US armed Saddam's regime?

[spl_cadet]

http://members.toast.net/eyeofthestorm/arming_saddam.jpg

Yes, we are such evil people. Look how much we sold them in comparison to those peaceful countries like France and Russia :ahem:

[Eyeheart Pumpkin]

Today @ 11:25 PM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=59941#post59941)
spl_cadet:

http://members.toast.net/eyeofthestorm/arming_saddam.jpg

Yes, we are such evil people. Look how much we sold them in comparison to those peaceful countries like France and Russia :ahem:
I have to applaud the utter professionalism of this "Nifty chart" prepared so meticulously by "the dissident frogman."

By the way, that charts conventional weapons (rifles, tanks, planes, etc.). You'll find the US contribution to their biochemical program to be considerably more significant.

[Ryokan]

The US and France did more to aid Saddam's WMD research than the USSR by a wide margin. The USSR understood dictator's better than us. We gave Saddam bio weapon tech and samples, and France built the Osrick reactor.

[Solly]

Oh dear, oh dear, the old numbers game again.

How about US sell to israel, who sell to whoever wants it (http://www.commondreams.org/views02/0509-07.htm)

And this Arms Trade REsource Center (http://www.worldpolicy.org/projects/arms/reports/wawrep.html#potential)


Iraq: Despite recent efforts by the defense industry and the Clinton Administration to argue that the United States did not arm Iraq in the period leading up to the 1991 Gulf War, there is ample documentation demonstrating that the Reagan and Bush administrations supplied critical military technologies that were put directly to use in the construction of the Iraqi war machine. There is also strong evidence indicating that the executive branch's failure to crack down on illegal weapons traffickers or keep track of third party transfers of U.S. weaponry allowed a substantial flow of U.S.-origin military equipment and military components to make their way to Iraq.[74]

The differences in perception regarding the degree to which the United States government helped to arm Iraq center around the fact that the most significant U.S. contributions to the Iraqi military complex were not through direct transfers of guns, tanks, helicopters, or other finished weapons systems, but rather through supplies of so-called "dual use" technologies. This misunderstanding was at the heart of the misleading press coverage of the Justice Department's investigation of the BNL affair, a scandal involving provision of U.S-guaranteed loans to Iraq by the Atlanta branch of Italy's state-run Banca Nazionale del Lavoro. For example, a headline in the New York Times announced that "Inquiry Finds No U.S. Involvement in the Iraqi Arms Buildup," and the Washington Post reported that the Justice Department's lead investigator, John Hogan, had asserted that "Washington appears to have authorized the sale to Saddam only of some communications gear and a single pistol." In fact, the Justice investigators made it clear in their summary of findings that their mandate was not to assess the extent to which U.S. exports may have contributed to Iraq's military production capabilities but rather to "determine whether chargeable crimes could be proved beyond a reasonable doubt." The report went on to note that "[b]ecause our inquiry was limited in that way, this report is not intended either to criticize or to approve of any policy decisions."[75]

[Solly]

Columbia Journalism Review (http://www.cjr.org/year/93/2/iraqgate.asp)


Still, when Saddam went to war against Iran, becoming the world's chief practitioner of chemical warfare, U.S. realpolitikers dubbed him the lesser of two evils, and the one less likely to disrupt the oil flow. The essence of Iraqgate is that secret efforts to support him became the order of the day, both during his long war with Iran and afterward.

Much of what Saddam received from the West was not arms per se, but so-called dual-use technology -- ultra sophisticated computers, armored ambulances, helicopters, chemicals, and the like, with potential civilian uses as well as military applications. We've learned by now that a vast network of companies, based in the U.S. and abroad, eagerly fed the Iraqi war machine right up until August 1990, when Saddam invaded Kuwait.

And we've learned that the obscure Atlanta branch of Italy's largest bank, Banca Nazionale del Lavoro, relying partially on U.S. taxpayer-guaranteed loans, funneled $ 5 billion to Iraq from 1985 to 1989. Some government-backed loans were supposed to be for agricultural purposes, but were used to facilitate the purchase of stronger stuff than wheat. Federal Reserve and Agriculture department memos warned of suspected abuses by Iraq, which apparently took advantage of the loans to free up funds for munitions. U.S. taxpayers have been left holding the bag for what looks like $ 2 billion in defaulted loans to Iraq.

Not bad for a squeaky clean democracy that is interested in promoting it's chosen form of government in the wide world.

[Solly]

U.S. Diplomatic and Commercial Relationships with Iraq, 1980 - 2 August 1990 (http://www.casi.org.uk/info/usdocs/usiraq80s90s.html)
Prepared by Nathaniel Hurd.
15 July 2000 (updated 12 December 2001 by Nathaniel Hurd and Glen Rangwala).

Before 1980
Following the 1967 Arab-Israeli War Iraq severed diplomatic relations with the U.S. In late 1979 the State Department (SD) put Iraq on its list of States sponsoring groups categorized by the SD as "terrorist."[1]
1980
The U.S. Defense Intelligence Agency (DIA) asserted in a report that Iraq has been ‘actively acquiring’ Chemical Weapons [CW] capacities since the mid-1970s.[2]
1982
Despite intelligence reports that Iraq still sponsored groups on the SD's terrorist list, and "apparently without consulting Congress", the Reagan Administration removed Iraq from the State terrorism sponsorship list in 1982.[3] The removal made Iraq eligible for U.S. dual-use and military technology.[4]
1983
A SD report concluded that Iraq continued to support groups on the SD’s terrorist list.[5]
Iraq reportedly began using chemical weapons (CW) against Iranian troops in 1982, and significantly increased CW use in 1983. Reagan’s Secretary of State, George Shultz, said that reports of Iraq using CWs on Iranian military personnel "drifted in" at the year’s end.[6] A declassified CIA report, probably written in late 1987, notes Iraq's use of mustard gas in August 1983, giving further credence to the suggestion that the SD and/or National Security Council (NSC) was well aware of Iraq's use of CW at this time.[7]
Analysts recognized that "civilian" helicopters can be weaponized in a matter of hours and selling a civilian kit can be a way of giving military aid under the guise of civilian assistance.[8]
Shortly after removing Iraq from the terrorism sponsorship list, the Reagan administration approved the sale of 60 Hughes helicopters.[9] Later, and despite some objections from the National Security Council (NSC), the Secretaries of Commerce and State (George Baldridge and George Shultz) lobbied the NSC advisor into agreeing to the sale to Iraq of 10 Bell helicopters,[10] officially for crop spraying. See "1988" for note on Iraq using U.S. Helicopters to spray Kurds with chemical weapons.
Later in the year the Reagan Administration secretly began to allow Jordan, Saudi Arabia, Kuwait and Egypt to transfer to Iraq U.S. howitzers, helicopters, bombs and other weapons.[11] Reagan personally asked Italy’s Prime Minister Guilio Andreotti to channel arms to Iraq.[12]
1984
The SD announced on 6 March that, based on "available evidence," it "concluded" that Iraq used "lethal chemical weapons" (specifically mustard gas) in fresh fighting with Iran.[13] On 20 March, U.S. intelligence officials said that they had "what they believe to be incontrovertible evidence that Iraq has used nerve gas in its war with Iran and has almost finished extensive sites for mass-producing the lethal chemical warfare agent".[14]
European-based doctors examined Iranian troops in March 1984 and confirmed exposure to mustard gas.[15] The UN sent expert missions to the battle region in March 1984, February/March 1986, April/May 1987, March/April 1988, July 1988 (twice), and mid-August 1988. These missions detailed and documented Iraq’s CW use.[16]
According to the Washington Post, the CIA began in 1984 secretly to give Iraq intelligence that Iraq uses to "calibrate" its mustard gas attacks on Iranian troops. In August, the CIA establishes a direct Washington-Baghdad intelligence link, and for 18 months, starting in early 1985, the CIA provided Iraq with "data from sensitive U.S. satellite reconnaissance photography...to assist Iraqi bombing raids." The Post’s source said that this data was essential to Iraq’s war effort.[17]
The United States re-established full diplomatic ties with Iraq on 26 November,[18] just over a year after Iraq’s first well-publicized CW use and only 8 months after the UN and U.S. reported that Iraq used CWs on Iranian troops.
1985
In 1985 the U.S. House of Representatives passed a bill to put Iraq back on the State terrorism sponsorship list.[19] After the bill’s passage, Shultz wrote to the bill’s sponsor, Rep. Howard Berman, cited the U.S.’ "diplomatic dialogue on this and other sensitive issues, " claimed that "Iraq has effectively distanced itself from international terrorism," and stated that if the U.S. found that Iraq supports groups practicing terrorism "we would promptly return Iraq to the list."[20] Rep. Berman dropped the bill and explicitly cited Shultz’s assurances.[21]
Iraq’s Saad 16 General Establishment’s director wrote a letter to the Commerce Department (CD) detailing the activities in Saad’s 70 laboratories. These activities had the trademarks of ballistic missile development.[22]
1986
The Defense Department’s (DOD) Under Secretary for Trade Security Policy, Stephen Bryen, informed the Commerce Department’s (CD) Assistant Secretary for Trade Administration in November that intelligence linked the Saad 16 research center with ballistic missile development.[23] Between 1985 and 1990, CD approved many computer sales to Iraq that go directly to Saad 16. CD approved over $1 million worth of computer equipment for sale to Saad 16 after Commerce received the above-mentioned November letter from DOD.[24] As of 1991 Saad 16 reportedly contained up to 40% U.S.-origin equipment.[25]
1988
The CD approved exports in January and February to Iraq’s SCUD missile program’s procurement agency. These exports allowed Iraq to extend SCUD range far enough to hit allied soldiers in Saudi Arabia and Israeli civilians in Tel Aviv and Haifa.[26]
On 23 March, London’s Financial Times and several other news organizations reported from Halabja, located in Iraqi Kurdistan, that several days prior Iraq used CWs on Halabja’s Kurds.[27]
In May, two months after the Halabja assault, Peter Burleigh, Assistant Secretary of State in charge of northern Gulf affairs, encouraged U.S.-Iraqi corporate cooperation at a symposium hosted by the U.S.-Iraq Business Forum. The U.S.-Iraq Business Forum had strong (albeit unofficial) ties to the Iraqi government.[28]
The U.S. Senate Foreign Relations Committee sent a team to Turkey to speak to Iraqi Kurdish refugees and assess reports that Iraq "was using chemical weapons on its Kurdish population."[29] This report reaffirmed that between 1984 and 1988 "Iraq repeatedly and effectively used poison gas on Iran," the UN missions’ findings, and the chemical attack on Halabja that left an estimated 4,000 people dead.[30]
Following the Halabja attack and Iraq’s August CW offensive against Iraqi Kurds, the U.S. Senate unanimously passed on 8 September the "Prevention of Genocide Act of 1988" the day after it is introduced.[31] The act cuts off from Iraq U.S. loans, military and non-military assistance, credits, credit guarantees, items subject to export controls, and U.S. imports of Iraqi oil.[32]
Immediately after the bill’s passage the Reagan Administration announced its opposition to the bill,[33] and SD spokesman Charles Redman called the bill "premature".[34] The Administration works with House opponents to a House companion bill, and after numerous legislation compromises and end-of-session haggling, the Senate bill died "on the last day of the legislative session".[35]
According to a 15 September news report, Reagan Administration officials stated that the U.S. intercepted Iraqi military communications marking Iraq’s CW attacks on Kurds.[36]
U.S. intelligence reported in 1991 that the U.S. helicopters sold to Iraq in 1983 were used in 1988 to spray Kurds with chemicals.[37]
"Reagan administration records show that between September and December 1988, 65 licenses were granted for dual-use technology exports. This averages out as an annual rate of 260 licenses, more than double the rate for January through August 1988."[38]
A general note about the Security Council's reaction to Iraq's CW use. Between 1984 and the implementation of the ceasefire on 20 August 1988 the UN Security Council passed six resolutions directly or indirectly related to the "situation between Iran and Iraq." In 1984, Security Council Resolution (SCR) 552 "condemns [Iran's] recent attack on commercial ship en route to and from ports of Kuwait and Saudi Arabia"[39] but it did not pass a resolution on the Iran-Iraq War generally or the UN expert mission's chemical weapons March findings specifically. During all of 1985 the Security Council did not pass a resolution on the "situation between Iran and Iraq" or Iraq's chemical weapons use therein. Although the UN's expert mission concluded in March 1986 that Iraq used chemical weapons on Iranian troops,[40] SCR 582 (1986) symmetrically noted "that both the Islamic Republic of Iran and Iraq are parties to the Protocol for the Prohibition of the Use in War of Asphyxiating, Poisonous and Other Gases, and of Bacteriological Methods of Warfare signed at Geneva on 7 June 1925"[41] and "deplores...in particular the use of chemical weapons contrary to obligations under the 1925 Protocol".[42] Resolution 588 (1986) did not mention chemical weapons.[43] In 20 July 1987, SCR 598 again deplored "in particular the use chemical weapons contrary to obligations of the 1925 Protocol",[44] but does not elaborate. After considering the expert mission's 25 April 1988 report, the Security Council in Resolution 612 is "dismayed" by chemical weapons' continued use and "more intensive scale".[45] Furthermore, the Council "affirms the necessity that" both parties observe the 1925 Geneva Protocol, "condemns vigorously the continued use of chemical weapons" and "expects both sides to refrain from the future use of chemical weapons".[46] SCR 619 (1988) focused on implementing the United Nations Iran-Iraq Military Observer Group and did not mention chemical weapons.[47] After the ceasefire, the Security Council considered the reports of the expert missions from 20-25 July and 2-19 August 1988 and stated in SCR 620 that it is "deeply dismayed" by the "continued use of chemical weapons" and that "such use against Iranians has become more intense and frequent".[48] Despite identifying Iranians as more frequent chemical weapons targets, the Security Council did not condemn Iraq. Rather, the Security Council "condemns resolutely the use of chemical weapons in the conflict between the Islamic Republic of Iran and Iraq"[49]. All of the subsequent four resolutions, passed between 1989-1990 and relevant to "the situation between Iran and Iraq," pertained to the United Nations Iran-Iraq Military Observer Group and as such omitted any reference to chemical weapons use.[50]

The Security Council could only condemn Iraq by name for using chemical weapons through non-binding Presidential statements, over which permanent members of the Security Council do not have an individual veto. On 21 March 1986, the Security Council President, making a "declaration" and "speaking on behalf of the Security Council," stated that the Council members are "profoundly concerned by the unanimous conclusion of the specialists that chemical weapons on many occasions have been used by Iraqi forces against Iranian troops...[and] the members of the Council strongly condemn this continued use of chemical weapons in clear violation of the Geneva Protocol of 1925 which prohibits the use in war of chemical weapons".[51] The US voted against the issuance of this statement, and the UK, Australia, France and Denmark abstained. However, the concurring votes of the other ten members of the Security Council ensured that this statement constituted the first criticism of Iraq by the Security Council. A similar Presidential statement was made on 14 May 1987, which noted that the Council was "deeply dismayed" about the CW use against Iranian forces and civilians.

1989
In March, CIA director William Webster testified before Congress that Iraq was the largest CW producer in the world.[52]
James Baker received an SD memo stating that Iraq was diligently developing chemical, biological, and new missiles, and that Baker was to "express our interest in broadening U.S.-Iraqi ties" to Iraqi Under-Secretary Hamdoon.[53]
Although the CIA and the Bush Administration knew that Iraq’s Ministry of Industry and Military Industrialization (MIMI) "controlled entities were involved in Iraq's clandestine nuclear, chemical, and biological weapons programs and missile programs ... the Bush administration [approved] dozens of export licenses that [allowed] United States and foreign firms to ship sophisticated U.S. dual-use equipment to MIMI-controlled weapons factories".[54]
By October 1989, when all international banks had cut off loans to Iraq, President Bush signed National Security Directive (NSD) 26 mandating closer links with Iraq and $1 billion in agricultural loan guarantees. These guarantees freed for Iraq hard cash to continue to buy and develop WMDs, and are suspended only on 2 August 1990, the same day that Iraq invaded Kuwait. Richard Haass, then a National Security Council official, and Robert Kimmitt, Under Secretary of State for Political Affairs, also told the Commerce Department (CD) not to single Iraq out for dual-use technology restrictions.[55]
When one American firm twice contacted the CD with concerns that their product could be used for nuclear weapons (NW) and ballistic missiles, the CD simply requested Iraqi written guarantees about civilian use, said that a license and review was unnecessary, and convinced the company that shipment was acceptable.[56]
1990
From July 18 to 1 August (Iraq invaded Kuwait on 2 August) the Bush Administration approved $4.8 million in advanced technology product sales to Iraq. End-buyers included MIMI and Saad 16. Mimi was identified in 1988 as a facility for chemical, biological, and nuclear weapons programs. In 1989 Saad was linked to CW and NW development.[57]
The Bush Administration approved $695,000 worth of advanced data transmission devices the day before Iraq invades Kuwait.[58]

Overview
Items sent from the U.S. during the Reagan and Bush Administrations that helped Iraq’s non-conventional weapons programs and that were shipped to known military industrial facilities include:
Computers to develop ballistic missiles and nuclear weapons;[59] machine tools and lasers to extend ballistic missile range;[60] graphics terminals to design and analyze rockets;[61] West Nile Fever virus, a known potential BW agent, sent by the U.S. government’s Centers for Disease Control (CDC);[62] the agents for botulism, tetnus, and anthrax.[63]
One study lists 207 firms from 21 countries that contributed to Iraq’s non-conventional weapons program during and after the Iran-Iraq war. E.g., West German (86); British (18); Austrian (17); French (16); Italian (12); Swiss (11); and American (18).[64]
Throughout the U.S. exports to Iraq, several agencies were supposed to review items relevant to national security or that could be diverted for a nuclear program. The reviewers included the SD, DOD, Energy Department, Subgroup on Nuclear Export Coordination (included representatives from Commerce Dept., Arms Control and Disarmament Agency (ACDA), the intelligence community, and DOD).[65] Sometimes CD did not send items to reviewers. On other occasions, reviewers objected, and CD still approved the items. Stephen Bryen, Deputy Under Secretary of DOD for Trade Security Policy during the second Reagan Administration, claimed that the DOD objected to 40% of applications that CD actually sent to DOD for review. Compare with a 5% DOD objection rate to dual-use technology applications for export to the U.S.S.R. during that same time period.[66]

Footnotes
[1] Mark Phythian, Arming Iraq: How the U.S. and Britain Secretly Built Saddam's War Machine, (Boston: Northeastern University Press, 1997), p. 11.
[2] Phythian, pp. 73-74. Phythian cites Financial Times, 23 February 1983.
[3] Milt Freudenheim, Barbara Slavin and William C. Rhoden, "The World in Summary; Readjustments In the Mideast", New York Times, 28 February 1982.
[4] Phythian, p. 34.
[5] Bruce W. Jentleson, With Friends Like These: Reagan, Bush, and Saddam, 1982-1990, (New York: W.W. Norton, 1994), p. 52.
[6] Leonard A. Cole, The Eleventh Plague: The Politics of Biological and Chemical Warfare, (New York: W.H. Freeman, 1997), p. 87. Shultz's comment is from George P. Shultz, Turmoil and Triumph: My Years as Secretary of State, (New York: Charles Scribner's Sons, 1993), p. 238, quoted in Jentleson, p. 48.
[7] "CW Use in Iran-Iraq War", declassified on 2 July 1996 and placed on the website of the Federation of American Scientists.
[8] Phythian, pp. 37-38.
[9] Phythian, p. 37.
[10] Phythian, p. 38. Phythian cites former NSC official Howard Teicher and Radley Gayle, Twin Pillars to Desert Storm: America's Flawed Vision in the Middle East from Nixon to Bush, (New York: William Morrow, 1993), p. 275.
[11]Phythian, p. 35. Phythian cites Murray Waas and Craig Unger, "In the Loop: Bush's Secret Mission," New Yorker, p. 70.
[12] Phythian, p. 36. Phythian cites Alan Friedman, Spider's Web: Bush, Saddam, Thatcher and the Decade of Deceit, (London: Faber, 1993), pp. 81-84.
[13] Cole, p. 243, n36. See Bernard Gwertzman, "U.S. Says Iraqis Used Poison Gas Against Iranians in Latest Battles," New York Times, (March 6, 1984) for State Department quote.
[14] Cole, p. 243, n36. See Seymour M. Hersh, "U.S. Aides Say Iraqis Made Use of a Nerve Gas," New York Times (March 30, 1984). Quotation marks are for Hersh's words.
[15] Jentleson, p. 76.
[16] Jentleson, p. 76.
[17] Bob Woodward, "CIA Aiding Iraq in Gulf War; Target Data From U.S. Satellites Supplied for Nearly 2 Years," Washington Post, 15 December 1986.
[18] Bernard Gwertzman, "U.S. Restores Full Ties With Iraq But Cites Neutrality in Gulf War," New York Times, 27 November 1984.
[19] Jentleson, p. 54.
[20] Jentleson, p. 54. Jentleson quotes from Letter from Secretary of State George Shultz to Congressman Howard L. Berman, 20 June 1985.
[21] Jentleson, p. 54.
[22] Prepared statement of Gary Milhollin, director, Wisconsin Project on Nuclear Arms Control, before the Subcommittee on Technology and National Security of the Joint Economic Committee of the U.S. Congress, 23 April 1991. Cited in Committee on Government Operations, House, "Strengthening the Export Licensing System," 2 July 1991, para.11.
[23] Committee on Government Operations, House, "Strengthening the Export Licensing System," 2 July 1991, para.10.
[24] Ibid.
[25] Ibid, para.9.
[26] Prepared statement of Gary Milhollin, director, Wisconsin Project on Nuclear Arms Control, before the Subcommittee on Technology and National Security of the Joint Economic Committee of the U.S. Congress, 23 April 1991. Cited in Committee on Government Operations, House, "Strengthening the Export Licensing System," 2 July 1991, para. 25.
[27] Andrew Gowers and Richard Johns, "Iraq Uses Chemical Bombs on Its Own Citizens, " The Financial Times, 23 March 1988.
[28] Jentleson, p. 84-85.
[29] Peter W. Galbraith and Christopher van Hollen, Jr., staff report to the Committee on Foreign Relations, U.S. Senate, Chemical Weapons Use in Kurdistan: Iraq's Final Offensive, October 1988, p. v.
[30] Galbraith and van Hollen, p. 30.
[31] Jentleson, p. 78.
[32] U.S. Senate, "Prevention of Genocide Act of 1988," 100th Congress, 2nd session, 8 September 1988.
[33] Jentleson, p. 78.
[34] Robert Pear, "U.S. Says It Monitored Iraqi Messages on Gas," New York Times, 15 September 1988.
[35] Jentleson, p. 78.
[36] Robert Pear, "U.S. Says It Monitored Iraqi Messages on Gas," New York Times, 15 September 1988.
[37] Henry Weinstein and William C. Rempel, "Big Help from U.S.; Technology was Sold with Approval -- and Encouragement -- from the Commerce Department but Often over Defense Officials' Objections," The Los Angeles Times, 13 February 1991.
[38] Jentleson, p. 88. Jentleson cites U.S. Department of Commerce, "Approved Licenses to Iraq, 1985-1990".
[39] S/Res/552, 1 June 1984, paragraph 4.
[40] Nick Ludington, "U.N. Says Iraq Used Poison Gas in War Against Iran," The Associated Press, 14 March 1986.
[41] S/Res/582, 24 February 1986, preamble.
[42] S/Res/552, 24 February 1986, para. 2.
[43] S/Res/588, 8 October 1986
[44] S/Res/598, 20 July 1987, preamble
[45] S/Res/612, 9 May 1988, preamble
[46] S/Res/612, 9 May 1988, para. 1-3
[47] S/Res/619, 9 August 1988
[48] S/Res/620, 26 August 1988, preamble
[49] S/Res/620, 26 August 1988, para. 1
[50] S/Res/631, 8 February 1989; S/Res/242, 29 September 1989; S/Res/251, 29 March 1990; S/Res/671, 27 September 1990; and S/Res/676, 28 November 1990
[51] S/17911 and Add. 1, 21 March 1986. Note that this is a "decision" and not a resolution.
[52] Jentleson, p. 106. Jentleson cites U.S. Congress, Senate, Committee on Foreign Relations, "Chemical and Biological Weapons Threat: The Urgent Need for Remedies," Hearings, 101st Congress, 1st Session, 1 March 1989, pp. 27-45.
[53] Jentleson, p. 107. Jentleson cites and quotes State Department memorandum, "Meeting with Iraqi Under Secretary Hamdoon," 24 March 1989.
[54] Statement by Rep. Henry Gonzalez (D-Tex), "Details on Iraq's Procurement Network," 102nd Congress, 2nd session, 10 August 1992.
[55] Douglas Frantz and Murray Waas, "Bush Secret Effort Helped Iraq Build It's War Machine," Los Angeles Times, 23 February 1992.
[56] Jentleson, p. 110.
[57] Committee on Government Operations, House, "Strengthening the Export Licensing System" .
[58] Stuart Auerbach, "$1.5 Billion in U.S. Sales to Iraq", Washington Post, 11 March 1991.
[59] Sub-committee on Commerce, Consumer and Monetary Affairs of the House Committee on Government Operations, "Strengthening the Export Licensing System," 2 July 1991.
[60] Committee on Government Operations, House, "Strengthening the Export Licensing System", 2 July 1991, section "National Security vs. Export Promotion: Sales to Iraq," para. 16.
[61] Auerbach, "$1.5 Billion in U.S. Sales to Iraq".
[62] Committee on Government Operations, House, "Strengthening the Export Licensing System".
[63] Cole, p. 85. Cole cites U.S. Senate, a report by chairman Donald W. Riegle, Jr., and ranking member Alfonse M. D'Amato of the Committee on Banking, Housing and Urban Affairs, U.S. Chemical and Biological Warfare-Related Dual Use Exports to Iraq and Their Possible Impact on the Health Consequences of the Persian Gulf War, May 25, 1994, pp. 39-41.
[64] Cole, p. 82. Cole cites Kenneth R. Timmerman, The Poison Gas Connection, (Los Angeles: Simon Wiesenthal Center, 1990) p. 46.
[65] Kenneth R. Timmerman, The Death Lobby: How the West Armed Iraq, (New York: Houghton Mifflin, 1991), pp. 202 and 410 n5.
[66] Jentleson, p. 62, Jentleson cites U.S. Congress, House of Representatives, Committee on Banking, Finance, and Urban Affairs, "Banca Nazionale del Lavoro (BNL)," Hearing, 102nd Congress, 1st Session, 9 April 1991, p. 79.

[Solly]

No it seems to me, it doesn't much matter whether you are holding most of the goods, or just a small proportion of them Guilty is guilty. Hypocrisy from the US Government is just that. You may have missed the fact that Russia was a communist country for a lot of that time - although it is not broken down into time. France, as you well know has always gone its own way. But America?

[Pilgrim]

Go easy on on Spl, he's just a kid.

[Solly]

:thumb:

[spl_cadet]

Something tells me you were just waiting for someone to post something like that, correct?

[Pilgrim]

Solly waits for everything I post with an expectant baited breath! :yipee:

[Solly]

PA :rofl:

Spl :lol:

No, I just did an altavista search on arms sales to iraq and came up with these details when I read the thread.

[Ryokan]

Solly wins.:fight:

[Yog^sothoth]

There is a really good book called "Paved with good intentions" which talks about how we came to be involved....rather sloppily...in the Middle East.

It's good stuff! Explains a lot!

[Solly]

Let's face it, the West has botched the Middle East. This war in Iraq might do some good, but it might not. People like France and Britain can get away with it somewhat, cos we are small countries ourselves, but the US Govt has to tread carefully, or else they'll look like the bully on the block. The Cold War may be over, but we are still suffering aftershocks, and will do so at least for the next half century until people like Gadaffi, Arafat, etc are dead and gone, and a new generation rises up who might learn something different.
Ok, so the Yanks sold stuff to some dubious people; so did everybody. We sell stuff to the Saudi's, and that could turn nasty. Ethical Foreign policy is one thing, making friends is harder, and the West needs to show it is friends with the Middle East, and with China - that's how change will come about in the long run.
"This man receiveth sinners..."

And for the record: I have been watching live coverage rom Baghdad. i saw the statue come down, I saw the happy Iraqis. I am happy for them. But the war is still illegal.

[Mr Stick71]

Making friend's with the Middle East is easier said than done. Israel is an ally, and they are in the Middle East, and the Arabs don't like that. You can't support one ally destroying another. I'd love to see peace in the middle east as much as anyone, but I don't even have the foggiest idea of how to go about creating it. Probably nobody does. All I know is that the people of Iraq deserved liberation (as do the Arabs of a few other nations), and that our action was just. It may be illegal. But that would only be because the law is unjust.

[Epoetker]

(Scans list of things US gave Iraq)

Sorry, Solly, but spl wins. Most of the problems with the US's transfers seem to be ones of naivite, not hypocrisy. "Dual-use" means just what it says. It assumes that the buyer will be nice and use these things for the great number of peaceful civilian purposes that countries like us do every day. If you want to indict someone, indict the idiotic bureaucratic fools with no conception of how dictators operate. Just take note that the targets of such a campaign tend to fall much more often on the moderate-to-liberal side of the fence.

[Solly]

Today @ 08:08 AM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=61331#post61331)
Epoetker:
(Scans list of things US gave Iraq)
Most of the problems with the US's transfers seem to be ones of naivite, not hypocrisy.

"apparently without consulting Congress", the Reagan Administration removed Iraq from the State terrorism sponsorship list in 1982.[3] The removal made Iraq eligible for U.S. dual-use and military technology.[4]
Later in the year the Reagan Administration secretly began to allow Jordan, Saudi Arabia, Kuwait and Egypt to transfer to Iraq U.S. howitzers, helicopters, bombs and other weapons.[11] Reagan personally asked Italy’s Prime Minister Guilio Andreotti to channel arms to Iraq.[12]

Following the Halabja attack and Iraq’s August CW offensive against Iraqi Kurds, the U.S. Senate unanimously passed on 8 September the "Prevention of Genocide Act of 1988" the day after it is introduced.[31] The act cuts off from Iraq U.S. loans, military and non-military assistance, credits, credit guarantees, items subject to export controls, and U.S. imports of Iraqi oil.[32]
Immediately after the bill’s passage the Reagan Administration announced its opposition to the bill,[33] and SD spokesman Charles Redman called the bill "premature".[34] The Administration works with House opponents to a House companion bill, and after numerous legislation compromises and end-of-session haggling, the Senate bill died "on the last day of the legislative session".[35]

the Bush administration [approved] dozens of export licenses that [allowed] United States and foreign firms to ship sophisticated U.S. dual-use equipment to MIMI-controlled weapons factories".[54]

West Nile Fever virus, a known potential BW agent, sent by the U.S. government’s Centers for Disease Control (CDC);[62] the agents for botulism, tetnus, and anthrax.[63]
----
I would have to be naive to think that these seasoned politicians and government agencies were being naive.

[kiwimac]

Solly,

I appears that the US never does wrong, never works to ensure that its own interests come before the needs of other countries, never tries to enforce its will on the whole planet.

I wonder just who it is then that does it?

Kiwimac

[Solly]

That's the annoying thing, and that is what makes me post on threads like this. Just once I would like to see someone (not Eireann, since he already does it), say "We did the wrong thing there, wrong morally and legally". Instead, it always seems to be repeats of "I am not a crook".

----
Btw, DoWR?

[Ryokan]

We did the wrong thing supporting Iraq. We did the wrong thing in Nicaragua. We did the wrong thing with concerns to Afghanistan in the 80's and from the looks of it today. We did the wrong thing with regards to Tiannnamen Square, Yuigoslavia, Rwanda, Somalia, Haiti, etc. Going further back, we did the wrong thing in Vietnam, most of South America, the Philipines, Cuba, Hungary, Mexico, and during our Civil War. We also unjustly invaded Canada in the war of 1812. Also, don't forget slavery, abortion, sexism, and racism, the internment of the Japanese 50 years ago and of those Al Queda fighters now. We also many many many times in our history allowed corporate corruption to run our nation and loot its people. The United States has done evil, stupid, horribly wrong things many many many times.

But I don't think even New Zealand can say it's hands are clean. States represent people, and unfortunately people tend to be selfish, egotistical, and paranoid. And the United States has done alot of good for the world as well as bad. And we aspire to better. That is why, inspite of all that, I love my country, am proud to be an American, and hope to serve my nation as best I can.

[Solly]

Thank you Ryo. And Britain has contributed more than its fair share in the problems now existing in the Middle East, Africa, and the Pacific basin. Oh, and some large island out west called Amerigo or something.

[Epoetker]

Yep, naive. Considering who they were fighting.

Why the heck do people who criticize military involvement in these countries never, ever, consider these actions in the context of the Cold War? Or the fact that given the extremely rapid about-face when Saddam invaded Kuwait, that maybe they had put the desire to help an old ally above the desire to defend democracy, probably due to the same NAIVE attitude that since Communism fell, everything would turn out all right now? Why do yoou forget that most of the old Soviet-supported dictatorships and spheres of influence are still hanging on and present dangers today, while those dictators supported by America are either dead, exiled, or forcibly removed? Why can't you get it into your head that the "self-interest" we spend the most military and diplomatic efforts on (fighting global totalitarianism of Communist or Islamist ilk, ensuring that oil is sold out of the control of price-gouging dynastic cartels, and acting as a security and economic benefit to all those who request our troops) are also extremely beneficial to the world? Ever heard the term "enlightened self-interest? Why should we be concerned about the opinions of those under state-funded anti-American media but forge ahead with half-formed plans to liberate all oppressed peoples in the world without consulting those who pay the taxes and send the men to do so? Why do these questions and considerations never appear to enter your head, Solly? Why do you allow this attitude of a endlessly critical third party to prevail? Do you consider the effect that this attitude has on those who listen to you? Where's the joy at seeing scenes of true liberation, so rare in all of recorded history? Where's your sense of celebration, at least for this place, and this day? Has the joy of your salvation, and with it all joy at any and all good effects in this world, disappeared? Or is it only repressed when that big country over the border does something right?

[Captain Ochre]

[edit to add:]
Solly had earlier indicated the source of the quotation, but it had disappeared from re-use of the material.


Today @ 08:22 AM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=61352#post61352)
Solly:



"apparently without consulting Congress", the Reagan Administration removed Iraq from the State terrorism sponsorship list in 1982.[3] The removal made Iraq eligible for U.S. dual-use and military technology.[4]
Later in the year the Reagan Administration secretly began to allow Jordan, Saudi Arabia, Kuwait and Egypt to transfer to Iraq U.S. howitzers, helicopters, bombs and other weapons.[11] Reagan personally asked Italy’s Prime Minister Guilio Andreotti to channel arms to Iraq.[12]

Following the Halabja attack and Iraq’s August CW offensive against Iraqi Kurds, the U.S. Senate unanimously passed on 8 September the "Prevention of Genocide Act of 1988" the day after it is introduced.[31] The act cuts off from Iraq U.S. loans, military and non-military assistance, credits, credit guarantees, items subject to export controls, and U.S. imports of Iraqi oil.[32]
Immediately after the bill’s passage the Reagan Administration announced its opposition to the bill,[33] and SD spokesman Charles Redman called the bill "premature".[34] The Administration works with House opponents to a House companion bill, and after numerous legislation compromises and end-of-session haggling, the Senate bill died "on the last day of the legislative session".[35]

the Bush administration [approved] dozens of export licenses that [allowed] United States and foreign firms to ship sophisticated U.S. dual-use equipment to MIMI-controlled weapons factories".[54]

West Nile Fever virus, a known potential BW agent, sent by the U.S. government’s Centers for Disease Control (CDC);[62] the agents for botulism, tetnus, and anthrax.[63]
----
I would have to be naive to think that these seasoned politicians and government agencies were being naive.

Solly's info is from here:
http://www.casi.org.uk/info/usdocs/usiraq80s90s.html

What's CASI?
http://www.casi.org.uk/info/
http://www.casi.org.uk/about.html

Regarding the initial link, it seems suspicious to me that an organization interested in publishing the truth about Iraq would rely on quotation snippets (sometimes individual words separated by commentary!) and secondary sources.

[Eyeheart Pumpkin]

Today @ 01:00 PM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=61805#post61805)
Epoetker:

Yep, naive. Considering who they were fighting.

Why the heck do people who criticize military involvement in these countries never, ever, consider these actions in the context of the Cold War? Or the fact that given the extremely rapid about-face when Saddam invaded Kuwait, that maybe they had put the desire to help an old ally above the desire to defend democracy
Exactly which "ally" are you referring to? Are you talking about the country that was a staunch US ally right up until they decided to invade a country that was important to our economic interests (that ally being Iraq)? Or are you talking about the country that has never had any significant relationship at all to the United States except that it had lucrative oil contracts with US companies (that ally, a misnomer in this case, being Kuwait)?


Why can't you get it into your head that the "self-interest" we spend the most military and diplomatic efforts on (fighting global totalitarianism of Communist or Islamist ilk, ensuring that oil is sold out of the control of price-gouging dynastic cartels, and acting as a security and economic benefit to all those who request our troops)
Why don't you explain just how we are "acting as a security and economic benefit to all those who request our troops," when traditionally we have turned our backs on most of those who have requested or needed US or UN intervention in their crises unless they represented a significant political or economic interest to the US, or why during WWII (the war most people use to show just how we are the champion of goodness and democracy) we turned our backs on the plights of the French, the English and even the Jews until our own soil was attacked?

[Epoetker]

Exactly which "ally" are you referring to? Are you talking about the country that was a staunch US ally right up until they decided to invade a country that was important to our economic interests (that ally being Iraq)? Or are you talking about the country that has never had any significant relationship at all to the United States except that it had lucrative oil contracts with US companies (that ally, a misnomer in this case, being Kuwait)?

Iraq. And it wasn't just Kuwait that was threatened, there was also Saudi Arabia, and the fact that just letting Saddam go and invade any other country he likes to enhance his prestige and increase his oil wealth to fund his vendetta against Israel and his ambition to be the region's top dog is a Very Bad Thing. The danger wasn't so much that we would lose the oil as that Iraq, with all of its wonderful weapons programs, would gain them, along with the massive war-machine-and-a-few-nukes building funds therein.


Why don't you explain just how we are "acting as a security and economic benefit to all those who request our troops," when traditionally we have turned our backs on most of those who have requested or needed US or UN intervention in their crises unless they represented a significant political or economic interest to the US

Like Kosovo? Or South Korea? Or Vietnam? Or Haiti?


or why during WWII (the war most people use to show just how we are the champion of goodness and democracy) we turned our backs on the plights of the French, the English and even the Jews until our own soil was attacked

Turn our backs? We gave most of them free munitions well beforehand under the Lend-Lease act, and also declared war on Germany as well as Japan, rather than just limiting our operations to the Pacific theater. And our spread of goodness and democracy was shown to our ENEMIES, AFTER the war. You are in no position to whine about us being reluctant to make sacrifices that no other people made.

[Eyeheart Pumpkin]

Today @ 06:13 PM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=62226#post62226)
Epoetker:

Turn our backs? We gave most of them free munitions well beforehand under the Lend-Lease act,
A gesture that was second to doing nothing at all. We provided a nominal supply of free munitions to countries that by and large could not make any significant gains by the use of those munitions. What we did supply was essentially the very least of our inventory, scraping the bottom of the barrel as it were.


and also declared war on Germany as well as Japan, rather than just limiting our operations to the Pacific theater.
There was little choice. We initially only declared war on Japan, and the day after that declaration, Germany declared war on the United States.


And our spread of goodness and democracy was shown to our ENEMIES, AFTER the war. You are in no position to whine about us being reluctant to make sacrifices that no other people made.
Those "other people" aren't parading around proclaiming themselves the heroes of the world or claiming that they single-handedly won the war and freed the whole planet from the tyranny of beasts like Hitler. The US is loathe to acknowlege that any other countries played a role in the victory of the Allied forces.

[Epoetker]

A gesture that was second to doing nothing at all. We provided a nominal supply of free munitions to countries that by and large could not make any significant gains by the use of those munitions. What we did supply was essentially the very least of our inventory, scraping the bottom of the barrel as it were.

The fact that a completely mobilized total-war population could make those previous years of arms development look like peanuts is irrelevant. It was the best gesture short of actually going to war there was. And letting Stalin take the hardest hits probably ensured that he wasn't strong enough to follow through on any world-domination plans he had waiting in the wings.


Those "other people" aren't parading around proclaiming themselves the heroes of the world or claiming that they single-handedly won the war and freed the whole planet from the tyranny of beasts like Hitler.

When exactly did we ever claim that? Honestly, is hyperbole your only language?


The US is loathe to acknowlege that any other countries played a role in the victory of the Allied forces.

No they aren't. You're dreaming. Honestly, if you don't have something intelligent to say, just don't bother to answer the part of the thread.

[Eyeheart Pumpkin]

Today @ 06:30 PM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=62237#post62237)
Epoetker:

When exactly did we ever claim that? Honestly, is hyperbole your only language?
Quite a few self-proclaimed "patriots" honestly believe that the Allied victory in WWII is solely to the credit of the US. Don't believe me, I suggest you get out more and talk to some people. For that matter, read some of the threads on this board and especially over at TOL, and make particular note of the righteous indignation of some of your fellows at the merest suggestion that it wasn't the US alone that won that war.


No they aren't. You're dreaming. Honestly, if you don't have something intelligent to say, just don't bother to answer the part of the thread.
Again, you need to get out more. If you think that there aren't plenty of people who believe exactly that, then it is you who are dreaming. Your naivete was once amusing, but now is just getting tiresome.

[Pilgrim]

Easy boys, simmer down now.

[GrayPilgrim]

I'd be one to say that we bled the USSR so that we wouldn't have to bleed that hard. Rmemeber that by the time of D-Day the Germans were fighting a delaying action on both fronts. But theey continued to fight the hardest onteh Eastern Front. They did not conceede anything but those with clearer heads (those outside of OKW) understood that it was far better to fall into the hands of the US and UK than the USSR. So I agree we were only part of an alliance.

However,a s to your characterization of our pre-war involvement I don't know if I can agree. Bu the summer of 1941 we were fighting an undeclared naval battle in the Atlantic. The Khruschev even said that without :spam: the Soviets would have starved to death and lost to the Germans. So our "pittance" allowed the UK and USSR to hold on during the days whenteh German Generals ran the war and so that we could all mount the attack on "Fortress Europe" by the time the "Mad Corporal" had taken over.

Moreover, it was isolationists and America Firsters who kept us out of hte war. It would have been political suicide to attempt to enter the war. Rememebr that the declaration of war was still not unanimous:


On December 8, 1941, the day after Japanese forces attacked the American military base at Pearl Harbor, Hawaii, Franklin Roosevelt addressed Congress and asked for a Declaration of War with Japan. The Senate and House of Representatives approved the war declaration unanimously with the exception of one vote - Congresswoman Jeannette Rankin became the first member of Congress to vote "no" on both the declaration of war on Germany during World War I and the declaration of war on Japan in 1941 - and FDR signed the resolution that day.

FDR's Library (http://www.fdrlibrary.marist.edu/tmirhdee.html)



GP