Posted on 08/11/2002 3:04:04 PM PDT by Kaafi
The United States has acknowledged that Israel obtained far more intelligence information on Iraq's weapons of mass destruction program.
U.S. officials said Israel's Mossad knew more about Iraq's nuclear weapons program throughout the late 1970s and 1980s. The officials said the CIA acknowledged this after the 1991 Gulf war, Middle East Newsline reported.
Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld said the Israeli intelligence superiority led to the decision by the Jewish state to destroy Iraq's Osirak reactor in 1981. At the time, the Reagan administration deplored the Israeli strike and withheld weapons shipments to Israel.
"It is damn lucky that the Israelis took out the Iraqi nuclear capability when they did because they were years ahead of our best estimates, as we found out in Desert Storm [in 1991]," Rumsfeld said on Aug. 2.
After the Gulf war, U.S. officials said Iraq was about a year away from completing its nuclear weapons programs. They said this disproved previous assessments that Baghdad was nearly a decade away from nuclear bombs.
The U.S. officials said Rumsfeld and other senior members of the Bush administration have adopted the Israeli model in their policy toward Iraq. Last month, President George Bush warned that the United States would adopt a policy of preemptive strikes against countries that are building a weapons of mass destruction program.
Rumsfeld's assertion regarding Israeli intelligence comes as U.S. officials said Iraq has accelerated efforts to purchase equipment required for producing fuel for nuclear weapons. The Washington Times quoted Bush administration officials as saying that Iraqi agents were trying to purchase stainless-steel tubing used in gas centrifuges. The tubing is regarded as a key component in producing the material for nuclear weapons.
Rumsfeld said rogue states can develop nuclear weapons much quicker than during the Cold War. He said much of the equipment required is dual use, which can deceive the international community.
"I mean biologicals can be done in mobile vans," Rumsfeld said. "It isn't like it takes an underground city and billions of dollars to do this. It's doable."
In Jerusalem, Israeli Prime Minister Ariel Sharon is said to have relayed a message to Washington that the Jewish state will respond to any Iraqi missile attack. Sharon has ordered military commanders to draft preparations for any Iraqi missile barrage and a military response.
The Israeli Yediot Aharonot daily reported on Friday that Israel's mlitary has accelerated missile defense preparations over the last week.
This has included the launching of plans to deploy a second Arrow-2 missile defense battery east of the coastal city of Hadera. Another Arrow battery has already been deployed in an air force base in southern Israel.
"It is damn lucky that the Israelis took out the Iraqi nuclear capability when they did because they were years ahead of our best estimates, as we found out in Desert Storm [in 1991]," Rumsfeld said on Aug. 2.
MAn, why in the world do we "support" Israel. Dang!
If Israel retaliates against Iraq, Saudia Arabia would then be expected to attack Israel.
The Israel can take out Saudia Arabia, America's no. 1 enemy (15 of the 19 - 911 terrorists were from Saudia Arabia).
My own guess is that one will be the Hejaz, a long narrow Chile-of-a-country running down the Red Sea coast in the West. This could conceivably just be annexed to Jordan, which touches it in the north, but IMH the USA would need to annex for itself a little bit there to keep the two physically separated, even if both were to be placed under the Hashemite dynasty.
The other is the remains of the country. Perhaps signif parts could be given to Oman, Yemen, UAE, etc. but there would remain an Eastern Province of shi-ites to be dealt with; that had better just be an outright US puppet with the oil fields.
This leaves the Nejd, the central inland desert around Riyadh. Could you leave the Saudis in power there, or should it go with one of the other two main halves? Or should it just be Bedouinized and sent back to the seventh century?
Saudis are not dumb enough to attack Israel. Syria is, though.
I really wish these people could decide on a story and stick to it; first he is too stupid to get out of bed; next, he is so crafty and cunning, he is going to take over the world; next, he is too stupid to pronounce big words; next, he is so sly, he was pulling the wool over everyone's eyes with complex business dealings; next, he is the goofy frat-boy, not ready for complex issues; now, he is the elitist, trying to make himself seem one of the guys.
22 posted on 8/11/02 3:46 PM Eastern by Paul Atreides
From Iraqgate: Saddam Hussein, U.S. Policy and the Prelude to the Persian Gulf War, 1980-1994
Some have called Iraqgate-related criticism of the Reagan and Bush administrations spurious, discounting allegations that the U.S. provided arms to Iraq during the Iran-Iraq war for instance, and declaring untrue or unprovable charges that specific officials were engaged in illegal activities. As late as the beginning of 1995, the facts of the U.S.-Iraq relationship were still very much a matter of public dispute. In January 1995 the Clinton administration released the Hogan report, a review of the Iraqgate affair, which reported finding no evidence to prove that the U.S. provided weapons to Baghdad. While defenders of the two previous administrations would like this to be seen as final proof that Iraqgate allegations were groundless, ongoing investigations have continued. For example, shortly after the Hogan report’s release, former NSC official Howard Teicher submitted an affidavit as part of a trial involving allegations of export law violations. In that affidavit he indicated that during the Iran-Iraq war high-level CIA officers ensured that Iraq was provided with weapons, including cluster bombs, pursuant to a National Security Decision Directive signed by Ronald Reagan authorizing U.S. military resupply of Iraq.
Questions about illegal acts and about U.S. arming of Iraq, however, were only one aspect of larger overall concerns raised by the Iraqgate affair. Questions about policy itself were at least as critical. The Reagan administration was clearly committed to providing Iraq with assistance in those areas where it was needed most. This included helping it to cope with its increasingly severe economic difficulties, and supplying it with intelligence information, apparently throughout the course of (and after) the Iran-Iraq war. Iraqgate inquiries focused on the U.S. commitment to protecting and expanding relations with a dictatorial and oppressive regime. At the very least, this commitment included providing high technology, and committing the funds of U.S. taxpayers to guarantee financial assistance for a recipient with exceedingly dubious economic prospects.
Critics of U.S. policy toward Iraq during the Reagan and Bush administrations charged that it was based on short-term calculations, a commitment to a risky economic relationship, and the mistaken belief that Iraq could be persuaded to adopt policies compatible with U.S. objectives. Instead of addressing these criticisms, both presidents chose a path which simply reinforced existing policy choices. When the Bush administration confronted reports of widespread abuse by Iraqi officials of U.S. government-backed programs in late 1989, for example, its response was to ensure that an additional $1 billion in credit guarantees would be authorized in 1990. When concerns were expressed both within and outside the administration that Iraq’s purchases of U.S. technology were destined for its nuclear and other nonconventional weapons programs, the White House dismissed them in favor of continued efforts to increase exports and protect the U.S.-Iraqi economic relationship.
What do you mean "sent back". Other than a bit of techological shell, I don't think they ever left the seventh century.
I'm sure the author could point out which US weapons the Iraqies deployed against us in the Persian Gulf War, part I. They had Soviet weapons, Chinese weapons and of course French weapons, but I don't recall any US weapons. Surely they didn't use them all up on the Iranians and Kurds?
I read somewhere (if my memory isn't totally shot) that when Reagan first heard of the Israeli strike on the Iraqi reactor, he laughed and said, "Boys will be boys."
Yes, where are the people who say we should not help Israel in any way? How come they are nowhere to be found on these kind of threads?
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.