The U.S. Relationship With Saddam--Fantasy vs. Reality(Must read)

darrenkaplan.net ^ | 1/13/04 | Darren Kaplan

[finnman69]

I find this very imformative and worthy to send to Wacko LW fruitloops.

[vbmoneyspender]

I would like to see the source for the contention that we sold Iraq any conventional weapons during the Iran-Iraq war. There is no source provided in this article for that contention and I don't think it is true. Our hands are clean in that regard. The only contention I have ever heard about us selling conventional weapons to Iraq during the war was that William Casey sued some front company in Chile to sell a small amount of weapons to Hussein, but I have never seen a verified source for that contention/rumor.

[Atlantic Friend]

I don't know...Does saying "we didn't do nothing, because the other guys did much more" satisfy you ? It's like saying Vichy France was not antisemitic at all, because its bad treatment of Jewish people paled when compared to what occured in Nazi Germany...

Well, anyway, whatever the reason was to intervene, the USA did the right thing in toppling Saddam's hateful regime.

[GrandEagle]

read later...

[pragmatic_asian]

Oh please. It's not like our shit is completely odor free.

This is a chart on who sold Iraq conventional weapons and how much: http://projects.sipri.se/armstrade/Trnd_Ind_IRQ_Imps_73-02.pdf

This file is the register of the transfers and licensed production of major conventional weapons to Iraq: http://projects.sipri.se/armstrade/IRQ_IMPRTS_73-02.pdf

All told, we only sold Iraq $200 million dollars worth of conventional weapons and gave them some intelligence. By the time the US had started selling weapons to Saddam, the Soviets had already transfered $14 billions worth of weapons. That played a much greater role in creating Saddam than the US ever did or would do. The leftist idiots who keep saying that the world is a complicated place never really actually do the complex thinking need to analyze it. The simply blame the US, conservatives, religion, etc...

[Hobsonphile]

bump

[ThreeYearLurker]

Also if you look at the detail in the SIPRI reports, you will see that the "weapons" that were sold to Iraq from the US were civilian helicopters that Saddam converted for military use.

[vbmoneyspender]

as previously pointed out, they got civilian helicopters. I guess we do come out smelling pretty clean -- wouldn't you say?

[Yardstick]

Who is SIPRI and are they considered to be a credible source? How possible is it that we delivered weapons to Iraq covertly, like through third parties and that sort of thing, ways that don't show up on these sorts of lists?

I'm just wondering because this looks like good info to wave in the face of kooky leftists and other riff raff and I'd like to make sure it's solid.

[auboy]

Bump

[lainde]

bump

[lainde]

bump

[Democratshavenobrains]

The least the morons at DU could do is acknowledge that the great countries of France and Germany armed and supported Saddam too.

[pragmatic_asian]

SIPRI is the Stockholm International Peace Research Institute based in Sweden. This page explains their methodology: http://projects.sipri.se/armstrade/atmethods.html

"SIPRI uses the term 'transfer' rather than 'trade' since the latter is usually associated with 'sale'. SIPRI covers not only sales of weapons, including manufacturing licences, but also other forms of weapon supply, including aid and gifts.

The transferred weapons must be destined for the armed forces, paramilitary forces or intelligence agencies of another country. Weapons supplied to or from rebel forces in an armed conflict are included as deliveries to or from the individual rebel forces, identified under separate 'recipient' or 'supplier' headings. In cases where deliveries are identified, but where it is not possible to identify either the supplier or the recipient with an acceptable degree of certainty, transfers are registered as coming from 'unknown' suppliers or going to 'unknown' recipients.

Weapons must be transferred voluntarily by the supplier. This includes weapons delivered illegally-without proper authorization by the government of the supplier or recipient country-but excludes captured weapons and weapons obtained through defectors.

The weapons must have a military purpose. Systems such as VIP (very important person) aircraft used mainly for other government branches but registered with and operated by the armed forces are excluded. Weapons supplied for technical or arms procurement evaluation purposes only are not included."

[Dan Evans]

It's funny I've never heard any noises from these people about all the arms we transferred to the USSR during the Stalin years. Did anyone ever say we "created" the Soviet menace?

[RobbyS]

In other words, if we are Frankenstein, ought we not kill the monster we created?

[Yardstick]

*Thanks and bump*

[dhs12345]

People are ignorant. International relationships are transient -- friends become foes and foes become friends and foes who became friends become foes again and over and over again.

We were enemies with the United Kingdom in the past. Now we are allies. We were enemies with Russia (formerly the Soviet Union). Now we are allies (sort of). Etc.

One reason for being "civilized" while at war. Because your foe may be your friend some day.

So goes world history.... History 101.

[RobbyS]

You forgot the example of our wartime alliance with Stalin.Jystifying that, Churchill once said that if Hitler invaded hell, Churchill would at least say a few good words for Satan in the House of Commons.

[Mr. Buzzcut]

Too many facts ... Michael Moore says we made Saddam so it must be true ... ;)