US Armed Saddam Hussein With WMD?

[HemlockGrey]

http://www.truthout.org/docs_03/042303E.shtml

Discuss.

[Darth Fanboy]

This is what those fucking idiots get for electing Regan back in 84, when he still had enough of his mind intact to be dangerous.

[Crown]

This is nothing new. I thought everyone knew this already.

[Joe]

Yes, unfortunately the U.S. does not have 20/20 foresight. And why this unpleasant fact is often used as an argument for taking out Saddam now is beyond me.

[Darth Wong]

Yes, unfortunately the U.S. does not have 20/20 foresight. And why this unpleasant fact is often used as an argument for taking out Saddam now is beyond me.

No one's saying that Saddam is OK because the US gave him his WMD. But it would be fair to say that a lot of people think the US is hypocritical to scream blue murder at the mere possibility of WMD in a foreign nation when they possess them and have given them away to dangerous lunatics in the past (not to mention currently aiding and abetting the only verified nuclear proliferation threat in the region, Israel).

[Vympel]

Yes, unfortunately the U.S. does not have 20/20 foresight. And why this unpleasant fact is often used as an argument for taking out Saddam now is beyond me.

I take it you mean 'against' rather than 'for'.

If you read the article, you would see that the US had no problem with Saddam's gasssing of the Kurds when it actually happened, so it's not a question of 20/20 foresight. When they brought it up a few months ago as a reason for invasion was the height of false outrage is what pisses me off, especially considering that Bush's administration are just recycled Reagnites anyway (Rumsfeld and Cheney).

[jegs2]

http://www.truthout.org/docs_03/042303E.shtml

Discuss.

The article makes a statement as though it were fact that we gave Iraq chemical and biological weapons or the materials with which to make them, but it gives no evidence to back up that claim. So far as I can tell, we knew they had them and looked the other way, but we didn't give WMD to them.

[Crown]

http://www.truthout.org/docs_03/042303E.shtml

Discuss.

The article makes a statement as though it were fact that we gave Iraq chemical and biological weapons or the materials with which to make them, but it gives no evidence to back up that claim. So far as I can tell, we knew they had them and looked the other way, but we didn't give WMD to them.

It is a fact. The SBS documentary (Saddam and his friends) provided the same allegations with accompaning evidence (DoD files of transfer) as well as the Senate oversight commity drilling Rumsfeld on the same issue. His responce; that wasn't why I was in Iraq at the time. He never denied that the State Department had actually sent the anthrax spores, he just dis-associated himself with the deal.

And before you claim 'leftist propaganda', the US's contribution to the WMD of Iraq was approx 10 min in an 1 hour documentary. The other 50 min was reserved for France's selling of Nuclear tech, and German companies selling Chemical weapons.

This is what outrages those that were/are opposed to the war; the blatant hipocracy, lies and revisionist history. And the fact that I as an Australian know more about your country's involvement with Saddam should raise a few question marks.

[Vympel]

The article makes a statement as though it were fact that we gave Iraq chemical and biological weapons or the materials with which to make them, but it gives no evidence to back up that claim. So far as I can tell, we knew they had them and looked the other way, but we didn't give WMD to them.

It's fact. Once before I have posted a link, with lists, of what the US supplied, and when. It was a Gulf War Veterans site, demanding that Rumsfeld step down for lying before the Senate.

http://www.gulfwarvets.com/news12.htm

Link to the list is on that page.

The American Gulf War Veterans Association (AGWVA) now calls for the resignation of Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld. In response to questioning by Sen. Robert C. Byrd, (D-WV), Rumsfeld denied any knowledge that the United States had shipped biological weapons to Iraq during the 1980’s. Rumsfeld was addressing the Armed Services Committee last week, when he stated that he “…had no knowledge of any such shipments and doubted that they ever occurred.”

There is no disputing the evidence that the U.S. provided bacteria and viruses as evidenced by Senate Report 103-900, “United States Dual-Use Exports To Iraq And Their Impact On the Health of The Persian Gulf War Veterans,” dated May 25,1994, chaired by Sen. Donald Riegle (D-MI) of the Banking, Housing and Urban Affairs Committee. This Senate report was available to all senators and listed among other items, Bacillus Anthracis, (anthrax) Clostridium botulinum, and West Nile Fever Virus as pathogens that were shipped to Iraq in the 1980’s with the full knowledge of the Department of Commerce and the CDC.

Either he's a liar (probable), or he's ignorant.

[Vympel]

Just to emphasize something- not a single country gave Iraq WMD ready to use. What was given was material to make WMD.

[Crown]

Just to emphasize something- not a single country gave Iraq WMD ready to use. What was given was material to make WMD.

And knowledge, And information.

[Axis Kast]

What, exactly, is the argument? That Washington deserves a slap on the wrist? That we should have seen this coming? That Americans are hypocritical for wanting disarmament?

Many Americans - at least as many as are involved with the situation on a passingly academic level - acknowledge that Regean helped accommodate Hussein. As the documentaries prove, it’s public knowledge. We laid the basis – and in fact delivered some of the materials – necessary for Hussein to launch chemical (and potentially biological) attacks during the Iran-Iraq War. I’d even put even money on an American company having been party to the sale of items later used at or in relation to Osirak. The United States was undeniably complicit.

So?

What does it matter. Times change. When we armed Saddam, it was the intelligent thing to do. Why not destabilize the dangerous, fundamentalist beast that was Khomeni’s Iran? Saddam seemed an easy troll; the man was as a pawn. In fact, until 1991, he didn’t actually elude our grasp. Only after the invasion of Kuwait did Hussein become a dangerous entity from the American point of view. And then, necessarily, our position shifted. The question wasn’t whether we’d given him weapons, but whether he could use them. The answer was yes and the battle lines were drawn. When the decision was made to arm Baghdad in 1981, it was a solid affair. Strike a blow at a key enemy of the United States in the Persian Gulf, hopefully put our pawn – Iraq – in a position of influence, and in the interim severely deplete the energies of a pair of quasi-socialist states over which the U.S.S.R. was sweating. You can’t look back on the situation only in 1991 or 2003 and then deliver analysis with only those narrow timeframes in mind.

Is it hypocritical to demand that Iraq disarm. From a certain point of view, yes. If the world is full of equals – and it’s not -, Iraq should enjoy the same freedom to proliferate as the United States or Russia. But it doesn’t. Why? Because it can’t defend itself. The world isn’t equal. Because it’s in the spotlight. Because Hussein made a series of missteps that put him at the mercy of the world’s only hyperpower. And that’s fact.

[Dahak]

In fact, until 1991, he didn’t actually elude our grasp. Only after the invasion of Kuwait did Hussein become a dangerous entity from the American point of view. And then, necessarily, our position shifted.

I daresay that the gassing of Iranian soldiers and Kurdish civilians should have given the quite solid impression that Hussein is dangerous. Yet no one cared back then.
Hypocricy.

[Axis Kast]

I daresay that the gassing of Iranian soldiers and Kurdish civilians should have given the quite solid impression that Hussein is dangerous. Yet no one cared back then. Hypocricy.

Now you’re making moral rather than political value judgment. The danger posed by Saddam Hussein to Iran or proto-Kurdistan had nothing to do with the United States until 1991. Only after Iraq’s invasion of Kuwait did historical feuds between the Ba’ath and their traditional opponents raise any eyebrows – and rightfully so. They events about which you speak had gone from footnotes to indicators. Suddenly, all of Iraq’s affairs after 1945 were suspect because they might reveal clues to future action. But that same future action came of interest only after we kicked him out of Kuwait. Until then, they appeared in a very different light.

In 1981, dead Iranians were welcomed by the United States. We’re talking about a war between Saddam Hussein – ostensible American strongman – and the Ayatollah Khomeni, technically the most hated man in the American psyche, hands down. From a political point of view, Iraq was pressing almost all the right buttons. Sending all the right signals. His massacre of the Kurds was brushed under the rug. Who cared about that at all? Who cares today? A handful of Civil Rights groups? The bigger fuss isn’t over the dead babies but the fact that gas was used at all. Hell, the situation isn’t even relevant until you take into account that we went after 1991 from sometime friends to public enemies. Even today, Halabja is an indicator. That’s all. And worse, it’s only good after the fact! Until 1991, Iraq was an essential ally. Before the Soviet Union collapsed, we needed somebody outside Israel. We went from Begin to the Shah to Hussein. Point blank. Was it worth the cost? From the Cold Warrior’s perspective, absolutely! Iran had a great deal of potential. We sapped them dry via our proxies in Baghdad. This is a country capable of fielding F-14 ‘Tomcat’ jet fighters, Shi’r 2 main battle tanks, and Russian BMPs. They were technically superior in terms of equipage to the United States military until the introduction of the Abrams! To make the argument that we should have known Saddam would invade Kuwait before entering into the alliance is ridiculous. Where are the indicators for that? So he was dangerous. Big deal. So are a few people in Africa we’ve heard about over the past few weeks. You can’t even tell me Halabja is a portent of the occupation of Kuwait. Because it wasn’t. It was just testament to what he could do to his enemies. And until 1991, we were an ally! Not even your claim of hypocrisy works on the grounds you’ve provided. More like lack of foresight. And I’ve just put that to rest.

[The_Nice_Guy]

Yes, indeed, hypocrisy from the moral point of view. But that's in the past. From now on, let's see if the US(and Shrub) can live up to their ideals.

Let's just say Axis has different priorities and value emphasis from the rest of us.

The Nice Guy

[Darth Wong]

Axis has said from the very beginning that he does not recognize any concept of morality as valid, and that right and wrong are simply defined by who has the power to force his views on the other party. Mind you, if the Nazis had won WW2, this mentality would lead to the conclusion that the Nazis were right, but in any case, that is how he got his title (although I'm sure he believes it was just awarded out of anti-Americanism).

[Axis Kast]

Morality does not exist in the geopolitical word as anything but an expediant. That's fact whether or not Wong wishes to acknowledge it.

[Joe]

Yes, unfortunately the U.S. does not have 20/20 foresight. And why this unpleasant fact is often used as an argument for taking out Saddam now is beyond me.

I take it you mean 'against' rather than 'for'.

If you read the article, you would see that the US had no problem with Saddam's gasssing of the Kurds when it actually happened, so it's not a question of 20/20 foresight. When they brought it up a few months ago as a reason for invasion was the height of false outrage is what pisses me off, especially considering that Bush's administration are just recycled Reagnites anyway (Rumsfeld and Cheney).

D'oh. Thanks for calling my error.

Never post while on the way out for class. You won't make sense.

[The_Nice_Guy]

Morality does not exist in the geopolitical word as anything but an expediant. That's fact whether or not Wong wishes to acknowledge it.

It doesn't mean it's the right attitude to take tho. I think most people tend to place somewhat higher emphasis on morality, and that in democratic countries, this tends to have an influence on geopolitical decisions.

The Nice Guy

[Dahak]

Morality does not exist in the geopolitical word as anything but an expediant. That's fact whether or not Wong wishes to acknowledge it.

This may be true.
But still it highly smacks of hipocracy, if a government suddenly, accidentally, discovers that there's an "evil man" running a country, and are now outraged by things he did years ago, when they didn't give a rat's ass about it back then.

[Vympel]

For the sake of completeness:

Arming Iraq and the Path to War, by John King

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.

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
http://www.gendercide.com
http://www.gendercide.com
http://www.gendercide.com/ Case Study: The Anfal Campaign

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Strategic Pastoral Action
PO Box 3272
Holland, MI, 49422-3272 USA
http://www.spanweb.org
mailto:humanrights@spanweb.org
Nonviolence Advocacy Project:
http://www.rehberg.net/nonviolence.html
________________________________________________________

Please also read: Iraq-Gate;
How The United States Illegally Armed Saddam Hussein
http://www.informationclearinghouse.inf ... le1412.htm
________________________________________________________

[Axis Kast]

It doesn't mean it's the right attitude to take tho. I think most people tend to place somewhat higher emphasis on morality, and that in democratic countries, this tends to have an influence on geopolitical decisions

What attitude? I’m not stating an opinion.

The public places emphasis on the morality of their governments’ decisions, yes. But the point remains: the Ten Commandments have never been a crux of policy-making. The Western world ends civil crisis or intervenes with humanitarian goals in mind largely to preempt chaos. We’re less concerned about global hunger per se than the reality that empty stomachs tend to leave room for neo-Communism or Islamofascism. Just because they spoon-fed some nice, touchy-feely line about saving Somalis doesn’t mean it’s true.

Does morality have an influence on geopolitical decisions? Yes. But does it exist among policymakers? No. Do we feed people because they are hungry? No. Do we feed them because it wins us votes at home or stops the evil Commies from gaining a foothold? Yes.

But still it highly smacks of hipocracy, if a government suddenly, accidentally, discovers that there's an "evil man" running a country, and are now outraged by things he did years ago, when they didn't give a rat's ass about it back then.

Why is hypocrisy bad per se? It’s nothing but selective policy-making; competent pragmatism for the here-and-now.

You illustrate my point exactly. Just because somebody says it’s moral doesn’t mean it’s their actual motive of justification. A government that feeds the hungry outside its own borders does so because it sees room for gain – in terms of allies, prevention, or during the next election -, not because it “really cares.”