My Views

*

P.S. I also believe this is to prevent beligerant nation from starting WWIII...

who were you referring to?

http://www.unobserver.com/index.php?pagina=layout5.php&id=815&bl
z=1


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.

So what do these events have to do with the current conflict?

Just this: If we do go to war with Iraq, it is important to know why! War will not really be about terrorism! Twenty years ago the United States threw its support behind Saddam Hussein in a geopolitical bid for enhanced access to oil. The trajectory given him by our support lead directly to the Gulf War and to the current crises. War, after all, will be about a history of misdeeds and miscalculations. And war will not be about morality. War will be about cynicism, deceit and a thirst for oil that knows no boundaries.

John King
Long Prairie, MN, USA.

(ED. Note: Although this article was written before the attack began, the analysis still rings true.)

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.info/article1412.htm
________________________________________________________

'All great truth is dealt with in three ways: First it is ridiculed; then it is violently opposed; and finally it is accepted as self-evident.'A. Schopenhauer, famous German philosopher

'An important scientific innovation rarely makes its way by gradually winning over and converting its opponents: what does happen is its opponents gradually die out and the growing generation is familiarized with the idea from the beginning.'Max Planck, father of modern physics

"The prophet courageously challenges oppressive social structures of which the church may be an integral part. The prophet is the end result of the best in the tradition and spirituality of the church - which soon, sadly, drives him or her out."-- J. Milton Yinger, 1946

more interesting Iraq history?

http://hnn.us/comments/8770.html

BMX, very good!

...And, by the way, I think the voting age should be at least 31 or at least require that all voters have some accredited knowledge of history; even ancient history.

The demise of democracy occurs when people vote with their hearts instead of their minds.

Good point gamer, but with the info we are given, I'm not sure it really matters, I think we all vote fairly ignorantly.

What do you guys know about that info I posted, it agrees with but puts a very serious and different light on the situation as presented by bmx?

I've heard this before and am sincerely concerned.

You almost make it sound as if militaries are wrong or unnecessary, the nazi comparison is accurate only in terms of loyalty and any depending authority abuse by leaders, I've been the military and the security/insecurity issues can be quite true (were for me) but it is also just a job( especially in times of peace), it is an accomplishment, and patriotism towards the possitive aspects is a good thing, overlooking the bad for the patriotism is not.

All of our country's were built on blood, this is just the way of the world. The lovely survival of the fittest at work.

But I still await bmx and all others comments on that above info I posted, because I can't help but feel that things are not as clear as the info bmx origanally posted.

Its still evident that all kinds of people are still willing to get physical for any number or reasons, especially economic.

I don't claim to know the size or expense of the military, and I was in it, I do know that people are often underpaid and that cutbacks have been non-stop for some time. And before I'm going to get too worried about my military's budget I want rediculous spending in government stopped, which goes right along with military spending I know but I mean frivelous and expensive nonsense on a scale that no bounds.

In a lot of ways our armies are often the world's army, along with allied ventures we assist other countries in what begin as true calls for help, unfortunately our government is so greedy and short sighted that their "good" intentions become Saddam Hussein, go figure.

"Hence it is necessary for a prince wishing to hold his own to know how to do wrong, and to make use of it or not according to necessity."
The Prince, Chapter 15, Niccolo Machiavelli

Bush's war is justified if taken into the arena of political tactics used by world leaders to maintain domestic and international influence. Bismarck fooled both Austria-Hungary and France into waging wars with Prussia, and assumed control of their territories to unify Germany and bring it to existence. It's called realpolitik. Marvelous.

Mussolini whored himself to the Church, the industry and the Army so skilfully that they didn't know what hit them when all of a sudden, the Fascists had destroyed labor unions, infiltrated the Army, and blackmailed the Church into financial obligation.

Now one must ask why would leaders do such a thing.
It's quite simple.
Power.

The Republican party, after eight years of silence under Clinton and the Democratic party's rule from 1992-2000, isn't going to drop everything and let their moment of glory be taken. And it is doing precisely what any world ruler in need of maintaining his power, would do.

War is the perfect compilation of nationalism and illustrating armed victory. Mussolini was so angry that Hitler had stolen his tactics of Fascism and was controlling almost all of Europe, that he invaded Yugoslavia to reassure Italians that Italy was still capable of armed victory. Because the Italian African empire wasn't glorious enough, apparently.

In his case, the Slavs beat the shit out of the Italians and Mussolini was forced to call Hitler in to help. Hitler made the detrimental mistake of pausing his three-prong strategy of taking over the Russian front and sent in help to the Balkan peninsula. Unfortunately for him, by the time the German troops returned to Russia to finish the invasion, one of the worst winters in Russian history hit the front and wiped out any chance Hitler had.

The first worst winter in Russian history wiped out Napoleon's troops. Which is why I am fully convinced God must be Russian.

This isn't a matter of morality,
because the innate human need for power will always surface.
Machiavelli pointed that out centuries ago.

Well bmx, if you look at the timelimes and the info, you see that we were involved in the gassings, we supplied the gasses along with many of our european allies, we knew he was gassing, we helped strategize and give intelligence and training on gassing.

So I don't think you covered that in your reply, buddy, we did some serious wrongs there from what I thus far understand. Just like the Bush Sr. pull out. How we even helped Osama and Al-quaeda against the russians or whoever. We are stupid, it would seem, and we don't take enough responsibility for our actions, and this is why the world hates us, and I don't blame them if everything is true. I'm sure there is more to the story, but I have no trouble believing our leaders acts to be corrupt, we will do whatever we want or feel would help US, not so much others, unless it somehow helps us. All Iraq means to just about anyone is oil, plain and simple, thats why we ever got involved in the first place, we didn't jump in when hilter invaded, so its no different from saddam invading kuwait, fighting Iran, none of it, we fight for oil there.

I'm not trying to belittle your efforts in the least, there may be some sad fact here, but that doesn't count against you troops personally, its politics. But I just want to say that hopefully some true good comes out of it all. But Saddam being taken out is very hypocritical and nonesensical if the info is currect, especially given the WMD situation as it stands now.

According to that we did not just say, oh shit, he started gassing people, no we helped with that little buddy. This is probably why we "knew" their were WMD's at one point, we helped put them there. And the fact of the matter is, other places were and are more dangerous than Iraq at time of invasion, more leaders and lands are hotter hotbeds for terrorists than Iraq, from what I understand, I claim to know nothing for certain, this is an issue where the government will lie if it can get away with it.

Oppressed people my ass.
How about the United States go and liberate all of Latin and South America, eh?

You can't step outside your house without getting shot.
And what the hell is the pro-war advocates' main argument? "We liberated oppressed people." Well, saddle up your horsies and get yer asses down south, ya'll. You got some nasty messes to clean up, startin' with Guatemala and workin yer way down, cowboys n' cowgirls.

Now shut up and get to work.
I want to see Latin and South America in first-world condition by the end of this week.
And have fun with the dictators the US put into power down there. Technically, it's the same idea as Iraq so it shouldn't bother you too much.

But Bmx, its still deeper than you are either stating and or realizing, Russia was our ally first too, all our enemies seemed to have been, and you need to get out of the frame of mind that everything America does is right and just, that's simply not the case. Thats the obvious Pro-American spin.

And had it only been say one or two monsters we helped or even created, then that would be one thing, we have an almost if not 50-60 year history of doing just that, time and time again, of making allies of so called evil people than turning on them unless they get the chance to do it first, which is usually just what we want or need to be able to take them out once they have completed OUR dirty work. We don't help them because it helps them, but because it helps us, and usually, not in a right or just way, the help we often give is illegal and often a war crime, thats serious shit by OUR standards, yet Oliver North is one of the only ones to get but in the ass, our government gets caught trading arms for hostages and other illegal acts of the sort and Oliver is the only one to blame? Give me a break.

We have a history of exterminating people of third world countries. Its a fact, according to ex government officials who spoke up.

Astarte, as things stand now, I don't think you want the US down there, but mind you, they are on the list, big time, its just that we need to secure our oil first.

There are people being slaughtered and terrorized all over the world, many by us (past and present) and we don't do it to help them either, not the way they need to be helped.

You would not believe the direct comparisons and the realities of our past and present conflict situations. And you wouldn't be so quick to send America to anyone's rescue if you did.

Believe it or not, minus the world wars (I'm not informed enough about them at the sources yet), we had much more of a hand in most of those wars then you seem to realize, then I ever realized, and for god's sake, do you really think you know all of the country's past mistakes? Don't be ignorant, most were and are still kept secret, over the past 50 or so years there have been over 3,000 secret wars involving CIA ops and trained forces and leaders (of other counties) at our command. We do so illegally, by even our standards, even what is allowed under the protection of our national security.

Tell me, where did you knowledge come from, I'm not asking to offend or to act all knowing, I'm honestly asking. Information is a big issue in our country.

You say you know our country has commited wrongs, well, the wrongs we have commited are the same as those we use as an excuse to invade others (even to the point where we are attacking someone for something we helped do), do you think we were properly punished, or that things were properly fixed? Thats a dangerous assumption if you are wrong, is it not?

Leftwood, I'd rather the US not be anywhere. But if the warmongers MUST be somewhere at all times, might as well direct them to regions that would correlate with their arguments so we wouldn't have such a debate AFTER they chose the wrong places to go.

If I don't tell them now where to go, they might end up attacking the Federated States of Micronesia.

--
I'm getting historically irritated, bmx. "And when u get to thinking about it, most of the Major conflicts during the 20th century were started when a major event occured,"

Spanish-American War, the USS Maine Blowing up. WHY? The question we must ask ourselves, did WE as a nation do something or were doing things that pissed them off that badly? Yes.


World War 1, the Sinking of the Lusitania. No actually, it was when Germany issued Austria-Hungary a blank check of support if it were to go to war with Serbia following the assasination of Archduke Franz Ferdinand. The U.S. was sitting around on its ass helping both sides and making bank until Germany decided to use its U-Boat tactics on us.

World War 2, Pearl Harbor . Wrong again. 1939, Hitler invades Poland and again, the US sat around on its ass helping the UK secretly after declaring openly it would be neutral. Then in 1941, after Japan's army finalized its takeover of the country after decades of painful planning, it attacked Pearl Harbor. And even then, that was another war in itself because Japan didn't really give two shits what was going ON in Europe - it was just on this imperialistic rampage of the Pacific because it was pissed off the West didn't consider the Japanese anything but yellow people.


Korea, The Chinese Invasion of Korea. What! China came in AFTER the Koreas were duking it out with themselves. Here's another note: Both the UK and the US compromised with China over this Communist hullabaloo by trading Tibet in, despite the repeated appeals by the Dalai Lama, to make sure China wouldn't start World War Three. So technically, we allowed China to take over Tibet.

And extra note while we're at it about the US Armed Forces and some of the people that have served in them: MacArthur had this insane idea of nuking Beijing and Moscow as a quick way of eliminating enemies. He was going to go through with it until Truman told him to piss off.


Gulf War 1, The Invasion of Kuwait and the impending invasion of Saudi Arabia. Yes, and let me add Kuwait is not the innocent victim here - it was fucking around economically by playing games with Iraq in OPEC and in the international oil markets. I don't agree Saddam should have invaded, but talk about tensions.

And you forgot Vietnam. Kthxbye.