Question for Iraq war supporters

[MasterChief]

GySgt,
I do not want to reveal an classified information but here is a section of an article in the public domain at indybay.org...

During the Iran-Iraq war, Iraq received the lion's share of American support because at the time Iran was regarded as the greater threat to U.S. interests. According to a 1994 Senate report, private American suppliers, licensed by the U.S. Department of Commerce, exported a witch's brew of biological and chemical materials to Iraq from 1985 through 1989. Among the biological materials, which often produce slow, agonizing death, were:

* Bacillus Anthracis, cause of anthrax.

* Clostridium Botulinum, a source of botulinum toxin.

* Histoplasma Capsulatam, cause of a disease attacking lungs, brain, spinal cord, and heart.

* Brucella Melitensis, a bacteria that can damage major organs.

* Clostridium Perfringens, a highly toxic bacteria causing systemic illness.

* Clostridium tetani, a highly toxigenic substance.


Also on the list: Escherichia coli (E. coli), genetic materials, human and bacterial DNA, and dozens of other pathogenic biological agents. "These biological materials were not attenuated or weakened and were capable of reproduction," the Senate report stated. "It was later learned that these microorganisms exported by the United States were identical to those the United Nations inspectors found and removed from the Iraqi biological warfare program."

The report noted further that U.S. exports to Iraq included the precursors to chemical-warfare agents, plans for chemical and biological warfare production facilities, and chemical-warhead filling equipment.

The exports continued to at least November 28, 1989, despite evidence that Iraq was engaging in chemical and biological warfare against Iranians and Kurds since as early as 1984.

I can assure you that this was not the full extent of our involvement in the Iran/Iraq war and can only say that the Saudis and Kuwaitese were our friends and they too were very concerned about the Ayatollah. Our naval base in Bahrain was there at the time and proved to be very helpful. If you want to say that we provided arms to both sides--well, you'll get no argument from me on that minor point. But if you want to say we gave Iraq nothing but a few choppers and some intel, I can only say that I respectfully disagree.

 

[RetiredGySgt]

GySgt,
I do not want to reveal an classified information but here is a section of an article in the public domain at indybay.org...I can assure you that this was not the full extent of our involvement in the Iran/Iraq war and can only say that the Saudis and Kuwaitese were our friends and they too were very concerned about the Ayatollah. Our naval base in Bahrain was there at the time and proved to be very helpful. If you want to say that we provided arms to both sides--well, you'll get no argument from me on that minor point. But if you want to say we gave Iraq nothing but a few choppers and some intel, I can only say that I respectfully disagree.

Those materials were legally sold. Nothing clandestine about it.

 

[maineman]

Except we did not sell them weapons, all we did is provide intel and some unarmed helicopters. Saddam got his weapons from the Soviets and Europe. France and Belgium in particular.

you did not make the assertion that we had not sold him weapons clandestinely...only that we had not sold him weapons.

 

[Gunny]

you did not make the assertion that we had not sold him weapons clandestinely...only that we had not sold him weapons.

Depends on how literal you want to be. The items listed above are precursors that can be used as weapons, not weapons in and of themselves.

An analogy to that would be ... if i sell you a gun, and you turn around and murder someone with it, which of us is held legally accountable? At least for now, you.

If actual military weapons wee sold to Iraq, as MChief stated, it's classifed or didn't happen. If it was in the public domain, it would be linked to and used in message board arguments every day.

Hindsight's 20/20. At the time, the enemy of our enemy was our friend. Saddam had not at that time attacked a nation friendly to us, and in our interest to keep friendly.

With that in mind, I don't really see the big deal always trying to be made about us selling Saddam "whatever." He was in fact doing our dirty work and we were all cheering him on.

 

[maineman]

Depends on how literal you want to be. The items listed above are precursors that can be used as weapons, not weapons in and of themselves.

An analogy to that would be ... if i sell you a gun, and you turn around and murder someone with it, which of us is held legally accountable? At least for now, you.

If actual military weapons wee sold to Iraq, as MChief stated, it's classifed or didn't happen. If it was in the public domain, it would be linked to and used in message board arguments every day.

Hindsight's 20/20. At the time, the enemy of our enemy was our friend. Saddam had not at that time attacked a nation friendly to us, and in our interest to keep friendly.

With that in mind, I don't really see the big deal always trying to be made about us selling Saddam "whatever." He was in fact doing our dirty work and we were all cheering him on.

RGS stated that we had only sold him unarmed helicopters (hardly weapons themselves) and not anything else...when the masterchief gave him further info, he backtracked and stated that none of those other things had been sold clandestinely.... that was not his original point.

and I agree with you about Saddam....he was our favorite bad boy and any shock and outrage over the fact that he had some bad toys was pretty contrived.

 

[RetiredGySgt]

RGS stated that we had only sold him unarmed helicopters (hardly weapons themselves) and not anything else...when the masterchief gave him further info, he backtracked and stated that none of those other things had been sold clandestinely.... that was not his original point.

and I agree with you about Saddam....he was our favorite bad boy and any shock and outrage over the fact that he had some bad toys was pretty contrived.

Wrong, the Master chief has not listed a single "weapon", the chemical and biological stocks we sold were not "weapons" they were sold as what they were, for medical or research material. Legal and above board, not even hidden.

Name some weapon or weapons Saddam needed from us? Our ammo was no good to him, wrong calibers. Our rifles were no good to him unless we sold huge stocks , since he used Russian weapons and some Belgian and French items, mostly heavy weapons. Our bombs were useless to him, he flew French and Russian Aircraft and helicopters. He used Russian Artillery and Russian anti air weapons, missiles and guns, again nothing in our inventory did him any good.

In fact the only people that needed American materials were the Iranians since their military had been armed with our stuff under the Shah.

The claim we sold chemical "weapons" is a bald faced lie. He didn't want our weapons, he made his own. Did he use the chemical and biological precursors we sold AS medical and research stock to make some, probably, but there was nothing illegal about our selling those items. They were NOT weapons, nor were they weapons GRADE.

 

[finebead]

GySgt,
I do not want to reveal an classified information but here is a section of an article in the public domain at indybay.org...I can assure you that this was not the full extent of our involvement in the Iran/Iraq war and can only say that the Saudis and Kuwaitese were our friends and they too were very concerned about the Ayatollah. Our naval base in Bahrain was there at the time and proved to be very helpful. If you want to say that we provided arms to both sides--well, you'll get no argument from me on that minor point. But if you want to say we gave Iraq nothing but a few choppers and some intel, I can only say that I respectfully disagree.

MasterChief,

Could you provide the link to that article. I have searched at indybay.org and not come up with it.

Thanks,
FB

 

[M14 Shooter]

With that in mind, I don't really see the big deal always trying to be made about us selling Saddam "whatever." He was in fact doing our dirty work and we were all cheering him on.

By their argument, that if you supply someone with something to fight someone else, you have no place to later oppose the someone you supplied, the US had could not oppose the USSR during the cold war.

 

[maineman]

By their argument, that if you supply someone with something to fight someone else, you have no place to later oppose the someone you supplied, the US had could not oppose the USSR during the cold war.

Not quite. My belief is that we should not act all outraged that Saddam had WMD's when we knew he had them and had been purposely (and no doubt, gleefully) silent when Saddam had used them against OUR enemies, the Iranians.

 

[Warner]

RGS, are you saying that in the 1800's that supplying salt-peter was not tantamount to supplying gunpowder?

 

[M14 Shooter]

RGS, are you saying that in the 1800's that supplying salt-peter was not tantamount to supplying gunpowder?

Yes. And he's correct.
Supplying iron is not the same as supplying swords.

 

[Warner]

LOL.

So supplying weapons grade plutonium would not be suppling nuclear capability I suppose?

 

[M14 Shooter]

LOL.
So supplying weapons grade plutonium would not be suppling nuclear capability I suppose?

Supplying a multi-use precursor to a weapon that requires that precursor to be refined and and assembled into a weapon is not the same as supplying a weapon.

 

[RetiredGySgt]

LOL.

So supplying weapons grade plutonium would not be suppling nuclear capability I suppose?

We did not supply weapons grade ANYTHING. We sold medical stock and research stock. All quite legally I might add.

 

[maineman]

We did not supply weapons grade ANYTHING. We sold medical stock and research stock. All quite legally I might add.

There would not have been anything illegal is we had supplied them with artillery pieces!

And I am curious, and really don't know the answer, so I'll ask: what would be the legitimate reason that Iraq would need anthrax?

 

[MasterChief]

Could you provide the link to that article. I have searched at indybay.org and not come up with it.

My computer is not letting me cut and paste like it used to. I needed to write it out by hand and then type it in. Hopefully, I got all the slashes and spaces right. Here it is... http://www.indybay.org/newsitems/2002/03/27/1195471.php

 

[Annie]

My computer is not letting me cut and paste like it used to. I needed to write it out by hand and then type it in. Hopefully, I got all the slashes and spaces right. Here it is... http://www.indybay.org/newitems/2002/03/27/1195471.php

I couldn't get the above to work, so I searched it:

http://www.indybay.org/newsitems/2002/03/27/1195471.php
The s was missing for the link above.

 

[MasterChief]

Kathianne,
Thanks

 

[RetiredGySgt]

There would not have been anything illegal is we had supplied them with artillery pieces!

And I am curious, and really don't know the answer, so I'll ask: what would be the legitimate reason that Iraq would need anthrax?

Why does any country need anthrax? Completely irrelevant to the discussion. It is provided for research purposes and Iraq met the requirements to buy it.

And we didn't supply any weapons because, once again, he wasn't using anything we could supply him WITH.

 

[MasterChief]

True, but given our track record is this really doable. We supported Saddam, certainly a ruthless dictator, and now that Bush is trying to change that, his particular 'influence,' to use your word, seems to be creating an even more terror filled world.

Now back to the point--we supported Saddam for a reason: he was against the Ayatollah. That is called "real politic" and the way states stay in power and their people get what they want.

The minute he crossed the border into Kuwait and pissed off the other Gulf states, the Gulf states and the Western powers asked if Saddam's hedge water against Iran was worth the destabilization within the gulf region. Over time the conclusion was made that Saddam had become an overall liability and from that point on, he was a dead man walking. So what? The situation changed and we changed with it. That's a good thing.