Full Version: Arming Saddam
A string of off-topic commentary on the WMD thread inspired me to start this one.
Simple questions for debate. What was the extent (heavily involved, moderately, ect) of US involvement in arming Saddam? Did we intentionally give him chemical or biological weapons? Are statements such as "Of course he had WMD, we gave them to him!" based on reality, or is this perception overblown? Please provide evidence from legitimate sources only.
Simple questions for debate. What was the extent (heavily involved, moderately, ect) of US involvement in arming Saddam? Did we intentionally give him chemical or biological weapons? Are statements such as "Of course he had WMD, we gave them to him!" based on reality, or is this perception overblown? Please provide evidence from legitimate sources only.
According to this source:
I read this article researching for a response in a thread a while back. I never could find the Senate Committee Report of 1994 that he cites. Not sure if that’s credible enough.
However I don’t think you can look at this question in a vacuum, you must consider what was going on at the time. This article provides a nice quick summary of our involvement in the Iran/Iraq conflict.
I found this point of particular interest:
Since the US government was taking a “neutral stance” (if you believe that) in the Iran/Iraq conflict then it makes since for our government to allow (and possibly advocate) private business to due our dirty work (as pointed out in Senate Committee report that I cited).
So to answer your question, considering the Iran/Contra affair and other nefarious dealings of the Reagan administration, I believe beyond a shadow of a doubt that we supplied Iraq with chemical weapons, either directly or using private business.
QUOTE
According to a Senate Committee Report of 1994 [1]: From 1985, if not earlier, through 1989, a veritable witch's brew of biological materials were exported to Iraq by private American suppliers pursuant to application and licensing by the U.S. Department of Commerce. Amongst these materials, which often produce slow, agonizing deaths, 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. Clotsridium Perfringens, a highly toxic bacteria causing systemic illness. Clostridium tetani, highly toxigenic. Also, Escherichia Coli (E.Coli); genetic materials; human and bacterial DNA. Dozens of other pathogenic biological agents were shipped to Iraq during the 1980s.
The Senate Report pointed out: "These biological materials were not attenuated or weakened and were capable of reproduction." [2] "It was later learned," the committee revealed, "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."[3]
The Senate Report pointed out: "These biological materials were not attenuated or weakened and were capable of reproduction." [2] "It was later learned," the committee revealed, "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."[3]
I read this article researching for a response in a thread a while back. I never could find the Senate Committee Report of 1994 that he cites. Not sure if that’s credible enough.
However I don’t think you can look at this question in a vacuum, you must consider what was going on at the time. This article provides a nice quick summary of our involvement in the Iran/Iraq conflict.
I found this point of particular interest:
QUOTE
Rumsfeld also met with Iraqi Foreign Minister Tariq Aziz, and the two agreed, "the U.S. and Iraq shared many common interests."
Since the US government was taking a “neutral stance” (if you believe that) in the Iran/Iraq conflict then it makes since for our government to allow (and possibly advocate) private business to due our dirty work (as pointed out in Senate Committee report that I cited).
So to answer your question, considering the Iran/Contra affair and other nefarious dealings of the Reagan administration, I believe beyond a shadow of a doubt that we supplied Iraq with chemical weapons, either directly or using private business.
QUOTE(Fife and Drum @ Jun 29 2006, 01:29 PM) 
I read this article researching for a response in a thread a while back. I never could find the Senate Committee Report of 1994 that he cites. Not sure if that’s credible enough.
I'll help you out on that link.
Here it is.Later on down the page, Dr. Gordon C. Oehler, the Director in the nonproliferation center, had this to say:
QUOTE
Let me turn to the question of the involvement of U.S. firms in Iraq's proliferation programs. We were watching these programs very carefully, and it was clear that the major players assisting Saddam's effort were not American firms -- they were principally European. We saw little involvement of U.S. firms in Iraq's weapons of mass destruction programs.
*snip*
This is not to say that we did not occasionally come across information on a U.S. person that was collected incidentally to our foreign intelligence target overseas -- we did. But, when we did, and when there was a possibility of a violation of U.S. law, we were obligated to turn our information over to the Justice Department.
We provided what we called ``alert memos'' to the Departments of Commerce, Justice, Treasury, and to the FBI. These memos resulted whenever this incidentally-collected information indicated that U.S. firms had been targeted by foreign governments of concern, or were involved in possible violations of U.S. law. Between 1984 and 1990, CIA's Office of Scientific and Weapons Research provided five memos covering Iraqi dealings with U.S. firms on purchases, discussions, or visits that appeared to be related to weapons of mass destruction programs.
*snip*
Prior to 1991, there were four instances in which the Department of Commerce sought information on Iraqi export license applications -- all dated in 1986. These applications involved computer technologies and image processors. For some of these, we reported no derogatory information on the end user. In one case, we referred Commerce to a classified intelligence report.
After evidence mounted in the mid-1980's about the use of chemical warfare in the Iran-Iraq war, the United States began to put into effect unilateral controls on exports of chemical precursors to Iraq and other countries suspected of having chemical warfare programs. The U.S. and several other industrialized nations joined what is called the Australia Group to establish more uniform licensing controls for the export of several chemical weapons precursors. Since then, more nations have been brought into the Australia Group, and recently, controls have been added for chemical equipment, certain pathogens, and biological equipment.
*snip*
This is not to say that we did not occasionally come across information on a U.S. person that was collected incidentally to our foreign intelligence target overseas -- we did. But, when we did, and when there was a possibility of a violation of U.S. law, we were obligated to turn our information over to the Justice Department.
We provided what we called ``alert memos'' to the Departments of Commerce, Justice, Treasury, and to the FBI. These memos resulted whenever this incidentally-collected information indicated that U.S. firms had been targeted by foreign governments of concern, or were involved in possible violations of U.S. law. Between 1984 and 1990, CIA's Office of Scientific and Weapons Research provided five memos covering Iraqi dealings with U.S. firms on purchases, discussions, or visits that appeared to be related to weapons of mass destruction programs.
*snip*
Prior to 1991, there were four instances in which the Department of Commerce sought information on Iraqi export license applications -- all dated in 1986. These applications involved computer technologies and image processors. For some of these, we reported no derogatory information on the end user. In one case, we referred Commerce to a classified intelligence report.
After evidence mounted in the mid-1980's about the use of chemical warfare in the Iran-Iraq war, the United States began to put into effect unilateral controls on exports of chemical precursors to Iraq and other countries suspected of having chemical warfare programs. The U.S. and several other industrialized nations joined what is called the Australia Group to establish more uniform licensing controls for the export of several chemical weapons precursors. Since then, more nations have been brought into the Australia Group, and recently, controls have been added for chemical equipment, certain pathogens, and biological equipment.
I think it's important to consider with respect to quotes made by politicians in this link (this is the source which is quoted most often when this issue comes up) that this was a Senate hearing regarding Gulf War illness. The politicians are essentially making political statements in this context, in some cases I would deem them hyperbolic.
There were sales of biological specimens to Iraq, true enough. These were not weaponized specimens, they were not intended for the purpose and it was lack of oversight, not intention to arm Saddam with bioweapons, which led to those imprudent transfers. But I should add that most if not all of these microorganisms are easily obtainable anyway. This isn't smallpox; Clostridium perfringens and tetani are ubiquitous in nature, as is clostridium botulinium.
QUOTE
However I don’t think you can look at this question in a vacuum, you must consider what was going on at the time. This article provides a nice quick summary of our involvement in the Iran/Iraq conflict.
QUOTE
I found this point of particular interest:
Since the US government was taking a “neutral stance” (if you believe that) in the Iran/Iraq conflict then it makes since for our government to allow (and possibly advocate) private business to due our dirty work (as pointed out in Senate Committee report that I cited).
So to answer your question, considering the Iran/Contra affair and other nefarious dealings of the Reagan administration, I believe beyond a shadow of a doubt that we supplied Iraq with chemical weapons, either directly or using private business.
QUOTE
Rumsfeld also met with Iraqi Foreign Minister Tariq Aziz, and the two agreed, "the U.S. and Iraq shared many common interests."
Since the US government was taking a “neutral stance” (if you believe that) in the Iran/Iraq conflict then it makes since for our government to allow (and possibly advocate) private business to due our dirty work (as pointed out in Senate Committee report that I cited).
So to answer your question, considering the Iran/Contra affair and other nefarious dealings of the Reagan administration, I believe beyond a shadow of a doubt that we supplied Iraq with chemical weapons, either directly or using private business.
Rumsfeld's visit marked the restoration of diplomatic ties between the US and Iraq in 1983, this is true. In early 1984, we prohibited the sale of precursors for sulfur mustard, tabun and sarin to both sides in the conflict. Those who did otherwise were violating the law. Examples include Teledyne pled guilty to criminal conspiracy, false statements, and violations of the Export Administration Act and the Arms Export Control Act for indirectly exporting 130 tons of zirconium, and Alcolac which was convicted of illegally selling thiodiglycol.
For my part, I think the accusations of the US arming Iraq are vastly overblown. As this report from the Stockholm International Peace Research Institute shows, almost all of the weapons systems the US sold to Iraq between 1975 and 2002 consisted of unarmed helicopters. There were also some armored battlefield ambulances and heavy trucks. But juxtaposed with so many others it is nothing. The fact is Saddam could always get whatever hardware he wanted easily from the USSR, France or China on credit.
All one has to do is Google "IraqGate" and being reading. There is tons of stuff online regarding this subject much like this example.
To say the United States was a major factor in the procurement and usage of Iraq's WMD during the Iran/Iraq war would be an understatement. I laugh out loud every time Hannity starts talking about how "Saddam used WMD against his own people" as justification #802 for Gulf War 2.0. Do the search and read. We are as culpable as anybody in an at least allowing Saddam to be armed with this stuff. We don't know everything because much of what has been learned has been sealed.
To say the United States was a major factor in the procurement and usage of Iraq's WMD during the Iran/Iraq war would be an understatement. I laugh out loud every time Hannity starts talking about how "Saddam used WMD against his own people" as justification #802 for Gulf War 2.0. Do the search and read. We are as culpable as anybody in an at least allowing Saddam to be armed with this stuff. We don't know everything because much of what has been learned has been sealed.
I haven't found any evidence that the US government was complicit in Saddam Hussein's chemical (or biological, or nuclear) weapons programs. Mrs. Pigpen noted that some US companies were successfully prosecuted for selling dual use technology to Iraq. The worst accusations against the US government that I've seen documented were 1) they provided photo-reconnaissance of Iran's military, enabling Iraq to target them with chemical weapons, and 2) they blocked UN sanctions against Iraq for using chemical weapons.
Those are bad things, but they don't constitute arming Saddam.
All one has to do is Google "IraqGate" and being reading. There is tons of stuff online regarding this subject much like this example.
To say the United States was a major factor in the procurement and usage of Iraq's WMD during the Iran/Iraq war would be an understatement.
From the AD Survival Guide:
I read your link, and didn't find anything supporting the US as a "major factor in the procurement" of anything in Iraq. If there's a reliable source that says that, please post it instead of telling us to use Google.
Analyzing this story as an urban myth, I think it's popular for the same reason that the "CIA created Osama bin Laden" myth is popular. It's the poetic justice of the sins returning to hurt the sinner; chickens coming home to roost; "blowback." There are plenty of true stories that follow that pattern, but this isn't one of them.
Those are bad things, but they don't constitute arming Saddam.
QUOTE(DaytonRocker @ Jun 29 2006, 12:39 PM)
All one has to do is Google "IraqGate" and being reading. There is tons of stuff online regarding this subject much like this example.
To say the United States was a major factor in the procurement and usage of Iraq's WMD during the Iran/Iraq war would be an understatement.
From the AD Survival Guide:
QUOTE
When asked for sources, don’t respond with something like, "Do a Google search." We are all aware of Google. We are asking, "What specific sources do you have in support of that statistic," or, "What sources did you view that helped you form your opinion?"
I read your link, and didn't find anything supporting the US as a "major factor in the procurement" of anything in Iraq. If there's a reliable source that says that, please post it instead of telling us to use Google.
Analyzing this story as an urban myth, I think it's popular for the same reason that the "CIA created Osama bin Laden" myth is popular. It's the poetic justice of the sins returning to hurt the sinner; chickens coming home to roost; "blowback." There are plenty of true stories that follow that pattern, but this isn't one of them.
QUOTE(DaytonRocker @ Jun 29 2006, 03:39 PM)
All one has to do is Google "IraqGate" and begin reading. There is tons of stuff online regarding this subject much like....
Yes, indeed. It is a well know fact that the number of hits you can get on a google search is indicative of veracity!
Actually, it's an inverse relationship. Formula: (Level of Veracity)+ (number of Google hits)= a constant.
Compare, for instance, the number of hits you get for an animal husbandry search as compared to a search for those illusive space aliens found in hangar X....
Here is a simple question. If we were so determined to give and/or involved in giving Saddam chemical weapons, why form the Australia group? Why place restrictions on precursors in the first place?
QUOTE
The worst accusations against the US government that I've seen documented were 1) they provided photo-reconnaissance of Iran's military, enabling Iraq to target them with chemical weapons, and 2) they blocked UN sanctions against Iraq for using chemical weapons.
I know about number one, but I'd be very curious if anyone could verify number 2. As far as I know, no UN resolutions nor sanctions were proposed during this time.
QUOTE(Mrs. Pigpen @ Jun 29 2006, 03:15 PM)
QUOTE
The worst accusations against the US government that I've seen documented were 1) they provided photo-reconnaissance of Iran's military, enabling Iraq to target them with chemical weapons, and 2) they blocked UN sanctions against Iraq for using chemical weapons.
I know about number one, but I'd be very curious if anyone could verify number 2. As far as I know, no UN resolutions nor sanctions were proposed during this time.
I was sure that I had read an editorial in the Washington Post lambasting the Reagan administration for blocking a UN resolution after Halabja, but I can't find it now. I'll retract that then, and just say that the US government was not very forceful in opposing Iraq's use of chemical weapons. But again, that's a long way from being complicit in arming Saddam.
QUOTE(Jobius @ Jun 30 2006, 02:27 AM)
I was sure that I had read an editorial in the Washington Post lambasting the Reagan administration for blocking a UN resolution after Halabja, but I can't find it now. I'll retract that then, and just say that the US government was not very forceful in opposing Iraq's use of chemical weapons. But again, that's a long way from being complicit in arming Saddam.
Yes, I agree. One thing I've noticed is often lost with these types of discussions is placing situational context of the times. Somehow, eight years becomes one simultaneous America-backed-Saddam-as-he-invaded-Iran-and-gassed-them. And of course the US is portrayed as some lone pariah in this as well. That is erroneous. Events transpired in stages, and certainly Saddam was never considered a "friend" more like a dubious associate.
We didn't even have diplomatic relations with Saddam when he invaded Iran (hadn't since 1967), and viewed them as an agent of Soviet subversion. We reinstated those relations a year or so after Iraq was chased out of Iran (1982), and they invaded Iraq territory while Saddam was calling for a ceasefire and they refused (not saying I blame them, just laying the history out as it happened). This was an Iran that showed how devout its martyrs were by unleashing human waves of children across mine-riddled fields. It looked like the Islamofascist revolution might potentially take over Iraq and then perhaps the middle east. At that point, we sold them some military hardware, but so was every other country at that time, to include Switzerland and Canada. After Iran took the Fao peninsula in February of 1986 we drew into a more tacit alliance with Iraq (as far as intelligence assistance and protecting Kuwaiti tankers from Iranian attacks).
So, yes, it wouldn't surprise me if the first fact (photo surveillance) was true. The second would surprise me because the rest of the world, with the exception of Lebanon and one other country that slips my mind (Syria?) who backed Iran, also feared the Islamofascist revolution. We were far, far from alone. It was one of the few things even the Soviets and US saw eye to eye on. One has only to read the stats for military hardware transfers to Iraq during this timeframe to realize this is true.
Mrs P- didn't we also bomb some of Irans military targets for Iraq, perhaps on that pennisula- it was the history channel I was watching in regards to saddam and Iran that I get my info- but I didn't take notes I am afraid for the final exam 
- but the "handshake" photo with Rumsfeld that is so popular is in that documentary with comments and quote about how Reagan forced the lifting of the arms embargo, how WE allowed or shared some chemical arms info, and then allowed corporations, regardless of whose borders they were behind, to sell stuff to Saddam, including tons of chemical weapons. In fact, as i recall, we had no objections really to those weapons being used on Iranian troops, but only objected after he used them on the Kurds?
Does that ring true?
- but the "handshake" photo with Rumsfeld that is so popular is in that documentary with comments and quote about how Reagan forced the lifting of the arms embargo, how WE allowed or shared some chemical arms info, and then allowed corporations, regardless of whose borders they were behind, to sell stuff to Saddam, including tons of chemical weapons. In fact, as i recall, we had no objections really to those weapons being used on Iranian troops, but only objected after he used them on the Kurds? Does that ring true?
QUOTE(CruisingRam @ Jun 30 2006, 08:32 AM)
Mrs P- didn't we also bomb some of Irans military targets for Iraq, perhaps on that pennisula- it was the history channel I was watching in regards to saddam and Iran that I get my info- but I didn't take notes I am afraid for the final exam
- but the "handshake" photo with Rumsfeld that is so popular is in that documentary with comments and quote about how Reagan forced the lifting of the arms embargo, how WE allowed or shared some chemical arms info, and then allowed corporations, regardless of whose borders they were behind, to sell stuff to Saddam, including tons of chemical weapons. In fact, as i recall, we had no objections really to those weapons being used on Iranian troops, but only objected after he used them on the Kurds? Does that ring true?
Well, I agree the photo is popular. Rumsfeld was a diplomat at that time, as I'm sure there are lots of other photos of international diplomats shaking hands with Saddam (as well as a host of other nefarious leaders) that folks don't seem so interested in, for some reason.
We did NOT bomb military targets for Saddam, to my knowledge. That does not ring true at all. We did protect tanker convoys (especially from Kuwait) which became a target out in the Gulf...We sent our naval vessles out to the Gulf for this purpose after the Iranians took over the Fao peninsula. This was a critical area for the Iraqi oil industry and raised serious concerns about an Iranian push to Basra and fall or the Iraqi state. I think we shot a mine laying ship or two (from recollection, I could be wrong). We did shoot down an Iranian airliner in 1988, mistaking it for military aircraft flying over that airspace. As far as lifting the ban on chemical precursors, I have yet to see the evidence. Seems a bit counterintuitive that we would take legal measures to ban this practice at the same time as we ostensibly surreptitiously "lifted" it.
Thought I should add... the Security council did have one Resolution calling for the ceasation of hostilities in July 1987, which was unacceptable to Iran. After that, Iraq launched a series of brutal offensives on Iran which then accepted the SC resolution the following year. I'm not saying we're angels in all this, we could have stayed out of it and seen how things played out, but we are far from the isolated devils the typical google search would lead one to believe.
Edited to add: Regarding the chemical weapons in Iran versus Kurds, I'd say that our admonition was about the same for both at the time (not enough). That transpired around the same time frame, afterall (1988). It wasn't until the invasion of Kuwait and subsequent sanctions that most of us had heard of the attacks on the Kurds. It was used as an example later to show how dangerous Saddam was "he even attacked his own people". He was always dangerous, but it wasn't until he invaded Kuwait (whom he owed a tremendous amount of money) that he was viewed as a direct threat. Until that time, he was a slightly lesser evil.
From Mrs. P’s source:
And then turns around and states:
Sorry Jobius, this doesn’t sound like an urban legend.
All it takes is one sell of one briefcase full of (insert deadly chemical) in ANY form, and we’ve armed Saddam. I can only imagine what would qualify as more than “little involvement”. And the other half of this is if anyone thinks that every single activity, deal, covert action and contents of a briefcase taken in/to the Middle East can be traced to a memo or receipt than you’re being just a bit too naive.
For some it’s a bitter pill to swallow but our government has a 200+ year history of playing both sides of the fence and arming dictators/el presidente’s/chief’s/Shah’s/emir’s with deadly weapons and it certainly wouldn’t be considered news.
QUOTE
We saw little involvement of U.S. firms in Iraq's weapons of mass destruction programs.
And then turns around and states:
QUOTE
Between 1984 and 1990, CIA's Office of Scientific and Weapons Research provided five memos covering Iraqi dealings with U.S. firms on purchases, discussions, or visits that appeared to be related to weapons of mass destruction programs.
Sorry Jobius, this doesn’t sound like an urban legend.
All it takes is one sell of one briefcase full of (insert deadly chemical) in ANY form, and we’ve armed Saddam. I can only imagine what would qualify as more than “little involvement”. And the other half of this is if anyone thinks that every single activity, deal, covert action and contents of a briefcase taken in/to the Middle East can be traced to a memo or receipt than you’re being just a bit too naive.
For some it’s a bitter pill to swallow but our government has a 200+ year history of playing both sides of the fence and arming dictators/el presidente’s/chief’s/Shah’s/emir’s with deadly weapons and it certainly wouldn’t be considered news.
Fife and Drum, let me restore some context that you removed from your second quote (in bold):
From Mrs. P’s source:
And then turns around and states:
Sorry Jobius, this doesn’t sound like an urban legend.
Still sounds like one to me. You selectively quoted part of a paragraph that showed the government investigating and issuing "alert memos" about companies targetted by Iraq, and then tried to pass that off as evidence of US government complicity. Is this the best you can do? I'm willing to be convinced on this, but somebody's got to come up with some evidence.
QUOTE(Fife and Drum @ Jun 30 2006, 08:09 AM)
From Mrs. P’s source:
QUOTE
We saw little involvement of U.S. firms in Iraq's weapons of mass destruction programs.
And then turns around and states:
QUOTE
We provided what we called ``alert memos'' to the Departments of Commerce, Justice, Treasury, and to the FBI. These memos resulted whenever this incidentally-collected information indicated that U.S. firms had been targeted by foreign governments of concern, or were involved in possible violations of U.S. law. Between 1984 and 1990, CIA's Office of Scientific and Weapons Research provided five memos covering Iraqi dealings with U.S. firms on purchases, discussions, or visits that appeared to be related to weapons of mass destruction programs.
Sorry Jobius, this doesn’t sound like an urban legend.
Still sounds like one to me. You selectively quoted part of a paragraph that showed the government investigating and issuing "alert memos" about companies targetted by Iraq, and then tried to pass that off as evidence of US government complicity. Is this the best you can do? I'm willing to be convinced on this, but somebody's got to come up with some evidence.
Re arms and Iraq, Loreng is almost entirely correct. We only aided Saddam when the Iraq-Iran war went south on Saddam and we feared the Ayatollah gaining possession of Iraq and Iraq's resources. Here are some useful links. First, the summary:
http://www.command-post.org/archives/002978.html
The raw data is here, courtesy of SIPRI [simply scroll down the page until you find Iraq, but note that the files are PDF]:
http://www.sipri.org/contents/armstrad/access.html#irq
If you cannot access the raw data there, try here instead:
http://web.archive.org/web/20040607060706/...atirq_data.html
And, lastly, the word from Free Republic re just who benefited from Saddam in power, and so no surprise why some didn't join the Coalition of the Willing:
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/864954/posts
http://www.command-post.org/archives/002978.html
The raw data is here, courtesy of SIPRI [simply scroll down the page until you find Iraq, but note that the files are PDF]:
http://www.sipri.org/contents/armstrad/access.html#irq
If you cannot access the raw data there, try here instead:
http://web.archive.org/web/20040607060706/...atirq_data.html
And, lastly, the word from Free Republic re just who benefited from Saddam in power, and so no surprise why some didn't join the Coalition of the Willing:
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/864954/posts
This is a simplified version of our main content. To view the full version with more information, formatting and images, please click here.