U.S. Support for Iraq in the 80's

The Pentagon �wasn't so horrified by Iraq's use of gas. It was just another way of killing people � whether with a bullet or phosgene, it didn't make any difference.� - - former Defense insider, anonymous.

I pulled this off the net for anyone interested in the history of our support for Iraq through the 80's. Cooperative Research.org is an exccellent source of information on a wide range of issues. Take a look at it and share with me your comments. I'm interested to hear what you think ATS.

Summary: The U.S. provided financial aid, military intelligence, and actual military planning to Iraq at a time when the Reagan administration was well aware that Iraq was using chemical weapons against Iran. One anonymous inside source told the New York Times that the Pentagon �wasn't so horrified by Iraq's use of gas. It was just another way of killing people � whether with a bullet or phosgene, it didn't make any difference.�
The facts surrounding U.S. covert support for Iraq and its awareness that Iraq had been using chemical warfare against the Iranians, and perhaps the Kurds, offers serious implications to the current Bush administration's argument for 'regime change' in Iraq. One of the main premises of the administration's argument is that Saddam Hussein must be removed from power because he is 'evil' - referring of course to the allegation that Saddam Hussein 'gassed his own people.'
the rest:
www.cooperativeresearch.org... cy/iraq1980scontent.html

Yes and the point is?

Should we strangle ourselves because we called the Russians allies during WWII then later we called them enemies during the cold war and now again we call them allies?

What should we do about this?

Originally posted by EastCoastKid
The Pentagon �wasn't so horrified by Iraq's use of gas. It was just another way of killing people � whether with a bullet or phosgene, it didn't make any difference.� - - former Defense insider, anonymous.

I love these anonymous quotes, they say so much! I actually have one, too:

"[Bill] Clinton actually had Al Gore killed in '92 in preperation of having him as a running mate. He replaced Gore with a robot, and no one noticed the difference." -- assassin hired by Bill Clinton to kill Gore, anonymous.

WOAH! That's scary!

NEO, I posted it so that people could be clear on our involvement with Iraq, rather than speculating. It's just factual information for those who don't understand the relationship.

A lot of people have been discussing the what ifs and whys of a trial. It's important to understand our involvement in order to understand the possible implications and ramifications for officials within the Reagan and Bush administrations.

Personally, I don't think they'll ever let him get far enough to implicate anyone.

Russia, France and Germany were also very involved with arming Saddam, as well. Especially Russia and France.

It's old news and not pertinent to modern day politics. Politics evolves to suit the needs of the time.
You may as well state that the UK is an enemy of the US because they fought against each other in the War of Independence.
There were many factors why the West saw Iraq as the lesser of two evils. It's perfectly fine to say that the West is guilty of arming Saddam's regime but devious to avoid the reasons why.

ECK,

what you wrote is correct and I do not deny it and despite what you think I do not criticize you for saying it.

All I am trying to say is that it is an example of the complexity of human relations isn't it?

Imagine how complex they are on the world stage of diplomacy above our simpler daily lives.

No one ever said that being a politician was an honourable profession nor one that is widely admired. I myself would never attempt it either because I cannot stomach the lying you are doing (sometimes forced and sometimes you choose to), nor would I last speaking my mind.

I do agree with you that the world would be a better place if we had honest people running it but we the honest people (wherever they are), do not fight often. It is evil that decides the tone of the world and I believe that only the return of Christ can clean up this sewer because it is too far gone now. But that is what I think, hopefully I am not correct.

NEO, We are called to never give up the good fight! Stay true and strong to the end.

On my father's grave, I do not lie.

At least there are a few good ones left. (Like Congressman Ron Paul (R) from Texas.

Again, I just wanted to put that info. out there to help those folks who don't know about it better understand what the debate is about.

Peace.

Apparently some people are unaware of our involvement in the selling of WMD's to Iraq. The following link is to an excerpt from an interview with David Feith about Congressional documents linking our chemical weapons to Saddam Hussein. It's a small file and a MUST SEE (if you haven't yet)!!
www.whatsmells.com...

Originally posted by jezebel
Apparently some people are unaware of our involvement in the selling of WMD's to Iraq. The following link is to an excerpt from an interview with David Feith about Congressional documents linking our chemical weapons to Saddam Hussein. It's a small file and a MUST SEE (if you haven't yet)!!
www.whatsmells.com...

That was an excellent find Jezebel!

It's excellent for people who aren't as aware of our old alliance with Saddam. Having understood that relationship long before our invasion of Iraq, it wasn't surprising for me as much as it was amusing and quite telling at the end. Douglas Feith was shown to be one of two things: either a stuttering half-wit who is a danger to our foreign policy or.. a big-time sleezeball with a forked tongue. My belief is that he is the latter.

The end of the interview is what makes it worth seeing. Feith's military minder makes his presence known. Everyone should see this. Consider yourselves lucky, ATS; you're never gonna see it on Tom, Peter or Danny boy's shows.

Originally posted by McGotti
"Fresh controversy about Donald Rumsfeld's personal dealings with Saddam Hussein was provoked yesterday by new documents that reveal he went to Iraq to show America's support for the regime despite its use of chemical weapons. The formerly secret documents reveal the Defence Secretary travelled to Baghdad 20 years ago to assure Iraq that America's condemnation of its use of chemical weapons was made 'strictly' in principle. The criticism in no way changed Washington's wish to support Iraq in its war against Iran and 'to improve bi-lateral relations ... at a pace of Iraq's choosing.' ... the newly declassified documents reveal that 20 years ago America's position was different and that the administration of President Ronald Reagan was concerned about maintaining good relations with Iraq despite evidence of Saddam's 'almost daily' use of chemical weapons against Iranian troops and Kurdish rebels."

news.independent.co.uk...

Thanks for the link McGotti. Excellent source.

In all fairness ECK, I understand what you are trying to do, but you do realize that "then" is not "now"?
What I mean is that with each administration and times comes different foriegn policy agenda's? Iran/Iraq war and the current US sentiments towards the Iranian Government...via the Carter Administration and the Hostage Crisis.
Rumsfield was a 'special envoy' sent on behalf of Secretary of State George Schultz. Also to note in each of the respective articles presented is the wording:

"It was not Mr Rumsfeld's first visit to Iraq. Four months earlier, in December 1983, he had visited Saddam and was photographed shaking hands with the dictator. When news of this visit was revealed last year, Mr Rumsfeld claimed he had "cautioned" Saddam to stop using chemical weapons."


I contend that perhaps and 'rightly-so' hypocrisy can be chimed and claimed but that one must also keep in mind that, as with time, varying Presidential Administration do not adhere to the same foreign policy issues of the past administration(s). That time also dictates otherwise.

Whats that old saying: "A friend today is an enemy tomorrow"? ..... among other old sayings.




regards
seekerof

Hey Seekerof. The problem is this administration's hypocrisy and lies of omission. When confronted with solid truths that destroy their fraudulent pronouncements and actions, they lie and further obfuscate. That's hubris in the extreme and insulting to those who aren't as unenlightened as they would imagine. I thought the Clinton administration was despicable in the way they danced around laws verbally, so carefully weaving their tapestry of lies. They didn't have nuthin' on BushCo. These boys and Condi just come right out, looking straight into Joe Q's eyes and lie straight on. Bold. Very bold.

And what was that famous quote... Just tell the big lie until they believe it...

I understand full well the nature of our relationship with Saddam and Iraq with respect to Iran. I remember the hostage crisis well. It poisoned me against fundamentalist Iran to this day. Aligning the U.S. with Iraq was a necessary thing to do. Providing Saddam with chemical/biological weapons was not something we should have taken part in. We should've also strongly protested his using the weapons on Iranians and Kurds. The Reagan and current Bush administrations didn't care one way or another. One administration official actual commented that weapons are weapons. In his judgement, it mattered not how those people were killed. That was war.

The bottome line is our government and other western governments are complicit in the crimes Saddam has committed. He would never have gassed anyone if western nations hadn't supplied him. The Bush administration has done its best to not discuss our role in that. They would prefer citizens of the U.S. were stupid and in the dark. That way it's much easier to execute Saddam swiftly, burying all those dirty details with him.

Thought you knew all the reasons why Saddam was such a bad guy and gassed his people, the Kurds? Well, we haven�t been told the whole story and maybe Saddam didn�t even do it�����
In a much-publicized CNN interview on September 18, 2002, former President and CIA Director George H.W. Bush declared that he "hates" Saddam Hussein.

"Read My Lips, I'm Lying"

"I hate Saddam Hussein," the trembling former president told interviewer Paula Zhan. "I don't hate a lot of people. I don't hate easily, but I think he's, as I say, his word is no good and he's a brute. I have nothing but hatred in my heart for him." Bush added, threateningly, "He's got a lot of problems, but immortality isn't one of them."

The elder Bush began reeling off historical falsehoods, starting with the now-classic Saddam Hussein "gassing" legend. "He's used poison gas on his own people!" Bush declared, not mentioning, of course, that he and other members of the Reagan-Bush administrations armed the Iraqi regime with this poison gas, and encouraged its use. As documented by US Congressional records, the Reagan administration�with VP George H.W. Bush spearheading top-level policy�furnished Iraq with the biological and chemical materials, throughout the 1980s. This continued through Bush 41 administration, right up to the start of the Gulf War.

Poison gas used in the Iran-Iraq War was manufactured using ingredients reportedly supplied by Lafarge Corporation, of which Bush was a substantial owner, and Hillary Rodham Clinton was a director.
A recent New York Times page one story (8/18/02), "Officers Say US Aided Iraq in War Despite Use of Gas," revealed that the Reagan administration provided Iraq with battle planning assistance despite knowledge that chemical weapons were being used against Iran.

According to investigative journalist Tom Flocco, Baker & Botts, the law firm of then-Secretary of State James Baker, maintained numerous legal and financial ties with a Boca Raton, Florida, chemical company headed by Iraqi terrorist Ihsan Barbouti. This connection continued, according to Flocco, "during the period when illegal nerve gas precursors were shipped by the Boca Raton company to Iraq just months prior to the outbreak of Gulf War hostilities." With the help of then-Attorney General Richard Thornburgh, Bush manufactured a "conflict of interest waiver" that absolved his administration from criminal prosecution. Of course, this waiver was kept secret from Congress.

Details of another direct Bush-Iraq tie emerged in September 1992, when a six-month investigation by John Connolly in Spy Magazine exposed that Wackenhut Corporation (a CIA front company) ferried equipment for the manufacture of chemical weapons to Iraq in 1990. George Wackenhut is a close friend of the Bush family, and has made enormous contributions to the campaigns of all Bush family members who have run for office.
According to UC Berkeley Professor Peter Dale Scott, Stephen Pelletiere, chief of the CIA Iraq desk at Langley in the 1980s (and author of Iraq and the International Oil System: Why America Went to War in the Gulf) confirms that several hundred Kurds were likely killed by Iran�not Iraq. Furthermore, these deaths were caused by cyanide gas, which Iraq had not used in the war against Iran (they used mustard gas), and which, says Pelletiere, they had no ability to produce.

Pelletiere argues that the gassing deaths of 100,000 Kurds claimed by former Secretary of State George Shultz was a complete fabrication, and that to this day no bodies were ever found. Scott concludes that although there is evidence that both sides used gas, and Iranian gas killed the Kurds, this information was not revealed until 1990, leaving the impression that only Iraq was involved, and cementing the "Saddam gassed Kurds" legend into place�to be exploited and repeated endlessly.


g0lem.net...
www.parascope.com...
www.aci.net...
www.onlinejournal.com...
www.tomflocco.com...
socrates.berkeley.edu...

I daresay America is rather good at that. There have been countless cases of them helping people out and then their army gets too big, or their morals go down or something like that and then they don't like them anymore and try to kill them all. There have been many cases of this, and it all seems to come from the States.

Here are some other examples off the top of my head:
The post WWII Soviet Union
80's Iraq and now
The guy who suicide bombed the world trade center was trained in Iraq
Osama
Saddam
the list goes on

I think that the American government should look very deeply into matters such as these, because they plain and simple look stupid after they endorse somebody and then decide that they don't like them anymore after the millions in military support is already gone.

Choose your friends wisely

No need rubbing my nose in it.............

Even when it�s true...........

That's where the real insult lay.

We have a long checked history of backing the wrong guy looking for the short term gain and suffering the long term consequences.

Can't fault you for sticking it to me(us)...........My 'fellow' Americans of another persecution then mine have been 'unfairly 'beating the hell out of our neighbors of the north���

Well, you see what happens when you piss off the world����.You get an �eat crow� U.N. Resolution where one has to a$$kiss every one ion the world; concur with everyone of their demands; and get not one of you substantive needs met i.e. manpower support for security, cost sharing, being subject to Iraqi government�s permission in security movements�����

But Bush is calling it a victory����perception is reality for them. The care less about the truth as long as they control the spin�����

All that I post above is in the public record����.Why aren�t they all in jail?
Beat the hell out of me??????????????

But we all have our problems. You have the cold winters; we have the Bush and Clinton families���.. Wanna trade?

Originally posted by EastCoastKid
The bottome line is our government and other western governments are complicit in the crimes Saddam has committed. He would never have gassed anyone if western nations hadn't supplied him. The Bush administration has done its best to not discuss our role in that. They would prefer citizens of the U.S. were stupid and in the dark. That way it's much easier to execute Saddam swiftly, burying all those dirty details with him.

So, are you trying to say that if we had not provided him with weapons that none of this would have happened? What makes you think that no one else would have stepped up to provide him with the weapons?

He would have gotten them no matter what. He needed them to stay in power.

I found that one of the BEST sources for Iraq-US historical dealings can be found at the National Security Archives online at George Washington University. Freedom of Information Act and all that stuff.

www.gwu.edu...

When the U.S. Senate passed economic sanctions on Iraq in 1988 for using poison gas against the Kurds, U.S. ambassador April Glaspie reported that the U.S. construction company Bechtel planned to employ "non-U.S. suppliers of technology and continue to do business in Iraq," according to a CONFIDENTIAL State Department cable. In April 2003, Bechtel landed the largest U.S. Agency for International Development contract to date for infrastructure repair work in Iraq, with an initial payment of $34.6 million and long-term value of up to $680 million.

When I say there's tons of stuff there, there's literally TONS of stuff!

Not that you will necessarily want to read it if you don't want to be presented with facts that you don't want to believe are true.

Some GREAT Kissinger stuff, some good Prisoner Abuse stuff from the Cold War (The CIA's "Coercive Techniques" manual).


Fight Ignorance.

I swear, it seems like referencing the National Security Archives has put the kibosh on like 5 threads....

Check it out if you can, it will really open your eyes as to the machinations of government.

How about Melvin Laird and Henry Kissinger discussing what they should do about damage control to do with the terrible My Lai massacre in Vietnam in November 1969?

www.gwu.edu...

Or Nixon and Kissinger discussing the secret bombing of Cambodia.

www.gwu.edu...


FASCINATING STUFF.

[edit on 11-6-2004 by Jakomo]

Hey Jak, thanks for the pointer and links. Can't dispute them, now, can we?

A certain someone on this thread actually once stated that the National Archives was a bogus and liberal source. That comment had to go down as the most ignorant ever on ATS. I won't name names, tho. I'm sure some of you know who it was, just by the comment.

Many people don't know this, but Churchill actually gassed the Kurds from airplanes during the British occupation in the 20's. Flame away! It's true. I guess it's ok to gas your fellow human beings if you're rich and white.

The hypocrisy is STAGGERING.