DoD Report Appears to Confirm Downing Street Memo

[tryreading]

We supported both sides of the Iraq/Iran war, we wanted it to end with no one being the victor.

You have said this before with no proof in response to the information I posted, which you know is correct. This is what we did for Saddam Hussein:


1. Supported him financially in his military effort against Iran
http://www.gwu.edu/~nsarchiv/NSAEBB/NSAEBB82/iraq33.pdf

2. Gave him satellite intelligence in this war

3. Provided loan guarantees when he needed money to continue his war

4. Supplied him military equipment
http://www.gwu.edu/~nsarchiv/NSAEBB/NSAEBB82/iraq15.pdf
http://www.gwu.edu/~nsarchiv/NSAEBB/NSAEBB82/iraq20.pdf
http://www.gwu.edu/~nsarchiv/NSAEBB/NSAEBB82/iraq44.pdf
(Actually we made efforts to end the sale of military equipment to Iran by western countries, and that doesn't sound like support: http://www.gwu.edu/~nsarchiv/NSAEBB/NSAEBB82/iraq38.pdf )

5. Supported his war even though we knew he was using chemical weapons on the Iranians
http://www.gwu.edu/~nsarchiv/NSAEBB/NSAEBB82/iraq24.pdf

6. Supported his war knowing he used chemical weapons on the Kurds
http://www.gwu.edu/~nsarchiv/NSAEBB/NSAEBB82/iraq25.pdf

7. We removed him - now this should be read twice - from our list of terrorist nations
http://www.gwu.edu/~nsarchiv/NSAEBB/NSAEBB82/iraq13.pdf

8. We even fought to stop a resolution condemning Iraq for the violation of human rights by using chemical weapons on people
http://www.gwu.edu/~nsarchiv/NSAEBB/NSAEBB82/iraq47.pdf

Since you are saying we supported both sides, please provide links proving we did the above for Iran. You have made the claim many times, but never showed any facts.

 

[Trajan Octavian Titus]

All the reports indicate you are FOS!

So drop this bogus argument! You don't have a leg to stand on. You're just lying to the world. But I'm not surprised. Irresponsible people say irresponsible things.

Wow Carl Levin said something to diminish the findings of Feith and the administration? Holy ****, you've hit one out of the park this time Billo. :roll:

 

[Trajan Octavian Titus]

You have said this before with no proof in response to the information I posted, which you know is correct. This is what we did for Saddam Hussein.

Bullshit revisionist history, we supplied Saddam with .5% of foreign arms sales from 1973-1990, mainly consisting of dual use material which was converted for military application after we sold them to him, the bulk of his weapons came from the French and the Soviets; furthermore, while we did supply him with dual use chemicals which had legitimate civilian applications and which were totally legal under international law the Germans and the French provided him with the technological expertise to convert those legal and benign chemicals into illegal and deadly WMD.

 

[Stinger]

You have said this before with no proof in response to the information I posted, which you know is correct.

We supported BOTH sides not wanting either one to win, you know that is correct.

 

[Trajan Octavian Titus]

.5% of what? Our total arms export? Were the biggest arms dealer in the world. Over $400 million per year!

We supplied .5% of Saddam's foreign arms between 1973 and 1990 the bulk of his weapons came from France and the Soviet Union.

 

[Billo_Really]

Originally posted by TOT:
Wow Carl Levin said something to diminish the findings of Feith and the administration? Holy ****, you've hit one out of the park this time Billo.

Feith committed treason!

 

[tryreading]

Ya let's, we supplied .5% of foreign weapons to Saddam between 1973 and 1990 mostly consisting of dual use equipment that was converted for military use after we sold it to him, the bulk of his weapons were supplied by the Soviets and the French.

Just so you know, any equipment that we supplied to Hussein during his war was dual use, not intended for military use, nudge nudge, wink wink.

One reason he wanted new helicopters was because his military pilots were getting dosed from their own chemicals in the choppers they had. So we sold him choppers which could not, repeat could not be fitted for military use, nudge wink.

The 2,000 heavy trucks we sold him were not for military use...

I bet we never helped him get any Soviet equipment or parts, like by selling other countries our tanks and parts so those countries could sell Hussein their Soviet stuff.

How much was the intelligence we gave him worth? How much were the satellite images worth? When Reagan removed Iraq from our list of terrorist nations so Hussein could trade with us, how much was that worth? This strategic military information must have been 'dual use' too, right? (wink wink)

 

[Billo_Really]

Originally Posted by Stinger
We supported both sides of the Iraq/Iran war, we wanted it to end with no one being the victor.

This is how detached you are from reality! That war occurred AFTER the hostage crisis. How the f_ck do you get off thinking we would do anything to support that regime after they held our countryman for 444 days?

 

[tryreading]

We supported BOTH sides not wanting either one to win, you know that is correct.

No proof again. Prove your point or why not slip over to another thread where there are no facts to get in the way of your claims?

 

[tryreading]

Bullshit revisionist history, we supplied Saddam with .5% of foreign arms sales from 1973-1990, mainly consisting of dual use material which was converted for military application after we sold them to him, the bulk of his weapons came from the French and the Soviets; furthermore, while we did supply him with dual use chemicals which had legitimate civilian applications and which were totally legal under international law the Germans and the French provided him with the technological expertise to convert those legal and benign chemicals into illegal and deadly WMD.

Right. The chemical weapon precursors were for peaceful use, and could not, repeat could not be used for military applications. Unless Hussein happened to be able to get the other ingredient from somebody else, of course...

I have provided Reagan administration documents to prove my point, so I guess you are calling his facts bullshit.

 

[tryreading]

Nor did the US Intel Community.

It seems it was just folks like TOT and Stinger who hav been astute enough to find such a relationship.

Yeah, they are way ahead of the curve on this one. I sense intelligence from them - alternate intelligence.

 

[Stinger]

How much was the intelligence we gave him worth? How much were the satellite images worth?

About as much as the info we supplied to the Iranians.

We were neutral, we didn't want Saddam or the Iranians to prevail over the other.

 

[Stinger]

Yeah, they are way ahead of the curve on this one.

Actually it's in the historical recored we unvail more and more each day. I think you must be behind that curve.

Now have you have your does of the personal invective. Stay with facts and evidenc.

 

[Trajan Octavian Titus]

Right. The chemical weapon precursors were for peaceful use, and could not, repeat could not be used for military applications.

They had legitimate civilian applications.

Unless Hussein happened to be able to get the other ingredient from somebody else, of course...

Or unless they got the technological expertise from the Germans and the French. Furthermore; we sold him far less chemicals than most countries.

 

[tryreading]

About as much as the info we supplied to the Iranians.

We were neutral, we didn't want Saddam or the Iranians to prevail over the other.

Show me the intelligence, equipment, loan guarantees, chemical weapon precursors, trade assistance, and political friendship you say we gave Iran.

Because we sure gave these things to Iraq.

Show some proof. I've asked you for a link several times. Its getting comical.

 

[tryreading]

They had legitimate civilian applications.



Or unless they got the technological expertise from the Germans and the French. Furthermore; we sold him far less chemicals than most countries.

They also had legitimate military applications. The products weren't lettuce, or rice, or the materials for making brick, or other materials that have no military use. They were military weapons.

We sold him less chemical weapons than most countries? I sure feel better about it now.

 

[Stinger]

Show me the intelligence, equipment, loan guarantees, chemical weapon precursors, trade assistance, and political friendship you say we gave Iran.

Because we sure gave these things to Iraq.

Show some proof. I've asked you for a link several times. Its getting comical.

You didn't know this already? What news sources do you listen too. We didn't have to give Iran equipment they got it elsewhere, we did funnel intelligence to them

Do you really believe we wanted Saddam Hussein to take over Iran?

" One of the major concerns throughout the Iran-Iraq war was that one of the nations would win a convincing victory and emerge as the dominant power in the Persian Gulf. This would threaten the security of the weaker nations in the region and ultimately the economic security of the Western nations (and Asian countries such as Japan) that depend on Gulf oil. The United States therefore had an interest in seeing the two countries engage in a protracted, inconclusive war that left both worse off than when they started."
The Iran-Iraq War

 

[Trajan Octavian Titus]

They also had legitimate military applications.

Not without the illegal activities of the French and the Germans.

The products weren't lettuce, or rice, or the materials for making brick, or other materials that have no military use. They were military weapons.

No they were pesticide chemicals used for growing lettuce and rice which we had sold to many a country because it improved the quality of life for their citizenry, if not for the Western Europeans our so called "allies" he would not have been able to convert them into WMD. Basically your evidence that we supported the use of chemical weapons is pinned on the fact that we gave them intel on Iranian troop movements, but where is your evidence that we didn't expect that intel to be used for artillery or mortar strikes with conventional weapons?

 

[tryreading]

You didn't know this already? What news sources do you listen too. We didn't have to give Iran equipment they got it elsewhere, we did funnel intelligence to them

Do you really believe we wanted Saddam Hussein to take over Iran?

" One of the major concerns throughout the Iran-Iraq war was that one of the nations would win a convincing victory and emerge as the dominant power in the Persian Gulf. This would threaten the security of the weaker nations in the region and ultimately the economic security of the Western nations (and Asian countries such as Japan) that depend on Gulf oil. The United States therefore had an interest in seeing the two countries engage in a protracted, inconclusive war that left both worse off than when they started."
The Iran-Iraq War

Is this the proof of your claim that we also supported Iran in the Iraq-Iran war?

Where is the proof? The above quote says we "had an interest is seeing both sides engage in a protracted, inconclusive war." That doesn't prove anything. The web site doesn't prove anything either. Prove your point, if you can. You obviously can't.

 

[tryreading]

Not without the illegal activities of the French and the Germans.

Well, right, okay... We should never have expected Hussein to buy ingredients from France to mix with US ingredients to make chemical weapons...

Because that would be illegal...

No they were pesticide chemicals used for growing lettuce and rice which we had sold to many a country because it improved the quality of life for their citizenry, if not for the Western Europeans our so called "allies" he would not have been able to convert them into WMD. Basically your evidence that we supported the use of chemical weapons is pinned on the fact that we gave them intel on Iranian troop movements, but where is your evidence that we didn't expect that intel to be used for artillery or mortar strikes with conventional weapons?

They were also chemical weapons precursors we sold him, knowing he was using chemical weapons at the time.

You are right, sir. We did expect him to use our intel to aim his conventional weapons too. We expected him to use our intel for all of his weapons, yes, even including the conventional ones. Why wouldn't he? I can't argue that.

We backed him while he was using chemical weapons. We gave him money, intelligence, helicopters, heavy trucks, friendship, and political backing even though we knew he was using chemical weapons on people.

 

[Trajan Octavian Titus]

Well, right, okay... We should never have expected Hussein to buy ingredients from France to mix with US ingredients to make chemical weapons...

Because that would be illegal...

He didn't buy chemicals from them he bought entire chemical weapons plants from companies; such as, Karl Kobe. It's not easy to turn these pesticide chemicals and turn them into VX and Sarin, it is actually quite difficult and takes technological expertise and facilities.

They were also chemical weapons precursors we sold him, knowing he was using chemical weapons at the time.

Show me that we sold him chemicals after he used chemical weapons.

You are right, sir. We did expect him to use our intel to aim his conventional weapons too. We expected him to use our intel for all of his weapons, yes, even including the conventional ones. Why wouldn't he? I can't argue that.

Show that we gave him intel after he used Chemical Weapons.

We backed him while he was using chemical weapons. We gave him money, intelligence, helicopters, heavy trucks, friendship, and political backing even though we knew he was using chemical weapons on people.

We gave him helicopters and trucks woopy and intel on Iranian troop movements when it appeared that the Iranians would conquer Iraq completely. What money did we give him?

 

[tryreading]

He didn't buy chemicals from them he bought entire chemical weapons plants from companies; such as, Karl Kobe. It's not easy to turn these pesticide chemicals and turn them into VX and Sarin, it is actually quite difficult and takes technological expertise and facilities.




Show me that we sold him chemicals after he used chemical weapons.



Show that we gave him intel after he used Chemical Weapons.



We gave him helicopters and trucks woopy and intel on Iranian troop movements when it appeared that the Iranians would conquer Iraq completely. What money did we give him?

Britain also helped him build a chemical plant.

We gave him loan guarantees and bank credits (which mean money). We (the American People), of course, ended up paying most of the guaranteed loans.

I posted links to documents earlier that show our aid to him. The links are still there.

Here's another link with information on our backing of Saddam, and has links to Reagan administration documents showing US support of Iraq in the 1980s:

Shaking Hands with Saddam Hussein

 

[Trajan Octavian Titus]

Britain also helped him build a chemical plant.

No they didn't.

We gave him loan guarantees and bank credits (which mean money). We (the American People), of course, ended up paying most of the guaranteed loans.

You mean the IMF or World Bank gave him loans. They give loans to alot of people including on occassion our enemies.

I posted links to documents earlier that show our aid to him. The links are still there.

What aid? .5% of all foreign arm sales? Woopy.

 

[Stinger]

Is this the proof of your claim that we also supported Iran in the Iraq-Iran war?

Where is the proof? The above quote says we "had an interest is seeing both sides engage in a protracted, inconclusive war." That doesn't prove anything. The web site doesn't prove anything either. Prove your point, if you can. You obviously can't.

We were neutral, we didn't want either side to prevail. The myth that we wanted Saddam to defeat Iran and gave him the support to do it is just that a myth.

 

[tryreading]

We were neutral, we didn't want either side to prevail. The myth that we wanted Saddam to defeat Iran and gave him the support to do it is just that a myth.

I said that we backed Saddam during his war. Didn't say we wanted him to prevail. You are trying to change the argument.