Iraq 10 years after
- Thread starter 804brown
- Start date
There is no conflicting information. THE USA gave Hussein his mustard gas, his saryn gas and biological agents. The record is VERY CLEAR.
Chemical and biological exports[edit]
Iraq purchased 8 strains of anthrax from the United States in 1985, according to British biological weapons expert David Kelly.[27] The Iraqi military settled on the American Type Culture Collection strain 14578 as the exclusive strain for use as a biological weapon, according to Charles Duelfer.[28]
On February 9, 1994, Senator Riegle delivered a report -commonly known at the Riegle Report- in which it was stated that "pathogenic (meaning 'disease producing'), toxigenic (meaning 'poisonous'), and other biological research materials were exported to Iraq pursuant to application and licensing by the U.S. Department of Commerce." It added: "These exported biological materials were not attenuated or weakened and were capable of reproduction."[29]
The report then detailed 70 shipments (including Bacillus anthracis) from the United States to Iraqi government agencies over three years, concluding "It was later learned that these microorganisms exported by the United States were identical to those the UN inspectors found and recovered from the Iraqi biological warfare program."[30]
Donald Riegle, Chairman of the Senate committee that authored the aforementioned Riegle Report, said:
U.N. inspectors had identified many United States manufactured items that had been exported from the United States to Iraq under licenses issued by the Department of Commerce, and [established] that these items were used to further Iraq's chemical and nuclear weapons development and its missile delivery system development programs. ... The executive branch of our government approved 771 different export licenses for sale of dual-use technology to Iraq. I think that is a devastating record.
The U.S. Centers for Disease Control sent Iraq 14 separate agents "with biological warfare significance," according to Riegle's investigators.[31]
Despite the desperate attempts by AV8 to deny the FACTS, its a historical FACT that the USA gave saddam his weapons of mass destruction during the 80's.
Where is the confusion?
TOS.
Nothing conflicting about this...
"The United States exported support for Iraq during the Iran–Iraq war over $500 million worth of dual use exports to Iraq that were approved by the Commerce department. Among them were advanced computers, some of which were used in Iraq's nuclear program.[35] The non-profit American Type Culture Collection and the Centers for Disease Control sold or sent biological samples of anthrax, West Nile virus and botulism to Iraq up until 1989, which Iraq claimed it needed for medical research. A number of these materials were used for Iraq's biological weapons research program, while others were used for vaccine development.[36][dead link] For example, the Iraqi military settled on the American Type Culture Collection strain 14578 as the exclusive anthrax strain for use as a biological weapon, according to Charles Duelfer.[37]
In the late 1980s, the British government secretly gave the arms company Matrix Churchill permission to supply parts for Saddam Hussein's weapons program, while British Industry supplied Gerald Bull as he developed the Iraqi supergun. In March 1990, a case of nuclear triggers bound for Iraq, were seized at Heathrow Airport. The Scott Report uncovered much of the secrecy that had surrounded the Arms-to-Iraq affair when it became known.[38] The British government also financed a chlorine factory that was intended to be used for manufacturing mustard gas.[39]""
BrownArmy
Well-Known Member
It's commonly reported that we supplied Iraq with chemical weapons in the 1980's.
Is that incorrect?
Only asking because I don't know.
Our complaining about Syria using gas against civilians is really undermined by our own participation in the use of chemical weapons by Saddam Hussein.
We provided him the means to carry this out, he did it, he killed thousands of people and our country shares the reponsibility.
As is the always the case. Our country creates the monsters it always wants to attack in later years.
TOS.
We provided him the means to carry this out, he did it, he killed thousands of people and our country shares the reponsibility.
As is the always the case. Our country creates the monsters it always wants to attack in later years.
TOS.
wkmac
Well-Known Member
Enabled would likely be the more correct term. However there were American companies who were directly involved per the NY Times piece among others so depending on how one sees that and understanding the US Gov't role in foreign trade, depends on how one defines that role.
There were earlier CIA connections to the rise of the Bathists so one questions without the US could or would the Iraqis be able to hold off the Iranians. The US policy makers at the time seems to me in action indicated they could not.
av8torntn
Well-Known Member
yes incorrect
The buildings they were manufactured in are well known. The buildings many of the munitions were stored in also was well know.
Designed in the USA, paid for by USA, manufactured in Iraq using US and European technology.
Yes. The shells themselves were made in the USA. The technology was provided by the US and/or EU partners. Iraq was not capable to do this on their own at the time. The shells were filled in Iraq in factories we gave them blueprints for.
The important thing, and the point that some are missing is, all the chemical weapons were ones we helped build prior to 1991, and were no longer usable as intended. Could you take a mustard gas shell and rig it to an IED? Yes, if it didn't disintegrate in your arms before hand. Could you fire a mustard gas/sarin shell from a weapon as intended? Nope.
Not a WMD, just a discarded, dangerous shell, like the ones still popping up in Europe from WWI.
Last edited:
Panin,
he will never admit that BUSH was wrong, no matter how many facts you throw at him. He is delusional when it comes to both wars.
They were all justified in his mind, no matter if we had a legitimate cause or not.
"we are murricah" and thats all that matters to him.
TOS.
av8torntn
Well-Known Member
Troll
Why don't you offer up some evidence that the US supplied Iraq with WMD's? You clearly have the desire to blame "murricah" so go ahead and bring some facts. Hopefully it's more than we sold them a 1980's computer and some non military bacteria to their ministry of education.
Dude, I have no interest in pandering to your stupidity. You want to believe BUSH was righteous for invading two countries and you also want to deny the truth about reagan.
The record speaks for itself.
TOS.
The USA during the Reagan administration were so "dirty" and up to there necks in assisting Hussein with weapons and chemicals, but thats not all.. How about helicopters that were used to spray chemical agents on the kurds??
"Conventional military sales resumed in December 1982. In 1983, the Reagan administration approved the sale of 60 Hughes helicopters to Iraq in 1983 "for civilian use". However, as Phythian pointed out, these aircraft could be "weaponised" within hours of delivery. Then US Secretary of State George Schultz and commerce secretary George Baldridge also lobbied for the delivery of Bell helicopters equipped for "crop spraying". It is believed that US-supplied choppers were used in the 1988 chemical attack on the Kurdish village of Halabja, which killed 5000 people."
AS I told you before. Educate yourself. A good read.
http://www.counterpunch.org/2004/06/17/how-reagan-armed-saddam-with-chemical-weapons/
TOS.
"Conventional military sales resumed in December 1982. In 1983, the Reagan administration approved the sale of 60 Hughes helicopters to Iraq in 1983 "for civilian use". However, as Phythian pointed out, these aircraft could be "weaponised" within hours of delivery. Then US Secretary of State George Schultz and commerce secretary George Baldridge also lobbied for the delivery of Bell helicopters equipped for "crop spraying". It is believed that US-supplied choppers were used in the 1988 chemical attack on the Kurdish village of Halabja, which killed 5000 people."
AS I told you before. Educate yourself. A good read.
http://www.counterpunch.org/2004/06/17/how-reagan-armed-saddam-with-chemical-weapons/
TOS.
Reagan was such a good financial planner with US Taxpayer dollars. He didnt like "welfare" according to our conservative friends who believe that crap...
Sounds like Reagan was really into welfare, welfare for dictators that it is...
"Washington offered this aid initially to prevent Hussein’s overthrow as the Iraqi people began to complain about the food shortages caused by the massive diversion of hard currency for the purchase of weapons and ammunition. The loan guarantees amounted to a massive US subsidy that allowed Hussein to launch his overt and covert arms buildup, one result being that the Iran-Iraq war entered a bloody five-year stalemate."
TOS.
Sounds like Reagan was really into welfare, welfare for dictators that it is...
"Washington offered this aid initially to prevent Hussein’s overthrow as the Iraqi people began to complain about the food shortages caused by the massive diversion of hard currency for the purchase of weapons and ammunition. The loan guarantees amounted to a massive US subsidy that allowed Hussein to launch his overt and covert arms buildup, one result being that the Iran-Iraq war entered a bloody five-year stalemate."
TOS.
Another example of REAGANS fine handling of US taxpayer dollars..
"By the end of 1983, US$402 million in agriculture department loan guarantees for Iraq were approved. In 1984, this increased to $503 million and reached $1.1 billion in 1988. Between 1983 and 1990, CCC loan guarantees freed up more than $5 billion. Some $2 billion in bad loans, plus interest, ended up having to be covered by US taxpayers."
TOS.
"By the end of 1983, US$402 million in agriculture department loan guarantees for Iraq were approved. In 1984, this increased to $503 million and reached $1.1 billion in 1988. Between 1983 and 1990, CCC loan guarantees freed up more than $5 billion. Some $2 billion in bad loans, plus interest, ended up having to be covered by US taxpayers."
TOS.
av8torntn
Well-Known Member
Troll
So your answer to my question is no? That's about what I figured it would be.
Similar threads
