How the U.S.A. armed Iraq

Politicians today might as well give anthrax to North Korea. They can plea 'incredible stupidity' at a later date and some of the general public will fall for it and defend them.

.

 

this is from the national security archive from GWU. here is the link to it. http://www.gwu.edu/~nsarchiv/NSAEBB/NSAEBB82/

The U.S. restored formal relations with Iraq in November 1984, but the U.S. had begun, several years earlier, to provide it with intelligence and military support (in secret and contrary to this country's official neutrality) in accordance with policy directives from President Ronald Reagan. These were prepared pursuant to his March 1982 National Security Study Memorandum (NSSM 4-82) asking for a review of U.S. policy toward the Middle East.

One of these directives from Reagan, National Security Decision Directive (NSDD) 99, signed on July 12, 1983, is available only in a highly redacted version. It reviews U.S. regional interests in the Middle East and South Asia, and U.S. objectives, including peace between Israel and the Arabs, resolution of other regional conflicts, and economic and military improvements, "to strengthen regional stability." It deals with threats to the U.S., strategic planning, cooperation with other countries, including the Arab states, and plans for action. An interdepartmental review of the implications of shifting policy in favor of Iraq was conducted following promulgation of the directive.

By the summer of 1983 Iran had been reporting Iraqi use of using chemical weapons for some time. The Geneva protocol requires that the international community respond to chemical warfare, but a diplomatically isolated Iran received only a muted response to its complaints. It intensified its accusations in October 1983, however, and in November asked for a United Nations Security Council investigation.

The U.S., which followed developments in the Iran-Iraq war with extraordinary intensity, had intelligence confirming Iran's accusations, and describing Iraq's "almost daily" use of chemical weapons, concurrent with its policy review and decision to support Iraq in the war. The intelligence indicated that Iraq used chemical weapons against Iranian forces, and, according to a November 1983 memo, against "Kurdish insurgents" as well.

What was the Reagan administration's response? A State Department account indicates that the administration had decided to limit its "efforts against the Iraqi CW program to close monitoring because of our strict neutrality in the Gulf war, the sensitivity of sources, and the low probability of achieving desired results." But the department noted in late November 1983 that "with the essential assistance of foreign firms, Iraq ha[d] become able to deploy and use CW and probably has built up large reserves of CW for further use. Given its desperation to end the war, Iraq may again use lethal or incapacitating CW, particularly if Iran threatens to break through Iraqi lines in a large-scale attack". The State Department argued that the U.S. needed to respond in some way to maintain the credibility of its official opposition to chemical warfare, and recommended that the National Security Council discuss the issue.

Following further high-level policy review, Ronald Reagan issued National Security Decision Directive (NSDD) 114, dated November 26, 1983, concerned specifically with U.S. policy toward the Iran-Iraq war. The directive reflects the administration's priorities: it calls for heightened regional military cooperation to defend oil facilities, and measures to improve U.S. military capabilities in the Persian Gulf, and directs the secretaries of state and defense and the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff to take appropriate measures to respond to tensions in the area. It states, "Because of the real and psychological impact of a curtailment in the flow of oil from the Persian Gulf on the international economic system, we must assure our readiness to deal promptly with actions aimed at disrupting that traffic." It does not mention chemical weapons.

Soon thereafter, Donald Rumsfeld (who had served in various positions in the Nixon and Ford administrations, including as President Ford's defense secretary, and at this time headed the multinational pharmaceutical company G.D. Searle & Co.) was dispatched to the Middle East as a presidential envoy. His December 1983 tour of regional capitals included Baghdad, where he was to establish "direct contact between an envoy of President Reagan and President Saddam Hussein," while emphasizing "his close relationship" with the president. Rumsfeld met with Saddam, and the two discussed regional issues of mutual interest, shared enmity toward Iran and Syria, and the U.S.'s efforts to find alternative routes to transport Iraq's oil; its facilities in the Persian Gulf had been shut down by Iran, and Iran's ally, Syria, had cut off a pipeline that transported Iraqi oil through its territory. Rumsfeld made no reference to chemical weapons, according to detailed notes on the meeting.

The US has a history of backing and supporting the enemy of our enemy, Iraq vs Iran and the mujahideen vs USSR. the us has been meddling in Afganistan since July 1979 under Carter and Regan loved it and continued and augmented the policy. The end result was allowing bin Laden to create al-qaeda and the Taliban, which united the Afgan factions to fight the Soviets. after the Soviets pulled out in defeat, the fighters went home and then seeing how Egypt, Saudi Arabia and other middle east countries were puppets of Washington, the seeds of 9/11 were sewn. not necessarilary just the US, but all western governments.... the invaders .. the crusaders

 

People like to forget that Rummy was Special Envoy to Saddam in the 80s.

.

 

The Teicher affidavit provides some insight into what was going on during the Reagan years. Teicher was an NSC official and aid to Rumsfeld during the 80s and was involved in a lawsuit related to Iraq that caused some information to be released to the general public which would have otherwise remained secret.

It's true that much of the Iraqi equipment was of Soviet origin (point 12 in Teicher's affidavit) but the U.S. set up a system to insure that Iraq had sufficient spare parts for their equipment (point 13 in the Teicher affidavit).

http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article1413.htm

12. Most of the Iraqi's military hardware was of Soviet origin. Regular United States or NATO ammunition and spare parts could not be used in this Soviet weaponry.

13. The United States and the CIA maintained a program known as the 'Bear Spares" program whereby the United States made sure that spare parts and ammunition for Soviet or Soviet-style weaponry were available to countries which sought to reduce their dependence on the Soviets for defense needs. If the "Bear Spares" were manufactured outside the United States, then the United States could arrange for the provision of these weapons to a third country without direct involvement. Israel, for example, had a very large stockpile of Soviet weaponry and ammunition captured during its various wars. At the suggestion of the United States, the Israelis would transfer the spare parts and weapons to third countries or insurgent movements (such as the Afghan rebels and the Contras). Similarly, Egypt manufactured weapons and spare parts from Soviet designs and porvided these weapons and ammunition to the Iraqis and other countries. Egypt also served as a supplier for the Bear Spares program. The United States approved, assisted and encouraged Egypt's manufacturing capabilities. The United States approved, assisted and encouraged Egypt's sale of weaponry, munitions and vehicles to Iraq.

.

 

no my friend this is not about credibility

this is about history

i don't need a history book to know about this i remember it as first hand evidence as i lived at that time and had my wits about me to remember it. history books are good but only if you can critique them through other evidence. you will probably find some evidence about mellor's visit to iraq on google ( i haven't tried but then again i don't need to).

why are you here on hippyland is it to shout down other people??

you would probably be more comfortable on some other forum here or otherwise.

you are only confusing yourself here.

 

What are YOU doing here? Last time I checked, the banner on this site said "400+ Free Speech Forums!!!" Are you uncomfortable with the concept of free speech, and all that it entails?


Maybe you should go somewhere that restricts the freedom of speech a little bit so that your beliefs will go unchallenged. Just a suggestion.

 

What are YOU doing here? Last time I checked, the banner on this site said "400+ Free Speech Forums!!!" Are you uncomfortable with the concept of free speech, and all that it entails?

A conservative endorsing free speech? What's this one been smoking?

 

You guys are both very seriously out of touch.



So I'm a conservative...which means that I don't want the government interfering in my life anymore than they already are, and I don't want to see any more unnecessary laws passed.


How does that make me an enemy of free speech?

 

Maybe you should see a doctor about your acute hysteria and diarrhea of the mouth.

 

I just call it like I see it.


Judging by most every post of yours I've ever seen, it seems all you ever do is flame and make weak attempts to belittle others.

Is there anybody whose opinions you disagreed with that you did not just come right out and insult them immediately and incessantly? Is there ANYBODY on the Christianity forums that you HAVEN'T launched a personal attack against? I think not, Mr. high and mighty.

 

OK. You win.

 

oh i agree with free speech

my main concern is your health

you will only make yourself angry here

all the "facts" of these other people will only make you confused and angry

i frequently come across people peddling rabid support for things that they are unwilling to take part in (the war) or rabid support for countries like israel that they are unwilling to go back to or live in. i don't take these ramblings personally though a lot of people do, i see these people as needing some help that would probably come in the form of a broader selection of readings and some herbal tea.

all the rabid intellectual gobbledegook memorised by these people won't really make them see the light. they need concrete ideas that must remain unquestioned for them to reach the sort of salvation they are seeking. these kinds of forums confuse them. they seek something yet become angry when they discover it which is only normal i suppose.

the truth isn't something memorised to the endth degree it is self evident to the degree that all memorised arguments stumble and fall.

if you want to keep posting here and keep some semblence of sanity you should bear this in mind.

 

And what a victory it was.

 

i would keep these characters on a very short leash if i were you, they intend to "win" by volume not by any rational or reasonable thought. they reincarnate soon enough.

 

I think you better check your account balance, I've seen a couple come back NSF.

 

Funny how the party of torture- the party of wars based on lies- the party of war profiteering and bribery and mass murder- whines when their "freedom" to dump lies and more wars on people is restricted

It must be sheer torture for 'em.

 

A Saddam in Rummy's closet.

http://www.zmag.org/content/showarticle.cfm?SectionID=15&ItemID=2177

.