• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!
  • Welcome to our archives. No new posts are allowed here.

DoD Report Appears to Confirm Downing Street Memo

Trajan Octavian Titus said:
Done and done:



Again can you show that the U.S. provided chemicals post-1985 when it was comfirmed that they had attacked Iranians with WMD?
Click to expand...



Where did you get 1985? Iraqi use of chemical weapons was confirmed by the Fall of 1982:

"In October 1982 lethal chemical attacks by Iraq..."
"In July and August 1983... " "...and more recently against the Kurds."

"Iraq has become able to deploy and use CW, and probably has built up large reserves of CW for future use..."

http://www.gwu.edu/~nsarchiv/NSAEBB/NSAEBB82/iraq25.pdf



But did we want to bring up the pesky issue with Saddam?:

Nov 1983 Action Memorandum to Lawrence Eagleberger - Whether to instruct USINT Baghdad to raise issue of Iraqi CW use and urge cessation

"...references in Iraqi statements over the past year corroberate," Iraqi use of chemical weapons on Iranians.

"deter further Iraqi use of CW, as well as to avoid unpleasantly surprising Iraq through public positions we may have to take on this issue."

November 1, 1983 To the Secretary of State
"Iraqi use of chemical weapons"

"We have recently received additional information confirming Iraqi use of chemical weapons."

"...approach Iraq very soon in order to maintain the credibility of US policy on CW, as well as to reduce or halt what now appears to be Iraq's almost daily use of CW."

http://www.gwu.edu/~nsarchiv/NSAEBB/NSAEBB82/iraq24.pdf



After confirming Iraq's use of CW, guess what? Lawrence Eagleberger urges EXIM bank to finance Iraq:

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.

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



And Saddam needs stuff, even if he has committed some trifling infractions:

Department of State, Office of the Assistant Secretary for Near Eastern and South Asian Affairs Action Memorandum from David T. Schneider to George P. Shultz. "Easing Restrictions on Exports to Iraq," January 30, 1984.

http://www.gwu.edu/~nsarchiv/NSAEBB/NSAEBB82/iraq39.pdf



We did publicly chastise Iraq for using chemical weapons:

Department of State, Bureau of Near Eastern and South Asian Affairs Memorandum from James A. Placke to James M. Ealum [et al.]. [U.S. Condemnation of Iraqi Chemical Weapons Use], March 4, 1984.

http://www.gwu.edu/~nsarchiv/NSAEBB/NSAEBB82/iraq43.pdf



Then back to business as usual:

Department of State Memorandum. "Notifying Congress of [Excised] Truck Sale," March 5, 1984.

The State Department informs a House Committee on Foreign Affairs staff member that the department has not objected to the sale of 2,000 heavy trucks to Iraq, noting that they were built in part in Illinois, Indiana, Ohio, Pennsylvania, New York, and Michigan. The official policy of the U.S. is that it does not export military related items to Iraq or Iran. When asked if the trucks were intended for military purposes, the official responds, "we presumed that this was Iraq's intention, and had not asked."

http://www.gwu.edu/~nsarchiv/NSAEBB/NSAEBB82/iraq44.pdf



We fought the UN resolution to condemn Iraq for its chemical weapon use (funny how later we used the excuse of UN Resolutions to go to war with Iraq):

The State Department instructs the U.S. delegate to the United Nations to get the support of other Western missions for a motion of "no decision" regarding Iran's draft resolution condemning Iraq's use of chemical weapons. Failing that, the U.S. is to abstain on the resolution.

http://www.gwu.edu/~nsarchiv/NSAEBB/NSAEBB82/iraq47.pdf



All we asked was please Saddam, don't embarrass us:

U.S. would like the Iraqi government's cooperation "in avoiding situations that would lead to difficult and possibly embarrassing situation" regarding chemical weapons use, but noted that the U.S. did "not want this issue to dominate our bilateral relationship nor to detract from our common interest to see war brought to [an] early end"

http://www.gwu.edu/~nsarchiv/NSAEBB/NSAEBB82/iraq54.pdf



Have some choppers to show we still love you:

United States Interests Section. Iraq Cable from William L. Eagleton, Jr. to the Department of State. "Bell Discusses Possible Helicopter Sale to Iraq," April 12, 1984.

http://www.gwu.edu/~nsarchiv/NSAEBB/NSAEBB82/iraq55.pdf



Get this-we actually considered this:

An internal State Department paper indicates that the government is reviewing policy for "the sale of certain categories of dual-use items to Iraqi nuclear entities," and the review's "preliminary results favor expanding such trade to include Iraqi nuclear entities."

http://www.gwu.edu/~nsarchiv/NSAEBB/NSAEBB82/iraq57.pdf



We give and give:

After Aziz says that Iraq's advantage in weaponry was enabling it to defend itself against Iran, Secretary Shultz comments "that superior intelligence also must be an important factor in Iraq's defense. Aziz acknowledged that this may be true."

http://www.gwu.edu/~nsarchiv/NSAEBB/NSAEBB82/iraq60.pdf
 
Trajan Octavian Titus said:
Because at the time we thought it was the Iranians who had launched the attack on the Kurds.
Click to expand...


You get full credit from me. You did provide a truly questionable link, as requested.

See, Iraq haq been using chemical weapons on people since 1982, and our White House and the intelligence services knew it positively. See the documents in my last post.

So there was no mistake regarding this chemical weapons attack.

Anyway, the President, loyal to a fault as far as Saddam, still backed up his ally, genocide or not, and he knew Iran didn't gas those people.
 
Trajan Octavian Titus said:
Told you already; through popular referendum and fraudulent elections, big wup it's like saying it would be alright for Bush to dissolve Congress and grant himself dictatorial powers if he could get enough of the people to vote for it. The Shah in effect preserved the Constitutional Monarch of Iran.
Click to expand...

Please do go on. Tell us what happened. Exactly.
 
EAGLE1 said:
Yes. We should have. Why? because it was us, the US & the UK that commited the first act of war against Iran in 1953.
Click to expand...

You have just proven how absurd your contentions are.
 
Stinger put that guitar down for a second and do some research. Hopefully not just on Heritage.com. Dont worry I'll wait.
 
tryreading said:
Where did you get 1985? Iraqi use of chemical weapons was confirmed by the Fall of 1982:

"In October 1982 lethal chemical attacks by Iraq..."
"In July and August 1983... " "...and more recently against the Kurds."

"Iraq has become able to deploy and use CW, and probably has built up large reserves of CW for future use..."

http://www.gwu.edu/~nsarchiv/NSAEBB/NSAEBB82/iraq25.pdf



But did we want to bring up the pesky issue with Saddam?:

Nov 1983 Action Memorandum to Lawrence Eagleberger - Whether to instruct USINT Baghdad to raise issue of Iraqi CW use and urge cessation

"...references in Iraqi statements over the past year corroberate," Iraqi use of chemical weapons on Iranians.

"deter further Iraqi use of CW, as well as to avoid unpleasantly surprising Iraq through public positions we may have to take on this issue."

November 1, 1983 To the Secretary of State
"Iraqi use of chemical weapons"

"We have recently received additional information confirming Iraqi use of chemical weapons."

"...approach Iraq very soon in order to maintain the credibility of US policy on CW, as well as to reduce or halt what now appears to be Iraq's almost daily use of CW."

http://www.gwu.edu/~nsarchiv/NSAEBB/NSAEBB82/iraq24.pdf
Click to expand...

It was not comfirmed beyond doubt by European Dr.'s and the U.N. that Iraq had used CW until 1984.

^ Bruce W. Jentleson (1994). With Friends Like These: Reagan, Bush, and Saddam, 1982-1990. W.W. Norton, 76.

And right there in the last line it says "what now appears to be," and in that memo it was saying that we were trying to stop his use of CW.

After confirming Iraq's use of CW, guess what? Lawrence Eagleberger urges EXIM bank to finance Iraq:

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.

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

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

Then back to business as usual:

Department of State Memorandum. "Notifying Congress of [Excised] Truck Sale," March 5, 1984.

The State Department informs a House Committee on Foreign Affairs staff member that the department has not objected to the sale of 2,000 heavy trucks to Iraq, noting that they were built in part in Illinois, Indiana, Ohio, Pennsylvania, New York, and Michigan. The official policy of the U.S. is that it does not export military related items to Iraq or Iran. When asked if the trucks were intended for military purposes, the official responds, "we presumed that this was Iraq's intention, and had not asked."

http://www.gwu.edu/~nsarchiv/NSAEBB/NSAEBB82/iraq44.pdf
Click to expand...

Trucks? No not trucks, anything but that.

We fought the UN resolution to condemn Iraq for its chemical weapon use (funny how later we used the excuse of UN Resolutions to go to war with Iraq):

The State Department instructs the U.S. delegate to the United Nations to get the support of other Western missions for a motion of "no decision" regarding Iran's draft resolution condemning Iraq's use of chemical weapons. Failing that, the U.S. is to abstain on the resolution.

http://www.gwu.edu/~nsarchiv/NSAEBB/NSAEBB82/iraq47.pdf
Click to expand...

A) It was a non-binding resolution.

B) Ofcourse we didn't support it, we didn't exactly have a warm relationship with the Iranians at the time.

http://www.gwu.edu/~nsarchiv/NSAEBB/NSAEBB82/iraq54.pdf


Have some choppers to show we still love you:

United States Interests Section. Iraq Cable from William L. Eagleton, Jr. to the Department of State. "Bell Discusses Possible Helicopter Sale to Iraq," April 12, 1984.

http://www.gwu.edu/~nsarchiv/NSAEBB/NSAEBB82/iraq55.pdf
Click to expand...

We send civilian choppers, and the French send Mirage fighters, the Germam companies like Karl Kolb send entire chemical weapons labs, and god knows what the Soviets sent them.

Get this-we actually considered this:

An internal State Department paper indicates that the government is reviewing policy for "the sale of certain categories of dual-use items to Iraqi nuclear entities," and the review's "preliminary results favor expanding such trade to include Iraqi nuclear entities."

http://www.gwu.edu/~nsarchiv/NSAEBB/NSAEBB82/iraq57.pdf
Click to expand...

A) We only considered it, the French actually built them the Osirak reactor.

B) Read the whole memo we only considred innocous equipment:

….The long-term situation depends on developments in Iraq. If things stay as they are (no Iraqi support for terrorism, no diplomatic relations, war continues) then whatever we decide now will continue for some time. U.S. nuclear related trade with Iraq should allow the sale of insignificant dual-use items…..
 
tryreading said:
You get full credit from me. You did provide a truly questionable link, as requested.

See, Iraq haq been using chemical weapons on people since 1982, and our White House and the intelligence services knew it positively. See the documents in my last post.

So there was no mistake regarding this chemical weapons attack.

Anyway, the President, loyal to a fault as far as Saddam, still backed up his ally, genocide or not, and he knew Iran didn't gas those people.
Click to expand...

No he didn't know that the chemical weapons attacks on the Kurds was committed by the Iraqi's we suspected in 83 that he had used them on the Iranians but that was not comfirmed until 1984, and those documents you linked to had nothing to do with Kurdish civilians it had to do with Iraq's war against the Iranians.
​
 
Trajan Octavian Titus said:


No he didn't know that the chemical weapons attacks on the Kurds was committed by the Iraqi's we suspected in 83 that he had used them on the Iranians but that was not comfirmed until 1984, and those documents you linked to had nothing to do with Kurdish civilians it had to do with Iraq's war against the Iranians.
​
Click to expand...

The following, which you responded to, is White House paperwork saying the United States knew in 1982 that Iraq was using chemical weapons on Iranians, and was using chemical weapons on the Iranians and on its own people, the Kurds, later the same year:

"In October 1982 lethal chemical attacks by Iraq..."
"In July and August 1983... " "...and more recently against the Kurds."

"Iraq has become able to deploy and use CW, and probably has built up large reserves of CW for future use..."

http://www.gwu.edu/~nsarchiv/NSAEBB/NSAEBB82/iraq25.pdf


That's from an official Reagan White House document. And it doesn't say 'we suspect the Iraqi use of chemical weapons...,' or 'we should investigate whether Iraq used chemical weapons...' It states as fact that Iraq used chemical weapons on people during three different periods of time.

Don't you trust historical Reagan White House information on Iraq? You trusted George W. Bush's.
 
tryreading said:
The following, which you responded to, is White House paperwork saying the United States knew in 1982 that Iraq was using chemical weapons on Iranians, and was using chemical weapons on the Iranians and on its own people, the Kurds, later the same year:

"In October 1982 lethal chemical attacks by Iraq..."
"In July and August 1983... " "...and more recently against the Kurds."

"Iraq has become able to deploy and use CW, and probably has built up large reserves of CW for future use..."

http://www.gwu.edu/~nsarchiv/NSAEBB/NSAEBB82/iraq25.pdf
Click to expand...


Actually I read the following:

"In July and August 1983, the Iraqis reportedly used a chemical agent with lethal effects against and Iranian forces invading Iraq at Haj Umran, and more recently against Kurdish Insurgents."

I see the words "reportedly" and "Insurgents," these were not the infamous attacks on Kurdish civilians that didn't happen until much later between 1986 and 1989 in the Al-Anfal campaign.
 
Trajan Octavian Titus said:
Actually I read the following:

"In July and August 1983, the Iraqis reportedly used a chemical agent with lethal effects against and Iranian forces invading Iraq at Haj Umran, and more recently against Kurdish Insurgents."

I see the words "reportedly" and "Insurgents," these were not the infamous attacks on Kurdish civilians that didn't happen until much later between 1986 and 1989 in the Al-Anfal campaign.
Click to expand...

I have no idea why you continue to argue this, except for your blind agenda, when the White House documents themselves prove you wrong every time. You should read the whole document:

We have recently received additional information confirming Iraqi use of chemical weapons (CW). We also know that Iraq has acquired a CW production capability...

3. Our primary policy has been to prevent use of prohibited CW. In the case of Iraq, our purpose is to deter further use.

--We also raise the matter now because we believe continued Iraqi use of CW...



Iraq was using chemical weapons on people as early as 1982, and this was confirmed by our government.

We knew Iraq was using chemical weapons, and in the case of Iraq, our purpose was to deter further use.

The above are not dubious terms. We knew.

Unless you think the Reagan White House was lying.
 
Misfit said:
Some reading that might add to this:

http://www.dodig.mil/IGInformation/archives/OUSDP-OSP Brief.pdf
Click to expand...


I've read this before. It is scary that so many people don't see a problem with the production of intelligence by the DOD.

Would the same people be okay with the CIA waging war?



These points are worth posting again:


3. Was the alternative OSD Policy intelligence analysis supported by the underlying intelligence?

Partially. The alternative intelligence analysis that OUSD(P) produced was not fully supported by underlying intelligence

7. Did the staff of the OUSDP present a briefing on the Iraq-a1 Qaeda relationship to the White House in September 2002 unbeknownst to the Director of Central Intelligence, containing information that was different from the briefing presented tothe DCI, not vetted by the lntelligence Community, and that was not supported by the available intelligence (for example, concerning the alleged Atta meeting), without providing the IC notice of the briefing or an opportunity to comment?

Yes. The OUSD(P) presented three different versions of the same briefing, of which some of the information was supported by available intelligence, to the Secretary of Defense, the DCI, the Deputy National Security Advisor and the Chief of Staff, OVP.

9. Did the OSD Policy briefing to the White House draw conclusions
(or 'findings') that were not supported by the available intelligence, such as the' intelligence indicates cooperation in all categories; mature, symbiotic relationship',or that there were 'multiple areas of cooperation,' and shared interest and pursuit ofWMD, ' and 'some indications of possible Iraqi coordination with al Qaida specificallyrelated to 9/7 7 '

Yes. The briefing did draw conclusions that were not fully supported by the available intelligence.



Is there anybody reading this who doesn't have a problem with the DOD scam?
 
EAGLE1 said:
Stinger put that guitar down for a second and do some research. Hopefully not just on Heritage.com. Dont worry I'll wait.
Click to expand...

I'm still waiting for you to tell me why we have publicly support Iran or Iraq after they had committed and act of war against us. They were holding our embassy hostage and you think we should have sided with them over Iraq....................what folly. And even after they let them go, while Khomeini was calling us the devil we should have supported them over Iraq. Absurdity.
 
I answered that already didnt I?
 
EAGLE1 said:
I answered that already didnt I?
Click to expand...

No, so tell me why on earth you think we would have publicly supported Iran while they held our embassy hostage.
 
I did answer that already actually. I specifically remember doing so.
 
The_Real_ElRoi said:
Anyone who isn't completely delusional already knew these things to be true and factual.
Click to expand...

Except they weren't but let's name names, how about Hillary Clinton or John Edwards or John Kerry or Bill Clinton or Madeline Albright or Carl Levin just to name a few.
 
EAGLE1 said:
I did answer that already actually. I specifically remember doing so.
Click to expand...

No you haven't but if you insist message number then. But while you are at it write the speech for Jimmy Carter to give to the nation saying we are now supporting Iran in the Iraq/Iraq war while they are holding our embassy hostage and calling us the Great Satan. Let me hear how you would have justified it to the world and the American public.
 
Stinger said:
Except they weren't but let's name names, how about Hillary Clinton or John Edwards or John Kerry or Bill Clinton or Madeline Albright or Carl Levin just to name a few.
Click to expand...

You think crying Democrat makes a difference, I guess. It doesn't. Any Congressman who voted for the Iraq war was wrong, and so was the President for wanting it blindly, and for rushing in. Party affiliation doesn't matter, not to me anyway.

Stupid is stupid. Wrong is wrong.
 
Stinger said:
Except they weren't but let's name names, how about Hillary Clinton or John Edwards or John Kerry or Bill Clinton or Madeline Albright or Carl Levin just to name a few.
Click to expand...

Let's see here...I'm pretty sure none of those people you named were President at the time. Do you have another pointless point to put forth?
 
Stinger said:
No you haven't but if you insist message number then. But while you are at it write the speech for Jimmy Carter to give to the nation saying we are now supporting Iran in the Iraq/Iraq war while they are holding our embassy hostage and calling us the Great Satan. Let me hear how you would have justified it to the world and the American public.
Click to expand...

Maybe you can write the speech for Ronald Reagan to give to the nation saying we are now supporting Saddam Hussein even after Reagan knew Hussein was using chemical weapons on people.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom