No WMDs - and no program to develop WMDs either.

Falstaff

I think it remains within the context of any discussion about WMD to consider why we were involved in the first place. Even before Saddam, there was the support for the overthrow of the previous power in IRAQ with indirect CIA support for an emerging Baath party. But until 1979 IRAQ received support from Europe and Soviet bloc countries. In fact until 1979, our support was for the Shah of IRAN. The the revolution changed everything. It cost Carter his presidency in my opinion, when elite forces collided in the desert, and the world saw the operation unravel on television. We supplied satellite data to IRAQ for artillery plotting, they in turn exploited that data for chemical weapons attacks. This continued even while we maintained neutrality under Reagen, albeit briefly. Our foreign policy made it easy for IRAQ to receive aid from the U.S. but the volume is in dispute here. Our support was supposed to keep IRAN from completely overwhelming IRAQ, and we were successful because it all occurred in the disputed border with IRAN/IRAQ. We gave IRAQ billions of dollars in credit for weaponry from the U.S. but are there any numbers to speak of? Can we quantify accurately the volume that was sent there, this is what we know now: In late 1983, Reagan secretly allowed Jordan, Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, Egypt, to transfer US weapons to Iraq; Reagan also asked the Italian prime minister to channel arms to Iraq. After Rumsfelds visit, we knew that Saddam was using CW on Iranian troops. We continued to provide military advice and limited support while we watched him build his chemical weapons infrastructure. In 1985 we gave IRAQ sensitive satellite data for tactical use. But we knew that Saddam was building missiles to deliver the CW. In 1985 IRAQ received cultures to create bio weapons from the U.S. Reagen authorized a program to help IRAQ extend the range of SKUD missiles to deliver significantly higher yield warheads, and that program as know now was successful. Even as the UN condemned the use of CW in IRAQ, we became closer economically with IRAQ and enjoyed a generous benefit in oil production. However the U.S. recognized the threat and also condemned the production when the CIA learned of the massive program underway in IRAQ. When banks all over the world would not loan Saddam anymore money, we did. Saddam used the money to develop dual use weapons to deliver CW or potential physics packages for atomic weapons in the future. We supported along with French and Russia, nuclear research that would eventually enable the production of fissionable weapons grade material (breeder reactors). Our greatest error was even though the world balked at the idea of supporting Iraq's missile and CW programs, the elder Bush accepted guarantees from Saddam that it was for civilian use. In October, international banks cut off all loans to Iraq. The Bush administration responded by issuing National Security Directive 26, which mandated closer links with Iraq, and included a $1 billion loan guarantee. This loan guarantee freed up cash for Iraq to buy and develop WMDs. This directive was suspended only on August 2, 1990, the day Iraq invaded Kuwait. Between July 18 and August 1 (the day before the invasion), the Bush Administration approved $4.8 million in advanced technology sales to Iraq's weapons ministry and to weapons labs that were known to have worked on biological, chemical and nuclear weapons.
Regardless of the arguments for or against Bush, this is a clear indication of the intention of Saddam to continue to develope and implement WMD on a large scale.

BluntmaN

But the story goes on. After the invasion and Iraqs defeat the Sanctions imposed on Iraq made the development of such weapons imposible and although there are evidence that Saddam managed to aquire enough enriched plutonium from African producers to create a nuclear bomb which he tested underground there are no strong evidence that he managed to develop a nuclear program. Above all when Saddam's regime was attacked by the US and the coalition he did not use any of the weapons he alledgetly possesed(although this can be atributed in that he wanted support by the non-coalition forces). Now a few months after the fall of the regime the Iraqi WMDs are nowhere to be found. Most reports that have now seen the light talk about his will to aquire WMDs but seriously question the widely circulated belief (by the coalition)that he had WMD and was capable of using them. Finally nowadays Bush's and Blair's image stands greatly damaged after statements made by both that said the WMD evidence were uncovered. Blair said that in an interview and was dissproved by Iraqs current goverment. While Bush stated in the state of the union speach that evidence were found based on the Key report and later on was proven wrong by the author of the report who said that WMD were unlikely to exist. Blair has changed his opinion in the matter saying now that there is a good chance that WMD will never be found while Bush insists that they ll be found. Which brings us back to the current issue at hand were they knowingly lying to us and if so what should be done to punish them. Politicians lie all the time this is not the problem but sometimes their lies are just to big to be allowed. Do not forget that Clinton lied about a blow job and 90% of the country was appauled. If Bush did lie about WMDs and led the US forces in a war that did not have to happen (at least not at that particular time since weapons inspectors were in Iraq working hours before the invasion with Blix asking more time) causing 80 coffins a month to be shiped to US at some point, should we fry him Texas style?

raid517

Well Jeff I'll let it lie. But clearly your comments about 'American neutrality' during the Iran/Iraq war at are the very best extremely misguided.

As for what a lot of those loans were for, well I don't specifically recall Saddam stating he wanted money to build WMDs. And even if he did (which is pretty crazy to even consider) and your government agreed to support him, then they were probably more insane than he was.

And anyway you are again mixing up your historical timeline. Whether he actually had anything in 1991 or not (which is doubtful) he almost certainly didn't have any after then. As has been pointed out here before, the UN sanctions proved highly effective in their capacity to slowly strangle all the military and economic resources out of the country that he would need in order to produce them.

Did he have intentions to produce them prior to 1991? Possibly - but you are implying that this was with US support and encouragement. Did he have plans/intentions/goals or even as Bush puts it, 'programs' to develop them after 1991? Well that's debatable. But the guy who Bush appointed to find them now says that there were no such programs.

Should we go out and invade every country who may have once had unfriendly feelings towards us?

If so, why not have a go at Russia? After all they once threatened to annihilate us and spread the doctrine of Global communism throughout the world.

If we were to punish everyone for their past intentions, I'm pretty sure you and I and just about everyone else in this world would be locked up for life right now.

It is a pretty damn screwy way to administer justice.

GJ

Falstaff

whether saddam wanted the money for WMD programs or not, Reagen and Bush senior certainly knew that the issue of neutrality was moot, in fact the Israeli's and the Iranians knew that it wasn't worth the paper it was typed on, but it might very well have gone on if Saddam hadn't invaded Kuwait. Two different camps and two different schools of thought came to the same conclusion, bad money, bad judgement and misguided support could allow IRAQ to become a military monster if nothing was done
. I am not mixing up any historical time line, it speaks for itself. Bush Jr. and perhaps Clinton suspected WMD based on their intelligence, and based on the kind of support we gave IRAQ. It is necessary to put this all into perspective. Three or perhaps four presidents cultivated a relationship with IRAN/IRAQ/KUWAIT/SAUDI ARABIA/OMAN UAE, etc... to ensure that a constant flow of oil came from the middle east. To be fair, we spread our support all over the middle east to try to even the odds so to speak in as much as some countries were on the brink of conflict with their neighbors. Our relationship with Israel didn't help matters but it was tolerated. We are paying customers, and we loan money and we have resources that are useful.
You spoke of numbers that you can produce to validate your point, I don't doubt that you can at all, but we many never really know the total amount of support by any one country to IRAQ by us or by the combined interests of other countries.
I submit that Bush, in the wake of 9/11 and the war with the Tali-ban, chose to eliminate the only other threat in the region besides IRAN, Saddam Hussein and his regime. I do not question the notion that WMD will never be found, we are still finding bodies and equipment buried in the sand. Suffice to say, I am glad that WMD were not used and Saddam's programs never advanced beyond research regardless of what the early intelligence said. The one thing that is abundantly clear is that Saddam was going to research, build and use WMD at some point during the last 12 years but circumstances were in our favor. It will take years and perhaps generations to right the wrongs that were commited by past terms by our presidents. The world is changing and this kind of brinksmenship is outdated.

bluelight

Usa has never ever been neutral in the mideast or in North Africa.

Usa´s politics has always been a constant jumping between those that would do as expected while beating on those that did not.

That is also the one and only reason Usa has 100 percent support for Israel.If it wasnt for the strategic importance of Israel they wouldnt have bothered.

Usa was partially responsible for Saddams way to power.Just as they were with Khadaffy (who finally has come home to daddy again)

Usa and Great Britain was responsible for removing the democratic requiem in Iran in the 50 ties led by the non comminst prime minister Mossadeq.

His crime was to nationalise the oil that righteously belonged to Iran.

Of course by installing The Shah order was restored.Within this lies the answer as to why more than 400 American were held as hostages in 78.

Usa also helped Iran organize one of the worst intelligence organisations ever in Iran whi used torture and murder as a normalmeans of working.

One of their methods was called "The frying pan"..I will not go into,detail about it.

Helpful in organising this "Intelligence organisation was Norman Swartzkopfs father who tye worled for the CIA.

I assume he did so with respectful distance from the torture chambers.

Khomeiny....who eventually was the man that got the Shah on his kness...had his oldest som murdered b this intelligence in the beginning of the sixties in order to scare Khomeiny into silence and to stop his (At the time) peaceful resistance against the Shah.

Didnt work out that way did it?




All of this can be read in the internationally acknowledged POlish Journalist Richard Kapucinski`s book "Shah of the Sha´s.

Kapucinsky is not a communist probably not even on the left side so dont bother with that argument.

My guess that after having covered conflicts all over the world but mostly in Africa for more than 30 years...he has become immune...to ALL politics.


I wish i was too but as far as im concerned Usa is and has been a superpower and it acts accordingly.

Like the Romans..Like Attila..No more no less.

Human nature maybe...

Bluelight

raid517

Well personally I think you should call a thing for what it is Jeff. Iraq was on the republican itinerary for a long time, for probably many reasons - very few of which had anything at all to do with WMDs.

America had looked weak for some time, even after the first Gulf war in 1991 there was much criticism that America's efforts throughout this period looked at best half hearted. Coupled with the various attacks against American interests (such as the first WTC attack and the attack on the USS Cole) it seemed that America had a soft underbelly - and so a belief began to emerge that America should reposition itself front and center as the world's premier military power.

Now my Dad always told me that the best way to get on at school if I was ever given any trouble was to look for the toughest boy in the school I could find - and by fair means of foul - beat the living crap out of him. That way I would gain a certain amount of respect and others would learn to leave me alone.

What we have seen here then is little more than an exercise in playground politics. Those who were concerned that the world was no longer taking America seriously decided to look around for someone that they could beat up - in order to regain their standing in the world. They were sensitive to the criticism that Afghanistan was a soft target and therefore settled on Iraq.

Now there was all the other associated benefits, like the ability to gain influence (if not control) over Middle Eastern oil, the securing of Israel's borders, the settling of old scores - so you can see from the limited perspective of perhaps a Cowboy's brain how this might all have seemed like a win win situation.

After all, once it was all over, the Iraqis would be throwing flowers at the feet of wherever American soldiers walked, right?

Yeah... Right...

I can understand all this, but I do not think for a second that Bush or any of his cronies ever really gave much thought to the cost. (And I don't mean just in terms of money). It is my view that you have in fact lost much more than you have won - and that many Americans will sooner or later come to realize the true cost of your President's short sighted ambitions.

GJ

digerati

Don't you dare patronize me again. I wasn't talking about the Kuwait war. The Kuwait war came after the Iranian war, but if he could do no wrong in our eyes then why did we fight him? Shouldn't we have offered to sell him more weapons if we were best friends? What happened? If we were best friends then why did Russia sell them weapons and we didn't? If we were best friends and all.

raid517

Dude I will let you know when you are being patronized. Indeed I will hire a billboard and write it up in big letters for you.

As for the rest - ah what the hey, you believe what you want to believe. I am old enough to remember a lot of these things. Maybe once and a while you could stop reading so many comic books and try reading a real history book. There is only one thing worse than redefining past misdemeanors - and that is to deny they ever happened at all.

GJ

digerati

That answered nothing. You're talking about Republican ties with Iraq and us being the best of friends, so what changed that? It was Bush senior that went into Iraq the first time, and was it because Iraq invaded Kuwait? Wouldn't that make Kuwait our best friends?

Falstaff

I believe the remark regarding IRAQ being on the republican agenda is barely touching the surface of the real issue. IRAQ had by 1999, graduated to the worlds agenda. The contempt that Saddam demonstrated for Coalition forces even after an agreement to abide by no fly zones, indicated that hostility would continue until it was brought to a bitter conclusion. Perhaps many of the hawks of the American government would have pursued Saddam to his palaces and captured or destroyed him, but it was a hand we could not play at that time. The Coalition partners at that time all benefited from the experience, and exercised power that demonstrated their resolve to push IRAQ back across a border from which it had no right to cross. I believe that if Saddam hadn't invaded Kuwait, his weapons programs would have been accelerated to the point that he could launch heavier missiles into Israel or any other neighbor. Clandestine support by the soviets and the French and Chinese and N. Koreans would have easily made that possible, since their weapon technology was far superior to anything in Iraq's arsenal. Buried or burnt, stockpiles of chemical weapons remain to be found and perhaps never will, but evidence of the research and the manufacture makes the issue relevant. The perception that America was weak before the first gulf war might be valid on many levels. The Navy was due to be strengthened. The air force was recovering from the Carter administration. The Army was long overdue for an overhaul of weapons systems, training and a thinning of the ranks. But I also blame that on the Carter administration. Remember, the invasion of Kuwait was followed by a huge buildup, a massive intelligence effort, An unprecedented coalition of Muslim and non Muslim nations to wield power in a politically and economically sensitive region. Pres. Bush demanded that Saddam leave Kuwait, demanded for reparations, demanded for a return to the pre invasion borders and the restoration of the power back to Kuwait. Saddam balked and postured like an amateur boxer on fight night. I don't disagree with the notion that the whole conflict can be rationalized as playground politics, but much more was at stake here than a chip on ones shoulder. An Allie of the United States asked for help and we answered the call, and we push IRAQ back well beyond the borders of their nation and rubbed their noses into the sand. Did we know of atrocities within Iraq's borders and did we know about crimes against his own people by a megalomaniacs leader of a rogue nation, yes we did. But we took it no further than the original goal we planned for. There was considerable skepticism why we never followed Saddam to his death or usurped his power, another blunder occurred, the Shia people rose up expecting the U.S. military to support them and like the Bay of Pigs, the rebel Iraqis were rounded up and systematically shot or buried in the desert. That is the most troubling legacy of the first Gulf War. I believe that the last incursion into IRAQ was not only to remove Saddam, which the entire world will benefit from, but it was clean the slate, erase with bomb and machine gun bullet, the misjudgments and sinister alliances that had sealed the fate of IRAQ. For our fate was inexorably intertwined with Iraq's from the first overture of support that we gave Saddam.
A collision course was set, when we ignored him, and looked the other way while he murdered his people, built his weapons and planned more diabolical plans. It is no exaggeration to say that Saddam was evil, and his legacy is built upon the blood of his people. But his legacy lives on in blood, for we are still rooting out his nest of vipers, enduring the insults of the IRAQ people, and attempting to get a culture of guns and bloodshed and tribal rivalries to come together for one common goal, democracy.

GutterPunk

good call, I agree with most that gj jeff

Roadee

I am just curious here. Who in this discussion honestly believes that there were NO WMD in 1990/1991? And please......just a simple YES or NO......no explanations needed or "buts"......just a straight answer please.

Thank you!

Falstaff

I was there.....
we knew about WMD
and we saw the evidence of CW
We buried CW in the desert
We saw the missle delivery systems
the IRAQs possess fissionable material

raid517

Sure there was WMDs in 1991. He got the cash to buy them from the US - and concequently gassed the Kurds with them. But I pretty much believe they got trashed as part of the UN sactions and weapons inspections from 1991 onwards.

Anybody saying America and Iraq weren't alies prior to 1991 is just deluded and seriously not worth debating with.

Like I said, don't come to me and bitch about it. Read your history books, they will tell you all you need to know.

GJ

digerati

It's obvious we had dealings with Saddamn before 91. But the thing is I don't like your definition of best buddies, because best buddies would mean us and Iraq/Saddamn would still be together and have dealings together, something drove us apart, now what was it?

raid517

OIL!

Roadee

Raid.......is it possible for you to just give a single word answer? And I dont see where anyone came to you bitching about anything......quite the contrary that is your department.....and no one wants your job

raid517

For a single word answer see above.

Your question was loaded anyway. It was obvious the next question would be, "well if he had them in '91 then why couldn't he have had them now?" Just one problem with that, your chief weapons inspector (or should that be 'witchfinder general') says he didn't.

GJ

Roadee

Sorry......but we didn't bury it......I was there as well. We attached C4 and other HE substances and blew it up like idiots........and in some cases burned it. and because those were the orders that the combat engineers were given by the CIA and Central Command........and the results weren't very good.

Roadee

Raid....never assume what I am going to say.......because you will be wrong every single time. I asked that question because I seen it mentioned earlier in the thread that there was doubt that there was any WMD in 90/91.....and I know from first hand experience that this was false. I just simply wanted to know what everyone thought. Nothing more......and nothing less. Maybe you should make the switch to de-caff??

raid517

Well I'm only pointing out that it was a foregone conclusion that he had them. I mean I saw the gassed Kurds on TV just like everyone else.

GJ