Trading with the ememy: Iraq-U.S. relations before 9/11

[alvin]

No it doesn't change my mind. It would seem to implicate the U.S. more than anything.


Here they have a man(Saddam Hussien) who was found guilty(by an international court...if I'm not mistaken) of bombing Kurds with weapons(of mass descruction) purchased with the approval of the Department of Commerce, the Reagan administration, the State Department, the CIA, Dow Chemicals, Hughes Aircraft, etc...

The picture that has been painted of Saddam has been one of a "monster" among other thing but the samd brush used to criminalize Hussein is the same one which should be used to bring those in this country to justice also. The whole affair reeks of a FARCE no matter how you slice it.

[alvin]

http://www.informationclearinghouse....rticle1412.htm

http://web.amnesty.org/pages/ttt4-article_7-eng

http://www.cooperativeresearch.org/t...ne=us_iraq_80s

[zerojunkie]

Originally Posted by alvin

No it doesn't change my mind. It would seem to implicate the U.S. more than anything.


Here they have a man(Saddam Hussien) who was found guilty(by an international court...if I'm not mistaken) of bombing Kurds with weapons(of mass descruction) purchased with the approval of the Department of Commerce, the Reagan administration, the State Department, the CIA, Dow Chemicals, Hughes Aircraft, etc...

The picture that has been painted of Saddam has been one of a "monster" among other thing but the samd brush used to criminalize Hussein is the same one which should be used to bring those in this country to justice also. The whole affair reeks of a FARCE no matter how you slice it.

I don't think Washington was explicitly green lighting the use of chemical weapons, we sold them dual use technology and chemical precursors. If we did condone the use of chemical weapons it was on the Iranian regime that was exporting terrorism throughout the world at the time. Not against his own population.

[alvin]

Originally Posted by zerojunkie

I don't think Washington was explicitly green lighting the use of chemical weapons, we sold them dual use technology and chemical precursors. If we did condone the use of chemical weapons it was on the Iranian regime that was exporting terrorism throughout the world at the time. Not against his own population.

They knew that Saddam was murdering Kurds(who were opposing him)...it was all well and good when trying to topple the Iranian regime...so 20yrs later you turn around and say he was a "monster" and like "Hitler" for gassing Kurds and a "war" criminal when you shipped it to him in the first place...that's insane or standard governmental procedure...I can't tell one from the other.

Nov 21, 1983

US State Department official Jonathan T. Howe sends Secretary of Defense Lawrence Eagleburger a memo reporting that US intelligence has determined that “Iraq has acquired a CW [chemical weapons] production capability, primarily from Western firms, including possibly a US foreign subsidiary” and that Iraq has used chemical weapons against Iranian forces and Kurdish insurgents. Referring to the US policy “of seeking a halt to CW use wherever it occurs,” Howe says the US is “considering” approaching Iraq directly, but in a way that avoids playing “into Iran’s hands by fueling its propaganda against Iraq.” Significantly, the memo acknowledges that the US has so far limited its “efforts against the Iraqi CW program to close monitoring because of our strict neutrality in the Gulf war, the sensitivity of sources, and the low probability of achieving desired results.” [US Department of State, 11/1/1983 ]
Entity Tags: Jonathan T. Howe, Lawrence Eagleburger

[alvin]

They were more concerned about the protection of the flow of oil...concern over human lives was minimal.

Nov. 26, 1983


US President Ronald Reagan issues National Security Directive 114 on the United States’ policy toward the Iran-Iraq war. The document—which makes no mention of Iraq’s use of chemical weapons—calls for increased regional military cooperation to protect oil facilities and for improving US military capabilities in the region. The directive states, “Because of the real and psychological impact of a curtailment in the flow of oil from the Persian Gulf on the international economic system, we must assure our readiness to deal promptly with actions aimed at disrupting that traffic.” [US President, 11/26/1983 ]
Entity

[zerojunkie]

Originally Posted by alvin

They were more concerned about the protection of the flow of oil...concern over human lives was minimal.

Nov. 26, 1983


US President Ronald Reagan issues National Security Directive 114 on the United States’ policy toward the Iran-Iraq war. The document—which makes no mention of Iraq’s use of chemical weapons—calls for increased regional military cooperation to protect oil facilities and for improving US military capabilities in the region. The directive states, “Because of the real and psychological impact of a curtailment in the flow of oil from the Persian Gulf on the international economic system, we must assure our readiness to deal promptly with actions aimed at disrupting that traffic.” [US President, 11/26/1983 ]
Entity

Why would it, Halabja didn't happen until 88. Iraq's CW program was just beginning to produce agents in 83. Also, by the way, only a very very limited amount of Saddam's CW capabilities came from the US. I do find it mildly amusing that you're perpetuating the same evidence Bush and friends used to invade Iraq as fact. What's up with that, I thought it was all lies to you?

[alvin]

Originally Posted by zerojunkie

Why would it, Halabja didn't happen until 88. Iraq's CW program was just beginning to produce agents in 83. Also, by the way, only a very very limited amount of Saddam's CW capabilities came from the US. I do find it mildly amusing that you're perpetuating the same evidence Bush and friends used to invade Iraq as fact. What's up with that, I thought it was all lies to you?

Wasn't it from Bush's own mouth when he said his "intell" reported that Iraq did indeed have WMD's(beyond a reasonable doubt)? Wasn't this the impetus for U.S.and A. to invade Iraq(of course Iraq had WMD's at SOME POINT)? How many years has it been since America went in to "liberate" the Iraqi people? So far how many WMD's have been located? I never said Saddam DIDN'T use WMD...but what happened to them from the beginning of the "invasion" up until today? Did Saddams' people spirit them out or did someone get them out under cover of the night to cover their tracks?

Maybe Bush's "intell" was using information from the Reagan era as a reference point. GW didn't have to look far for information...it's been in Daddy's file cabinet since the '80's.

Why should anyone believe these people...when any sane person can see they aren't very trustworthy.

[alvin]

By the way only a very, very limited amount of Saddams CW capabilities came from the US.

it doesn't matter if it was one shipment of chemical weapons or 1,000...the fact remains that the U.S. can be tied to the deaths of innocent Iraqi(Kurds) people(deaths which was blamed SOLEY on Saddam)...one hand washed the other. All while the propaganda machine demonized Saddam(whipping the American public into a frenzied warmongering mental state)...sad.

http://foi.missouri.edu/terrorbkgd/following.html

"That suggests Rumsfeld also has not read the sole surviving copy of a May 25, 1994, Senate Banking Committee report. In 1985 (five years after the Iraq-Iran war started) and succeeding years, said the report, ''pathogenic (meaning ''disease producing''), toxigenic (meaning ''poisonous'') and other biological research materials were exported to Iraq, pursuant to application and licensing by the U.S. Department of Commerce.'' It added: ''These exported biological materials were not attenuated or weakened and were capable of reproduction.''

The report then details 70 shipments (including anthrax bacillus) from the United States to Iraqi government agencies over three years, concluding, ''It was later learned that these microorganisms exported by the United States were identical to those the United Nations inspectors found and recovered from the Iraqi biological warfare program".

[I AM EL-NINO]

Originally Posted by zerojunkie

Why would it, Halabja didn't happen until 88. Iraq's CW program was just beginning to produce agents in 83. Also, by the way, only a very very limited amount of Saddam's CW capabilities came from the US. I do find it mildly amusing that you're perpetuating the same evidence Bush and friends used to invade Iraq as fact. What's up with that, I thought it was all lies to you?

my point exactly. lolllzz

[zerojunkie]

Originally Posted by alvin

Wasn't it from Bush's own mouth when he said his "intell" reported that Iraq did indeed have WMD's(beyond a reasonable doubt)? Wasn't this the impetus for U.S.and A. to invade Iraq(of course Iraq had WMD's at SOME POINT)? How many years has it been since America went in to "liberate" the Iraqi people? So far how many WMD's have been located? I never said Saddam DIDN'T use WMD...but what happened to them from the beginning of the "invasion" up until today? Did Saddams' people spirit them out or did someone get them out under cover of the night to cover their tracks?

We knew he had them from the 80's and was continuing to pursue them into the early 90's...we also know that after the first gulf war the UN weapon inspector's documentation concerning the destruction of chemical and biological weapons didn't account for all of his stockpiles. There's also suspicion he was still developing chemical weapons by proxy in Sudan (where, by the way, Osama was residing at the same time). Since he kicked out weapons inspectors in 1998 we didn't have people on the ground anymore looking for traces of a chemical weapons program, in violation of the cease fire agreement that ended the first Gulf War. The fact is that even Saddam's closest advisers didn't know with any certainty if Saddam still maintained a chemical or biological weapons program because he purposely left it an ambiguity amongst even them. Incidentally, It wasn't until after dismantling AQ Khans nuclear technology proliferation network that we found out Saddam took the sanctions imposed on it somewhat seriously. Because he turned down Khan's help thinking it was a UN trick. I say it's incidental because that only says he wasn't accepting outside help, and doesn't really say he wasn't working on anything in-house.

When I step back and look at the big picture I have a hard time seeing how people such as yourself can seriously justify leaving a WMD hungry despot like Saddam in power. Especially with the, albeit slim, chance he could collude with terrorists to create one...to each his own I guess though.

[zerojunkie]

Originally Posted by alvin

The report then details 70 shipments (including anthrax bacillus) from the United States to Iraqi government agencies over three years, concluding, ''It was later learned that these microorganisms exported by the United States were identical to those the United Nations inspectors found and recovered from the Iraqi biological warfare program[/I]".

Saddam never used biological agents though.