DoD Report Appears to Confirm Downing Street Memo

[tryreading]

No they didn't.



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



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

Yes they did:


A chemical plant which the US says is a key component in Iraq's chemical warfare arsenal was secretly built by Britain in 1985 behind the backs of the Americans, the Guardian can disclose.

Documents show British ministers knew at the time that the £14m plant, called Falluja 2, was likely to be used for mustard and nerve gas production.
Senior officials recorded in writing that Saddam Hussein was actively gassing his opponents and that there was a "strong possibility" that the chlorine plant was intended by the Iraqis to make mustard gas. At the time, Saddam was known to be gassing Iranian troops in their thousands in the Iran-Iraq war.

But ministers in the then Thatcher government none the less secretly gave financial backing to the British company involved, Uhde Ltd, through insurance guarantees.

Britain's dirty secret | Special reports | Guardian Unlimited



No, I mean the Import-Export Bank:


Department of State, Office of the Assistant Secretary for Near Eastern and South Asian Affairs Action Memorandum from Richard W. Murphy to Lawrence S. Eagleburger. "EXIM [Export-Import] Bank Financing for Iraq" [Includes Letter From Lawrence S. Eagleburger to William Draper, Dated December 24, 1983], December 22, 1983.

Pursuant to the Reagan administration's policy of increasing support for Iraq, the State Department advises Under Secretary of State for Political Affairs Lawrence Eagleburger to urge the U.S. Export-Import Bank to provide Iraq with financial credits.

http://www.gwu.edu/~nsarchiv/NSAEBB/NSAEBB82/iraq33.pdf



Don't know where you got the .5% figure. Have a link for it? And if that percentage means we only provided Saddam with a few billion or a few hundred million dollars worth of materials, that was okay? Are we quibbling over the amount?

 

[Stinger]

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

We didn't want him to lose we didn't want him to win. We didn't want Iran to lose, we didn't want them to win. We were neutral. In public yes we appeared to be more on the side of Saddam, Iran had just recently committed an act of war against us. But our policy was that niether side should prevail. Had we SUPPORT Saddam, he would have won.

 

[tryreading]

We didn't want him to lose we didn't want him to win. We didn't want Iran to lose, we didn't want them to win. We were neutral. In public yes we appeared to be more on the side of Saddam, Iran had just recently committed an act of war against us. But our policy was that niether side should prevail. Had we SUPPORT Saddam, he would have won.

No, it was in private that the White House was backing Saddam.

For instance, Reagan symbollically chided Saddam publicly for his chemical weapon use, but continued backing him behind closed doors despite that.

We did support Saddam, I've provided proof you can't disprove.

 

[Stinger]

Let me ask you this, why would we have publicly supported Iran in the first place, a country that had just committed an act of war against us? Why WOULDN'T we have tilted towards Saddam, who was fighting our enemy a reqiem we did want to overthrow at the time?

 

[EAGLE1]

Let me ask you this, why would we have publicly supported Iran in the first place, a country that had just committed an act of war against us? Why WOULDN'T we have tilted towards Saddam, who was fighting our enemy a reqiem we did want to overthrow at the time?

Iran committed an act of war on the USA? I guess you mean the hostage crisis. Thats a pretty serious thing they did, about as serious I suppose as putting in and supporting the Shah. Or is that not an act of war because its the West that did it?

 

[Trajan Octavian Titus]

Yes they did:


A chemical plant which the US says is a key component in Iraq's chemical warfare arsenal was secretly built by Britain in 1985 behind the backs of the Americans, the Guardian can disclose.

Documents show British ministers knew at the time that the £14m plant, called Falluja 2, was likely to be used for mustard and nerve gas production.

Senior officials recorded in writing that Saddam Hussein was actively gassing his opponents and that there was a "strong possibility" that the chlorine plant was intended by the Iraqis to make mustard gas. At the time, Saddam was known to be gassing Iranian troops in their thousands in the Iran-Iraq war.

But ministers in the then Thatcher government none the less secretly gave financial backing to the British company involved, Uhde Ltd, through insurance guarantees.

Britain's dirty secret | Special reports | Guardian Unlimited

Did you read your article? That plant still functioned when we invaded in 2003, are you then admitting that Saddam did infact have operational chemical weapons facilities in 2003?

The Falluja 2 chlorine plant, 50 miles outside Baghdad, near the Habbaniya airbase, has been pinpointed by the US as an example of a factory rebuilt by Saddam to regain his chemical warfare capability.

Last month it featured in Colin Powell's dossier of reasons why the world should go to war against Iraq, which was presented to the UN security council.
Spy satellite pictures of Falluja 2 identifying it as a chemical weapons site were earlier published by the CIA, and a report by Britain's joint intelligence committee, published with Tony Blair's imprimatur last September, also focused on Falluja 2 as a rebuilt plant "formerly associated with the chemical warfare programme".

So according to you Bush did not lie, the Iraqi's really did have WMD facilities, thanks for supporting the war.

Furthermore; that was a German not British owned company:

Last night, Uhde Ltd's parent company in Dortmund, Germany, issued a statement confirming that their then UK subsidiary had built Falluja 2 for Iraq's chemical weapons procurement agency, the State Enterprise for Pesticide Production.

Not only that but that facility could not produce WMD:

A company spokesman said: "This was a normal plant for the production of chlorine and caustic soda. It could not produce other products".

No, I mean the Import-Export Bank:


Department of State, Office of the Assistant Secretary for Near Eastern and South Asian Affairs Action Memorandum from Richard W. Murphy to Lawrence S. Eagleburger. "EXIM [Export-Import] Bank Financing for Iraq" [Includes Letter From Lawrence S. Eagleburger to William Draper, Dated December 24, 1983], December 22, 1983.

Pursuant to the Reagan administration's policy of increasing support for Iraq, the State Department advises Under Secretary of State for Political Affairs Lawrence Eagleburger to urge the U.S. Export-Import Bank to provide Iraq with financial credits.

http://www.gwu.edu/~nsarchiv/NSAEBB/NSAEBB82/iraq33.pdf

$684 million that went right back to the U.S. based Betchel Corporation to build an oil pipeline through Jordan.

Don't know where you got the .5% figure. Have a link for it? And if that percentage means we only provided Saddam with a few billion or a few hundred million dollars worth of materials, that was okay? Are we quibbling over the amount?

$200 million actually, and yes it is o.k. in that we were preventing Iran from becoming the dominant force in the Middle East.

Arms sales to Iraq 1973-1990 - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

[Stinger]

Iran committed an act of war on the USA? I guess you mean the hostage crisis.

DUH! Taking an ambassodore and an embassy by force and holding them hostage is an act of war.

So should we have openly supported a country that had just committed an act of war against us? Please make your case for our supporting Iran outright and why we would have wanted them to win the war over Iraq.

 

[EAGLE1]

DUH! Taking an ambassodore and an embassy by force and holding them hostage is an act of war.

So should we have openly supported a country that had just committed an act of war against us? Please make your case for our supporting Iran outright and why we would have wanted them to win the war over Iraq.

That sounds pretty serious. Do you think it as serious as using your intelligence services to subvert a foreign government. Would that be an act of war in your eyes?

 

[Stinger]

That sounds pretty serious. Do you think ............

Try again

Originally Posted by Stinger
DUH! Taking an ambassodore and an embassy by force and holding them hostage is an act of war.

So should we have openly supported a country that had just committed an act of war against us? Please make your case for our supporting Iran outright and why we would have wanted them to win the war over Iraq.

 

[EAGLE1]

Try again

Originally Posted by Stinger
DUH! Taking an ambassodore and an embassy by force and holding them hostage is an act of war.

So should we have openly supported a country that had just committed an act of war against us? Please make your case for our supporting Iran outright and why we would have wanted them to win the war over Iraq.

Try again?

Ok....That sounds pretty serious. Do you think its as serious as using your intelligence services to subvert a foreign government?

 

[Stinger]

Try again?

Ok....That sounds pretty serious. Do you think ..............

Yes try again to answer the question I asked of you.

Originally Posted by Stinger
Try again

Originally Posted by Stinger
DUH! Taking an ambassodore and an embassy by force and holding them hostage is an act of war.

So should we have openly supported a country that had just committed an act of war against us? Please make your case for our supporting Iran outright and why we would have wanted them to win the war over Iraq.

 

[EAGLE1]

Yes try again to answer the question I asked of you.

Originally Posted by Stinger
Try again

Originally Posted by Stinger
DUH! Taking an ambassodore and an embassy by force and holding them hostage is an act of war.

So should we have openly supported a country that had just committed an act of war against us? Please make your case for our supporting Iran outright and why we would have wanted them to win the war over Iraq.

Yes. We should have. Why? because it was us, the US & the UK that commited the first act of war against Iran in 1953.

 

[Trajan Octavian Titus]

Yes. We should have. Why? because it was us, the US & the UK that commited the first act of war against Iran in 1953.

How's that? The Shah was the legitimate head of state under the Iranian Constitution, it was his perogative to appoint or dismiss the Prime Minister. Mossadegh dissolved parliament, granted himself dictatorial powers, and consistently violated the Iranian Constitution. Did the Shah dissolve parliament? Did the Shah ignore the Constitution? It wasn't a coup it was a counter-coup inititiated to block the rise of dictator Mossadegh who had been dismissed legally but refused to resign.

 

[tryreading]

Did you read your article? That plant still functioned when we invaded in 2003, are you then admitting that Saddam did infact have operational chemical weapons facilities in 2003?



So according to you Bush did not lie, the Iraqi's really did have WMD facilities, thanks for supporting the war.

Furthermore; that was a German not British owned company:



Not only that but that facility could not produce WMD:






$684 million that went right back to the U.S. based Betchel Corporation to build an oil pipeline through Jordan.



$200 million actually, and yes it is o.k. in that we were preventing Iran from becoming the dominant force in the Middle East.

Arms sales to Iraq 1973-1990 - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

I'm not talking about what Saddam had or didn't have in 2003, but that we backed him in the 1980s when he used chemical weapons on his own people, and on Iranians, and we helped him acquire those chemical weapons. I'm talking about the hypocracy of previous administrations, and the current one.


The facility was a chemical plant, according to the article, and it produced a chemical that could be used to manufacture chemical weapons. But intelligence stated that that was in the past:

...Falluja 2 as a rebuilt plant "formerly associated with the chemical warfare programme".


That money was to benefit Iraq directly, and also indirectly for oil flow. I would think increasing Iraq's oil export ability earned them a lot more than $684 million dollars worth of aid.

Don't forget, we supplied Iraq with a lot more military equipment through third party countries. That .5% figure is just the arms directly from us, right?

 

[tryreading]

...are you then admitting that Saddam did infact have operational chemical weapons facilities in 2003?

That's not the issue I'm talking about. What I'm talking about is our support of Saddam when he was at his worst.

 

[tryreading]

Let me ask you this, why would we have publicly supported Iran in the first place, a country that had just committed an act of war against us? Why WOULDN'T we have tilted towards Saddam, who was fighting our enemy a reqiem we did want to overthrow at the time?

You still have not shown proof of your claim that we supported Iran.

 

[Trajan Octavian Titus]

You still have not shown proof of your claim that we supported Iran.

See <Iran-Contra>

 

[Trajan Octavian Titus]

I'm not talking about what Saddam had or didn't have in 2003, but that we backed him in the 1980s when he used chemical weapons on his own people, and on Iranians, and we helped him acquire those chemical weapons. I'm talking about the hypocracy of previous administrations, and the current one.

No sir you claimed that the British built a chemical weapons lab for Saddam, if that is true then that chemical weapons lab was still functioning in 2003. You can't have it both ways buddy. Furthermore; the U.S. only provided dual use chemicals which would have remained benign and legal if not for the technological expertise to turn them into WMD which came from France and Germany. Not only that it wasn't even a British owned company it was a British subsidiary of a German company.

The facility was a chemical plant, according to the article, and it produced a chemical that could be used to manufacture chemical weapons. But intelligence stated that that was in the past:

...Falluja 2 as a rebuilt plant "formerly associated with the chemical warfare programme".

Well if it was formerly associated with the chemical warfare programme, why was it no longer able to produce those same chemicals? Is this a magic plant of some sort?

That money was to benefit Iraq directly, and also indirectly for oil flow. I would think increasing Iraq's oil export ability earned them a lot more than $684 million dollars worth of aid.

It also benefited the U.S. and Jordan and the money went right back to the U.S.. If the U.S. didn't build the pipeline there would have been many a Western European country willing to build it.

Don't forget, we supplied Iraq with a lot more military equipment through third party countries. That .5% figure is just the arms directly from us, right?

Prove it. As it stands the U.S. supplied .5% of foreign arms to Iraq from 1973-1990, case closed.

 

[Billo_Really]

US-Iraq arms relationship from 1980-2000

September, 1980. Iraq invades Iran. The beginning of the Iraq-Iran war.

February, 1982. Despite objections from congress, President Reagan removes Iraq from its list of known terrorist countries.

December, 1982. Hughes Aircraft ships 60 Defender helicopters to Iraq.

1982-1988. Defense Intelligence Agency provides detailed information for Iraq on Iranian deployments, tactical planning for battles, plans for air strikes and bomb damage assessments.

November, 1983. A National Security Directive states that the U.S would do "whatever was necessary and legal" to prevent Iraq from losing its war with Iran.

November, 1983. Banca Nazionale del Lavoro of Italy and its Branch in Atlanta begin to funnel $5 billion in unreported loans to Iraq. Iraq, with the blessing and official approval of the US government, purchased computer controlled machine tools, computers, scientific instruments, special alloy steel and aluminum, chemicals, and other industrial goods for Iraq's missile, chemical, biological and nuclear weapons programs.

October, 1983. The Reagan Administration begins secretly allowing Jordan, Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, and Egypt to transfer United States weapons, including Howitzers, Huey helicopters, and bombs to Iraq. These shipments violated the Arms Export Control Act.

November 1983. George Schultz, the Secretary of State, is given intelligence reports showing that Iraqi troops are daily using chemical weapons against the Iranians.

December 20, 1983. Donald Rumsfeld , then a civilian and now Defense Secretary, meets with Saddam Hussein to assure him of US friendship and materials support.

July, 1984. CIA begins giving Iraq intelligence necessary to calibrate its mustard gas attacks on Iranian troops.

January 14, 1984. State Department memo acknowledges United States shipment of "dual-use" export hardware and technology. Dual use items are civilian items such as heavy trucks, armored ambulances and communications gear as well as industrial technology that can have a military application.

March, 1986. The United States with Great Britain block all Security Council resolutions condemning Iraq's use of chemical weapons, and on March 21 the US becomes the only country refusing to sign a Security Council statement condemning Iraq's use of these weapons.

May, 1986. The US Department of Commerce licenses 70 biological exports to Iraq between May of 1985 and 1989, including at least 21 batches of lethal strains of anthrax.

May, 1986. US Department of Commerce approves shipment of weapons grade botulin poison to Iraq.

March, 1987. President Reagan bows to the findings of the Tower Commission admitting the sale of arms to Iran in exchange for hostages. Oliver North uses the profits from the sale to fund an illegal war in Nicaragua. [17]

Late 1987. The Iraqi Air Force begins using chemical agents against Kurdish resistance forces in northern Iraq.

February, 1988. Saddam Hussein begins the "Anfal" campaign against the Kurds of northern Iraq. The Iraq regime used chemical weapons against the Kurds killing over 100,000 civilians and destroying over 1,200 Kurdish villages.

April, 1988. US Department of Commerce approves shipment of chemicals used in manufacture of mustard gas.

August, 1988. Four major battles were fought from April to August 1988, in which the Iraqis massively and effectively used chemical weapons to defeat the Iranians. Nerve gas and blister agents such as mustard gas are used. By this time the US Defense Intelligence Agency is heavily involved with Saddam Hussein in battle plan assistance, intelligence gathering and post battle debriefing. In the last major battle with of the war, 65,000 Iranians are killed, many with poison gas. Use of chemical weapons in war is in violation of the Geneva accords of 1925.

August, 1988. Iraq and Iran declare a cease fire.

August, 1988. Five days after the cease fire Saddam Hussein sends his planes and helicopters to northern Iraq to begin massive chemical attacks against the Kurds.

September, 1988. US Department of Commerce approves shipment of weapons grade anthrax and botulinum to Iraq.

September, 1988. Richard Murphy, Assistant Secretary of State: "The US-Iraqi relationship is... important to our long-term political and economic objectives."

December, 1988. Dow chemical sells $1.5 million in pesticides to Iraq despite knowledge that these would be used in chemical weapons.

July 25, 1990. US Ambassador to Baghdad meets with Hussein to assure him that President Bush "wanted better and deeper relations". Many believe this visit was a trap set for Hussein. A month later Hussein invaded Kuwait thinking the US would not respond.

August, 1990 Iraq invades Kuwait. The precursor to the Gulf War.

July, 1991 The Financial Times of London reveals that a Florida chemical company had produced and shipped cyanide to Iraq during the 80's using a special CIA courier. Cyanide was used extensively against the Iranians.

August, 1991. Christopher Droguol of Atlanta's branch of Banca Nazionale del Lavoro is arrested for his role in supplying loans to Iraq for the purchase of military supplies. He is charged with 347 counts of felony. Droguol is found guilty, but US officials plead innocent of any knowledge of his crime.

June, 1992. Ted Kopple of ABC Nightline reports: "It is becoming increasingly clear that George Bush Sr., operating largely behind the scenes throughout the 1980's, initiated and supported much of the financing, intelligence, and military help that built Saddam's Iraq into [an aggressive power]."

July, 1992. "The Bush administration deliberately, not inadvertently, helped to arm Iraq by allowing U.S. technology to be shipped to Iraqi military and to Iraqi defense factories... Throughout the course of the Bush administration, U.S. and foreign firms were granted export licenses to ship U.S. technology directly to Iraqi weapons facilities despite ample evidence showing that these factories were producing weapons." Representative Henry Gonzalez, Texas, testimony before the House.

February, 1994. Senator Riegle from Michigan, chairman of the Senate Banking Committee, testifies before the senate revealing large US shipments of dual-use biological and chemical agents to Iraq that may have been used against US troops in the Gulf War and probably was the cause of the illness known as Gulf War Syndrome.

August, 2002. "The use of gas [during the Iran-Iraq war] on the battle field by the Iraqis was not a matter of deep strategic concern... We were desperate to make sure that Iraq did not lose". Colonel Walter Lang, former senior US Defense Intelligence officer tells the New York Times.

This chronology of the United States' sordid involvement in the arming of Iraq can be summarized in this way: The United States used methods both legal and illegal to help build Saddam's army into the most powerful army in the Mideast outside of Israel. The US supplied chemical and biological agents and technology to Iraq when it knew Iraq was using chemical weapons against the Iranians. The US supplied the materials and technology for these weapons of mass destruction to Iraq at a time when it was know that Saddam was using this technology to kill his Kurdish citizens. The United States supplied intelligence and battle planning information to Iraq when those battle plans included the use of cyanide, mustard gas and nerve agents. The United States blocked UN censure of Iraq's use of chemical weapons. The United States did not act alone in this effort. The Soviet Union was the largest weapons supplier, but England, France and Germany were also involved in the shipment of arms and technology.

That's some .5%!

 

[Trajan Octavian Titus]

That's some .5%!

A) It is a fact that we supplied Iraq with only .5% of foreign weapons between 1973 and 1990:

- Arms transfers to Iraq, 1970-2004

B) Your source is titled "IranChamber.com," so give me a ****ing break.

 

[Billo_Really]

Originally posted by TOT:
It is a fact that we supplied Iraq with only .5% of foreign weapons between 1973 and 1990:

- Arms transfers to Iraq, 1970-2004

B) Your source is titled "IranChamber.com," so give me a ****ing break.

Always resort to the ad hom when you ain't got nuthin' to comeback with.

billo 1 - TOT 0

 

[Trajan Octavian Titus]

Always resort to the ad hom when you ain't got nuthin' to comeback with.

billo 1 - TOT 0

.5% of foreign weapon sales to Iraq.

Game, set, and match.

 

[Billo_Really]

Originally posted by TOT:
.5% of foreign weapon sales to Iraq.

Game, set, and match.

Did you say something?

Doesn't matter if it was .oooo1%. We helped them gas the Iranians and the Kurds after we knew they were making the gas. We even blocked a UN Resolution to condemn Iraq for making the gas after we showed them how.

Watcha got to say to that, bee-otch!

 

[EAGLE1]

"The CIA described the coup plan as “quasi-legal,” referring to the fact that the shah legally dismissed Mossadeq but presumably acknowledging that he did not do so on his own initiative."
Electronic Briefing Book: The Secret CIA History of the Iran Coup

"Perhaps the most general conclusion that can be drawn from these documents is that the CIA extensively stage-managed the entire coup, not only carrying it out but also preparing the groundwork for it by subordinating various important Iranian political actors and using propaganda and other instruments to influence public opinion against Mossadeq."
Electronic Briefing Book: The Secret CIA History of the Iran Coup

Essentially, the West fomented the crisis that led to the dismissal of Mossadeq and turned a constitutional monarchy into an absolute monarchy.

 

[Billo_Really]

Originally posted by Eagle1:
"The CIA described the coup plan as “quasi-legal,” referring to the fact that the shah legally dismissed Mossadeq but presumably acknowledging that he did not do so on his own initiative."
Electronic Briefing Book: The Secret CIA History of the Iran Coup

"Perhaps the most general conclusion that can be drawn from these documents is that the CIA extensively stage-managed the entire coup, not only carrying it out but also preparing the groundwork for it by subordinating various important Iranian political actors and using propaganda and other instruments to influence public opinion against Mossadeq."
Electronic Briefing Book: The Secret CIA History of the Iran Coup

Essentially, the West fomented the crisis that led to the dismissal of Mossadeq and turned a constitutional monarchy into an absolute monarchy.

That's the link that says it all. You hit the nail on the head.

It's almost deja vu, we wanted an oil deal then too.

And via a Shwardtzkoff ta boot.

From the summary section of your link...