It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Did the US supply Iraq with weapons?

page: 1
0

log in

join
share:

posted on Jun, 26 2004 @ 09:39 PM
link   
No not really...

I found something very interesting, a good study into the Arms sales to Iraq that show that we were selling them "dual purpose" equipment that we'd sell them for civilian use but Iraq would use them for military use.

And that this was not the policy of the President, but bad management of Export controls by the Commerce board.

www.wisconsinproject.org...

There's the site, I think it's worth a look.

It certainly throws a wrench at those who think that Reagan's Administration actively armed Iraq.

And since I at least have enough brains to know how disjointed our government is, this is nothing surprising.

Also, if you look at Iraq's army, it is entirely Soviet technology.

So how America "armed" Iraq is beyond me.

I'm willing to bet that even the "chemical weapons" given him were dual purpose and we were giving him civilian use materials.

Such as pool chlorine...which is also used in water treatment, which can easily be put into a bomb to be used as poison gas.




posted on Jun, 26 2004 @ 09:56 PM
link   
good point...when i think about it, it seems reasonable. the US (as much as i love it...sorta) gives them weapons after the 1st bush is in order and tries to rebuild their whole civilization but its not even within our jurisdiction. couple years later, us says they found weapons in iraq but it could be ours. i dont know if im right on this but hell its my opinion



posted on Jun, 28 2004 @ 02:44 PM
link   
Yes. The USA most certainly sold Saddam Hussein all kinds of shtye from weapons, helicopters to Anthrax. Check it out if you don't believe me. But - we weren't the only western powers to do so.



posted on Jun, 28 2004 @ 02:49 PM
link   
dual use, single use... i don't see the difference, considering the administration knew perfectly well what they would be used for.

-koji K.



posted on Jun, 28 2004 @ 02:54 PM
link   
The Reagan and Bush administration(s) backed Saddam to the hilt against our uber enemy Iran. There was nothing our government wouldn't do to bolster his defenses. We also provided him with imagery and intelligence against Iran's movements.

The question remains, why did George H. W. Bush turn on his old ally?

ps.. for anyone who disbelieves what I say, there is a now famous photo of Rumsfeld shaking hands with Saddam in the mid-80's. Run a google search, you'll find it. They were thick as theives.



posted on Jun, 28 2004 @ 03:52 PM
link   
This document (assistance to Iraq)shows the US did support Iraq with military intelligence and loans to purchase weapons. They also helped them to obtain weapons from other countries.

It's difficult to read, but it's in there.




A lot of documents on it here:
www.gwu.edu...



posted on Jun, 28 2004 @ 04:31 PM
link   
Hmmmmm...

Let me see, December 1983. And where was Mr Rumsfeld? Baghdad? Shaking hands with Saddam Hussein??

And signing contracts for chemcial weapons sales, and weapons of "mass destruction" with Israel as our client-offce middleman, so Saddam could use these terrible things against Iran and those nasty Kurds in the north??

You mean there's a....paper trail ???!!

And in 1984-1985 the US re-filled their order for more $$$$$$ knowing full well what he was doing with those god-awful weapons of American (and classic German) design....

Can you spell L-I-V-E-R-M-O-R-E L-A-B-S-??!!

And no one in the US press in the 1980s said as much as boo about it.

They were too buys ignoring the Mena, Arkansas CIA "Bill Clinton" drug smuggling-coc aine-operation to finance those goold ol' Contras down Central America way....

So much for the "Reagan Legacy" and the "moral high-ground" of the US Government in the region.

Can you spell O-I-L ?



posted on Jun, 28 2004 @ 07:10 PM
link   
Christ, America was selling weapons to Iran at the time, and they were really in the bad books at the time, what with that whole hostage deal.
Of course they were giving Saddam a helping hand. They had no reason not to.



posted on Jun, 28 2004 @ 07:21 PM
link   

Originally posted by FreeMason
Sauron, your entire post is full of "Teicher claims". That's not facts, that is Teicher claiming.

And it is easy for Teicher to make claims like "the administration wanted to ensure Iraq-Iran war would at least end in a draw." Because Teicher is claiming this "after the fact".

Where is the "proof" the doccuments, the speeches, the memorandums??? The evidence?

One man making claims is hardly a fact

The current "facts" are that the US did protect its interests during the Iraq-Iran war, it did send its fleet to the Persian Gulf to prevent Iran from interrupting oil traffic and prevent the eventual collapse of Iraq because if Iran dominated everything then their religious regime would attempt to conquer smaller neighbors. Kuwait was very affraid of this.

This does not mean that we went so far as to actively aid Iraq, which "Teicher claims".

I love Sauron, how you get your facts from "alternet". I think you need Otts' advice more than I do.


www.abovetopsecret.com...
here we go again

fact1



Iraq doesn't use Abrams, they use T-72s.
Iraq doesn't use M-16s, they use AK-47s.
Iraq doesn't use 5.51s, they use 7.62s.

Not any of my posts claimed any of the above ,,fact 2


Well see that's the issue Sauron, you seem to think that USA and CCCP had some cause of the Iran-Iraq war.
I never said I think that the USA or the USSR caused the Iran / Iraq war ,,fact 3


I love Sauron, how you get your facts from "alternet". I think you need Otts' advice more than I do.

I sourced 13 different sources but I used 3, is the National Security Archive a good enogh source? I think so.


If you weren't saying we didn't start the Iran-Iraq war then what the hell were you saying?

I was stating who it was that armed the Iraqis, it was America, Britain, Italy and France, god knows who else,

But now you bring it up who did fire the first shot?

Iraq did, Saddam was planning a "blitzkrieg" attack, which horribly backfired due to the fanatical zeal of the Iranians.


source
National Security Archive Electronic Briefing Book No. 82

www.gwu.edu...





[edit on 28-6-2004 by Sauron]



posted on Jun, 28 2004 @ 07:33 PM
link   

Originally posted by EastCoastKid
Yes. The USA most certainly sold Saddam Hussein all kinds of shtye from weapons, helicopters to Anthrax. Check it out if you don't believe me. But - we weren't the only western powers to do so.


Its pretty clear the US armed Iraq to fight aginst a militant Iran The following comapnies have been identified as providing extensive support.

Honeywell Spectra Physics Semetex TI Coating Unisys Sperry Corp. Tektronix

Rockwell Leybold Vacuum Systems Finnigan-MAT-US Hewlett-Packard Dupont Eastman Kodak

American Type Culture Collection Alcolac International Consarc Carl Zeiss Cerberus Electronic Associates

International Computer Systems Bechtel EZ Logic Data Systems, Inc. Canberra Industries Inc. Axel Electronics Inc.

Euromac Ltd-Uk C. Plath-Nuclear Endshire Export Marketing International Computer Systems MEED International

Walter Somers Ltd. International Computer Limited Matrix Churchill Corp. Ali Ashour Daghir International Military Services

Sheffield Forgemasters Technology Development Group International Signal and Control Terex Corporation Inwako

TMG Engineering XYY Options, Inc



posted on Jun, 28 2004 @ 07:36 PM
link   
I think Freemason is realy Dick Cheney

only in jest Freemason
:bnghd:

AceOfBase
it's a very good source


[edit on 28-6-2004 by Sauron]



posted on Jun, 28 2004 @ 08:47 PM
link   


I found something very interesting, a good study into the Arms sales to Iraq that show that we were selling them "dual purpose" equipment that we'd sell them for civilian use but Iraq would use them for military use.

Ahh yes ofcourse i also have chmical weapons for my civilian use.



posted on Jun, 29 2004 @ 04:53 AM
link   
EastCoastKid asks,
"The question remains, why did George H. W. Bush turn on his old ally?"

Why isnt this phrased...what caused the 2 national leaders to stop relationships together?

Or
Why did Saddam stab his fomer ally in the back?

No political slant when phrasing that question EH?



new topics

top topics



 
0

log in

join