending such a high amount of $$$ on dropping bombs on brown people, we invested that $ in schools to better educate children and public works projects to then offer a job to every unemployed person in the nation.... (if they don't take the job, then no welfare).[/b][/i]

[quote]If you have those things and don't want to give them up, yet you still want to bitch about the imperialist, capitalist society you live in, in my eyes you're a hypocrite.[/quote]

[i][b]Why do you feel that imperialism and capitalism go hand in hand.... many laizze faire capitalists are foriegn isolationists... because they realize that it is not our place to interfere into others armed conflicts. I don't find a contradiction for having air conditioning and not wanting American firms to buy huge swaths of land in C America and create land serfs... they do not work hand in hand. As for the capitalist society....(if that is what you want to call America) - I would disagree.... we are a corporate communist economy who provides the benefits to corporations instead of individuals. We also do not follow the teachings of being rewarded for the "fruits of your labor"... and instead we have an economy based off of large inheritances, real estate specualtion where you poduce nothing but flipping houses by buying them 1 week and then selling the next, we invest off of credit, and then buy more and more off of credit and have a class of people who (are the few allowed access to large loans) who then play with electronic numbers all day producing nothing and make millions.

Do I enjoy some of the luxuries of American society... Yes. And as an American I feel it is my right to attempt to voice my displeasure at the growing despair and death that we are causing around the world. American can at the same time be great for Americans and terrible for most of the rest of the world.... I would even be willing to sacrifice many of my luxuries or advantages in exchange for America stopping to exploit others around the world. As someone who lived in Mud Huts for year in Africa, bathed in a waterfall, had no electricity etc... I am confident in my ability to handle any such loss in amenities, although I don't even think there would be any as a result of curtailing our meddling and bombing of our former dictator pals.[/b][/i]
Link to comment
Share on other sites

We sold massive quantities of steel and oil to Japan in the 1930's, only to have them use it to build, fuel and arm Zero fighter planes that they attacked Pearl Harbor with....so, ???--like Beaker said, many things that you can buy and that are bought, sold and traded between countries can be twisted for malicious designs outside of their intended use.
And, like Backer said, basically, one of the distasteful yet often necessary evils of politics is having to lie in bed with another nation or group of individuals (that you normally wouldn't associate with at all) to accomplish a short-term goal that is, at that particular time, in your best interest.
Yes, buying into the strategy of "the enemy of my enemy is my friend" has bitten us on the ass a couple times...but so what?
If we did indeed sell weapons to Iraq, who were they fighting in their war again? Iran? Wasn't Iran the country that we hated back then because they stormed our Embassy in Tehran and took a couple hundred hostages and held them for almost a year?
Yeah.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest BlackJesus
[i][b]Bung and others....

[color="blue"]I think you are completley missing the hypocrosy by focusing solely on the fact that yes we went with the lesser of two evils...[/color]

it goes way beyond that

We were supportive of Saddam and didn't care when he was gassing Kurds in 1988....

Now that we have invaded and found no WMD's which we lied about... Bush puts this spin on it like we are hear to liberate the rape rooms and free the Kurds and others from being gassed ......

that was never our fucking intention.....

Then Bush gets up there and says "Democracy is Gods gift to all mankind" and "we are here to ensure democracy for all" and then goes and meets with the dozens of leaders who we arm (musharaff, UZbek president) who are dictators just like Saddam and who do cruel acts against certain populations....

Why doesn't Bush just be honest about it and say.....

[color="red"]"listen we don't really care that he gassed Kurds, I was joking about the WMD's, the guy wanted to kill my daddy, and so Texas style I took him out at the cost of 1,800 US troops, and as a bonus my VP's oil companies get some great kickbacks. Now that I am here to hide all this shit, I will make flowery speeches abotu democracy that are only intended for you and that are not universal in any means...."[/color][/b][/i]
Link to comment
Share on other sites

No, we have to spin it as a "democracy from God for all" campaign to ensure the construction of strategic Stealth bomber airbases in Iraq from which to stage attacks on Iran.
See? We're taking care of both birds with one stone, or multiple laser-guided munitions, as it were....
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest BengalBacker

[quote name='BlackJesus' date='Aug 13 2005, 10:22 PM'][i][b]Backer....

it seems like you are saying that the US would not be as economically poweful if we didn't arm dictators every now and then.  I disagree.  In fact I think the US would be even more economically productive if instead of spending such a high amount of $$$ on dropping bombs on brown people, we invested that $ in schools to better educate children and public works projects to then offer a job to every unemployed person in the nation.... (if they don't take the job, then no welfare).[/b][/i][right][post="130429"][/post][/right][/quote]

You can't make it that simplistic. What you're saying is, if we just hadn't spent the money on the bombs and spent it on education instead, it would be money better spent. As if dropping the bombs "on brown people :rolleyes: " was done only for the pleasure of dropping bombs on brown people. There are reasons why we involve ourselves in conflicts. Not involving ourselves would lead to different results. It's easy to sit back and say, we shouldn't have done this, or there was no good reason for us to have done that, and in some cases you'd probably be right. My problem is, you seem to imply that we only do these things because we're evil bastards who enjoy it. I think these things are usually done with the best interests of the United States in mind. It might be for economical reasons, defense reasons, stability of certain regions, or a number of things but I don't think it's ever just for entertainment purposes.

[quote name='BlackJesus' date='Aug 13 2005, 10:22 PM'][i][b]Backer....


[i][b]Why do you feel that imperialism and capitalism go hand in hand.... many laizze faire capitalists are foriegn isolationists... because they realize that it is not our place to interfere into others armed conflicts.  I don't find a contradiction for having air conditioning and not wanting American firms to buy huge swaths of land in C America and create land serfs... they do not work hand in hand.  As for the capitalist society....(if that is what you want to call America) - I would disagree.... we are a corporate communist economy who provides the benefits to corporations instead of individuals.  We also do not follow the teachings of being rewarded for the "fruits of your labor"... and instead we have an economy based off of large inheritances, real estate specualtion where you poduce nothing but flipping houses by buying them 1 week and then selling the next, we invest off of credit, and then buy more and more off of credit and have a class of people who (are the few allowed access to large loans) who then play with electronic numbers all day producing nothing and make millions.  [/b][/i]

[right][post="130429"][/post][/right][/quote]

You're a socialist with an economics degree. I won't pretend to try to argue definitions with you. I'm just a guy who tries to see the world through common sense. I think to say that it's not our place to interfere in other's armed conflicts is naive. I assume you draw a line somewhere. If you're saying that we should never involve ourselves in others conflicts, I think you're relying on the philosophy of, if you're nice to everyone, they'll be nice to you. That's not reality. Do you wait until the threat is too powerful to stop, or in the words of Barney Fife, do you nip it in the bud. Sometimes an ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure.

I know you hate corporations, and rich people. A lot of things that happen with corporations are impossible to defend when looking at it from a "what's fair" perspective, but it is a global economy. That's no one's fault, it's just an inevitability as the world gets smaller due to technology. Since it is inevitable, the best we can do is try to keep those corporate jobs that you want to educate people for, here in America as much as possible. That may not be the reality we all would hope for, but it is reality and I don't see anything changing it.

As far as us not being rewarded for the fruits of our labor, what reasonably intelligent, hard working person in this country doesn't have any opportunity to "get ahead"? It might be harder for some than others, but the opportunity is there for everyone. Maybe some rich people don't deserve to be rich, but the fact that the possibility exists for anyone to become rich is the biggest incentive that drives people to excell. Call that greed, call it a desire for security for your family, or call it human nature, it's true. Not everyone has that drive, and those people can still live a relatively comfortable life in this country. A part of all of us might think it's not fair that some people are rich through nothing but luck, or being born into the right family, but I've always been told that life isn't always fair, and just because they may not deserve their money, that doesn't give me or you the right to take it from them.

[quote name='BlackJesus' date='Aug 13 2005, 10:22 PM'][i][b]Backer....


[i][b]Do I enjoy some of the luxuries of American society... Yes.  And as an American I feel it is my right to attempt to voice my displeasure at the growing despair and death that we are causing around the world.  American can at the same time be great for Americans and terrible for most of the rest of the world.... I would even be willing to sacrifice many of my luxuries or advantages in exchange for America stopping to exploit others around the world.  As someone who lived in Mud Huts for year in Africa, bathed in a waterfall, had no electricity etc... I am confident in my ability to handle any such loss in amenities, although I don't even think there would be any as a result of curtailing our meddling and bombing of our former dictator pals.[/b][/i]
[right][post="130429"][/post][/right][/quote]


The fact that you have, and could again live in a mud hut with no amenities is fine for you. If I was young and single again, I would (and used to) feel the same way. If you have a family with children you are responsible for providing and caring for, your outlook on many things will change. It's easy to make personal sacrifices when you are the only one affected. It's a different animal when the people you love depend on you to protect them.

If we have to bomb our former dictator pals to help insure the security of my family, I say bombs away.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

As long as we affix crucifixes to the bombs, have them blessed by a priest sprinkling holy water on them, and the rhetoric from the Oval Office is Jesus-based, then I'm all for it... :lol: :lol: :lol:
If their God wants them to blow themselves up while trying to kill evil Zionists and infidels, then we should help them achieve their goal of a virgin-studded partadise...and they should be thanking us, we're saving them the trouble...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

BJ, who says we didnt care that Saddam gassed the Kurds? We cared very much, but in that case we stayed out of it (as you suggest we should now) and we were wrong that time too in your eyes. Saddam's gassing the kurds was his choice. Not due to any US influence. But you say we should have done something then...but not do anything now. That almost seems like your using the argument of intervention when its convienient for you.

We backed Iraq because Iran was the bigger enemy at that time. It was not in our best interest during the Iran/Iraq war to have Iran win and control more of the arab world. We backed Iraq ONLY to the extent that they couldnt lose...we didnt give them enough power to beat Iran either. The 2 countries came to a stalemate, and balance was maintained.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest bengalrick
what if the northern alliance becomes as bad as the taliban?? in hindsight it would have been the wrong decision... i'm sure they are far from perfect... but what did it do... it made fighting the taliban and taking afghanistan damn easy in terms of military operations... they knew the land, and we supplied them w/ what they needed to fight... it COULD very well come back to bite us in the ass... but it would still be the right decision unless you object to the war in afghanistan too...

and backers first post is right on the money... if we would have followed the policies like you, bj, would have liked, we wouldn't even be here... don't go back to the 80's or whatever... go back to the 1400's when we weren't a country right now... we would not be here, if we didn't make some huge mistakes and conquered the native americans... do i condone what we did to them... hell no... but the facts are, we wouldn't be here and enjoying the freedoms that america offers...

hindsight is 20/20...
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

×
×
  • Create New...