How Saddam could embarrass the West

[Trident-za]

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_east/3324053.stm


The trial might turn into more than an account of genocide, invasion, murder and massacre, dominant though that would be.

It could become a political event tinged with some embarrassment for countries and individuals who were once close to him.

Saddam Hussein's egocentric sense of history, largely centred around a vision of himself leading the Arab world as Saladin led it against the Crusaders, would surely tempt him to play to the gallery of Arab opinion.

In the process, he might raise the question as to why those who later opposed him once supplied him with technical, military and diplomatic muscle.

Two current Western leaders in particular might find their names in the frame - the French President Jacques Chirac and the US Defence Secretary Donald Rumsfeld.



As much as I hate to admit it, this article raises some intersting issues....

[Trigger]

You forgot to post that pic of Rummy and Saddam shaking hands. I think Pinkeye has a copy you can borrow. :D

[Trident-za]

No thanks Trigger, its irrelevant. Facts are facts.... or not?

[Trigger]

From the article:

Not that it would diminish his own responsibilities. The London based organisation Indict, which has gathered evidence against Saddam Hussein and his associates, has published one eyewitness account of the dictator's personal behaviour.

It is a reminder of what the trial will really be about:

"One of the president's bodyguards brought 30 prisoners out. They were Kurds. The president himself shot them one after another with a Browning pistol.

"Another 30 prisoners were brought and the process was repeated. Saddam Hussein was laughing and obviously enjoying himself. There was blood everywhere - it was like an abattoir...

"Those who were still alive were eventually finished off by the security officers."
Yes facts are facts, so dragging the old 'Saddam was supported by the West' out of the closet again, while true, should not absolve him of guilt nor play any role when it's time for his sentencing.

[Trident-za]

Absolutely, I couldn't agree more. Which part of my post made you think I was a pro-Saddam person? I believe he is/was a very evil man, and the world is a better place without him.... this does not change the facts though.... certain western powers/politicians may be a bit embarrased by the trial. Anyone who thinks the west is blame-free when it comes to the middle-east is a little naive, or ignorant.

[Trigger]

I should have been more clear. I didn't mean to imply that you were pro-Saddam. I was simply saying that the article was playing the old 'blame the west' card, which at this point is very old news. Everyone knows we supported him for obvious reasons. It was convenient. I'd like to see a country that would do differently if in the same position.
No offence to you was meant.

[Trident-za]

Fair enough.

[front]

Trigger wrote:

" Everyone knows we supported him for obvious reasons. It was convenient."

"I" did not support him at all... so don't lump me in with that "we" there, thanks. Apart from that then... what were the obvious reasons may I ask?

"I'd like to see a country that would do differently if in the same position."

What position?

cheers

front

[pinkeye]

to continue trident-za's post:


Skeletons in the Closet
Reporter: Brian Stewart | CBC News Online | December 16, 2003

Saddam Hussein was one of America's most wanted, a man now expected to go on trial for war crimes. But what could come back to haunt the United States and other countries is their relationship with Saddam in the past when they offered support to the man who now faces prosecution.

From the beginning of Saddam Hussein's presidency in 1979, there could be few illusions about the brutal nature of his regime. Other governments knew this extreme megalomaniac tortured and murdered political enemies without qualm. Within a year, he launched an unprovoked war on his neighbour, Iran. Yet over the coming decade, he steadily consolidated his frightening power with much help from the outside world. Through the '80s, one of the best friends Saddam ever had was the United States.

The Ronald Reagan/George Bush Sr. administration in 1981 soon tilted U.S. policy from one of hostility to Iraq to one of increasing support. Reagan saw Saddam as an ally against rabidly anti-American Iran, so, in the Iraq/Iran war, Reagan's team secretly insisted the U.S. do all it could to prevent Saddam's threatened defeat. Joe Stork handles the Iraq file for Human Rights Watch in Washington.

"The United States, during president Reagan's tenure, was not interested at all in seeing the Iranians win. They may not have been particularly happy to see Iraq win either, but they wanted to make sure Iraq didn't lose," says Stork.

The massive files on Saddam's crimes show he was already using poison gas in the early '80s when Reagan twice sent Donald Rumsfeld as special envoy to reassure Saddam of America's interest in better relations. Washington not only ignored abuses, it vetoed United Nations moves to condemn Iraq for using chemical weapons.

"There was no interest at the time in seeing the relationship with Iraq getting complicated by things like human rights abuses or war crimes or this sort of thing," Stork says. "So, for instance, there was never any interest in the UN mechanisms, for instance, the Commission on Human Rights in Geneva, there was never any interest on the part of the United States or, it must be said, any of the other major powers in seeing a resolution condemning Iraq for its human rights abuses or setting up a special *******eur who would try to go in the country and investigate abuses and so forth. There was no interest in that until Iraq invaded Kuwait in August of 1990."

Other nations gave more direct military support to Saddam. The Soviet Union and France supplied 70 per cent of the arms that kept the dictator in power. Germany supplied parts for advanced missiles. But Reagan and Bush Sr. advised Saddam on how to fight his war and, most importantly, persuaded other Arab nations to rally behind him with arms supplies.

As for direct U.S. help, a partial list includes satellite intelligence, advanced computers and equipment for weapons system, equipment for Iraq's SCUD missile program, and 80 shipments of biological cultures, which may have been used without U.S. knowledge to produce germ warfare agents. In refusing to expose Saddam's crimes such as his gassing of 5,000 civilians in Halabja in 1988, the U.S. and Europeans became complicit in the cover-up. The crimes were widely known but ignored.

Phyllis Bennis of the Institute for Policy Studies in Washington is a strong critic of this record. "There was virtually no response. There were a few members of Congress who spoke up and said this is a terrible thing, but the U.S. policy did not change," she says.

"They continued to send the seed stock for biological weapons. They continued to send agricultural credits to finance the Iraqi regime. It was that same year that the U.S. was providing the targeting information for the chemical weapons attacks on Iranian soldiers. None of those things were sufficient for the U.S. to cut its military and financial and political relations with the regime of Saddam Hussein in Baghdad. It was just too convenient an ally. Oil rich, bringing stability to the region as far as the U.S. was concerned, and fighting the Iranian enemy. What could be bad? It's that kind of thinking that leads to the sort of atrocities that only now belatedly, and I would say with enormous hypocrisy, U.S. officials are acknowledging."

Others were tireless in courting Iraqi goodwill. French President Jacques Chirac sold Saddam a nuclear plant just as the dictator was beginning to plan for future nukes. Canada made Iraq one of its most important markets in the Middle East.

Today former Liberal foreign minister Lloyd Axworthy doesn't feel Canada drew much of a moral line.

"I think there were no particular efforts to raise the hue and cry," Axworthy says. "There were some actions in the human rights commissions, but not something that gave Mr. Saddam Hussein much to worry about. I think you would describe our record more as one of indifference as opposed to actual outright support."

It is now conservatively estimated by Human Rights Watch that Saddam killed 300,000 of his own people. Much of this murder was done while western governments were doing business there. In a future trial, Saddam may wish to talk about these former friends.

"I think that if there were an open trial, western governments, particularly the government in Washington, would be very worried about what might come out," Bennis says. "It's precisely for that reason that I'm very much afraid we're not going to see an open trial. We're much more likely to see a very closed process which will be heavily orchestrated, controlled by the United States, and where the sole defendant will be Saddam Hussein and his personal actions, without going any further to issues of who were the enablers, if you will."

So there are plenty of skeletons in Saddam's grisly closet, not all of them Iraqi. Before he took on the world by invading Kuwait in 1990, his steady rise and totalitarian might was aided and abetted by the power politics and sheer greed of outsiders. As so often happens in history, all thought they could sup with the tyrant without becoming contaminated, only to find out too late you never can.

[budanski]

Hey guess what? Stalin was part of the Allies that defeated Nazi Germany before the Cold War.

[Trigger]

Trigger wrote:

" Everyone knows we supported him for obvious reasons. It was convenient."

"I" did not support him at all... so don't lump me in with that "we" there, thanks. Apart from that then... what were the obvious reasons may I ask?
(1) Well, I say 'we' as a general statement. Next time I'll ask all 270 million U.S. citizens what there position is or was at that time. (2) The obvious reason of us being at severe odds with Iran (as if you didn't know already
"I'd like to see a country that would do differently if in the same position."

What position?
See above red text or read Pinkeye's reply for a more in depth analysis.
cheers
Back at'cha
front
:D

[pinkeye]

Hey guess what? Stalin was part of the Allies that defeated Nazi Germany before the Cold War.

hey, guess what? we all know that...
however, were the u.s. and britain supplying stalin with the resources stalin required to terrorise his people prior to the outbreak of ww2? i haven't seen any evidence of this, so if you are privy to such information, please share it with the rest of us.
and that was then, this is now. many have blood on their hands (be they french, german, american, etc.), so it's time their complicity is exposed to the larger public...

[Trigger]

Hey guess what? Stalin was part of the Allies that defeated Nazi Germany before the Cold War.

Stop embarassing us!

[martinexsquaddie]

mind you might be fun to whatch Donald squirm :lol:
alongside the french rofl.
could make good TV various powerful people explaining what they did.
Face any defense lawyer knows its hopeless and so must saddam might as well throw some poo before the short drop rofl

[budanski]

Who Armed Iraq?

Charles R. Smith
Monday, March 17, 2003
Newsmax (http://newsmax.com/archives/articles/2003/3/17/123424.shtml)

Myth vs. Fact

Name one weapon in the Iraqi arsenal that was made in the United States.

I have offered that challenge to dozens of so-called anti-war activists who claim that the U.S. armed Iraq. According to these protesters for "peace," George Bush Sr. and Ronald Reagan supplied Iraq with tons of weapons.

None have been able to name the specific weapon – missile, bomb, fighter, tank or shell – that is U.S.-made or has U.S. equipment installed in it. None have been able to name any specific weapon system.

All of them have failed the challenge, providing no more than allegations that U.S. parts are in Iraqi missiles or U.S. electronics are being used by the Iraqi military. One protester even claimed that Iraq was armed with U.S.-made trucks.

Since when is a truck a weapon? Are the Iraqis going to drive backwards, fuel tank first, into the U.S. Army?

Time to separate the myth from the reality. The propaganda spun by the far left is false. The facts show that Iraq is armed with a wide range of weapons – none of which came from the U.S.

Iraqi Air Force

The Iraqi air force does not fly Falcons or Eagles. The majority of the Iraqi air force is made in Russia. The Russian MiG and Sukhoi design bureaus supplied Iraq with hundreds of advanced strike-fighters and the Mach 3 Foxbat interceptor.

Saddam could field a force of advanced MiG-29 Fulcrum fighters if they had not chickened out of combat during the Gulf War, flying to Iran for asylum. The Iranians, who love Saddam even less than we do, never returned the MiGs.

The remainder of the Iraqi air force comes from France and China. The Chinese supplied Saddam with the Chengdu F-7, a copy of the Russian MiG-21. The F-7 can fly from unimproved runways and is known to be a vicious in-close dog fighter.

However, the French Mirage F-1 is reportedly the best jet fighter in Iraqi hands. You can view an Iraqi F-1 in action on the State Department Web site, testing a chemical spraying system.

If you still believe that the Iraqis have no chemical weapons, think again. Iraq did not modify its best multimillion-dollar fighter jet to spray for fruit flies.

Anyone with half of a brain knows that you cannot keep a modern jet fighter in the air without spare parts. Thus the Russian, Chinese and French jets should be museum pieces after 12 years of a so-called U.N. ban on weapons sales to Iraq. Yet somehow Saddam has his air force flying over 1,000 sorties a month.

Thanks to excellent reporting by Bill Gertz we now know that France has been supplying spare parts for Saddam's Mirage fighters. The French spare parts arrived in Baghdad not 20 years ago during the Cold War but last year, just in time to face our forces today.

Merci! With friends like, that who needs enemies?

Iraqi Missiles

Perhaps the Iraqi missile force has some U.S.-made weapons? Not. The primary Iraqi missile is the Russian-made Scud. Other missiles include the FROG-7 from Russia, the Exocet from France and the Silkworm from China.

The Iraqi air defense has plenty of missiles ... from Russia, China and France. The SA-2 Guideline, SA-3 Goa and SA-6 Gainful SAM missiles are all of Russian or Chinese manufacture. The French also supplied Baghdad with a number of Roland air defense missile systems.

Even the missile parts are from Chinese, German and French sources. Israeli authorities know full well what is inside Iraqi-made Scud missiles since many of them fell on Tel Aviv during the Gulf War. The Israelis found that the Scud warhead electronics were made in Germany – not the U.S.A.

In addition, William Safire recently wrote a column noting that a Chinese chemical company had supplied rocket fuel to Iraq through a French front company. Safire identified the fuel, the companies and the Iraqi missile facility where it was mixed into new Iraqi rockets. Again, the missile fuel sale was made within the last year, just in time to make new Iraqi missiles pointed at Kuwait, Turkey, Saudi Arabia and Iran.

Saddam sends his love to Paris and Beijing. Without your help he certainly could not threaten his neighbors with nerve gas and anthrax.

Iraqi Army

Okay, if not jet fighters and missiles, then how about tanks? Certainly the biggest weapons seller in the world, the U.S.A., sold tanks to Iraq.

The Iraqi armor force is made up of Chinese and Russian models familiar to any "cold" warrior. The Iraqi T-72 and T-55 tanks are all of Russian manufacture. The Iraqis also have a large number of Type-59 Chinese tanks and Russian-made BMP armored troop carriers. No M-1 Abrams here.

How about attack helicopters? The Iraqis have a number of choppers they used against the Kurds and Shiites.

So sorry, the Iraqi attack chopper force is Russian and French. The Russians supplied Iraq with a large number of the Mil-24 Hind attack helicopters, armed to the teeth with cannon, missiles and even chemical weapon sprayers.

The French supplied Saddam with a large number of Gazelle attack helicopters. The same French also managed to keep Saddam's attack helicopter force flying today with spare parts.

Guns, then? Surely the U.S. supplied Saddam with guns?

Nope. The main Iraqi artillery is the French 155mm howitzer. The remainder of Iraq's artillery is 122mm Russian-made cannons and Russian-made short-range rocket launchers. Even the Iraqi foot soldier is armed with the venerable AK-47 of Russian and Chinese make.

Iran-Iraq War

The facts are that during the Iran-Iraq war the U.S. supplied Iraq with something much more valuable than guns: satellite information on when and where the Iranians were going to attack.

Of course, current anti-war activists seize this piece of information without putting it into historical context. The information was supplied during the height of the Cold War. The main threat to America was the Soviet Union and the biggest fear in the Gulf was the Ayatollah Khomeini.

You remember the chant "death to America"? It almost seems that the ayatollah invented it. Ironically, the Ayatollah made his way to Tehran from his home in exile – Paris.

The Reagan administration, aware that the Iranian ayatollah had threatened to turn the Gulf into a sea of fire, assisted Saddam so that he would not lose the war. The assistance stopped short of helping Saddam win the war.

In fact, when it appeared the Iraqis were on the verge of victory, the Reagan administration transferred real weapons to the Iranians. The infamous Iran-Contra scandal involved a large number of badly needed U.S. TOW anti-tank missiles that were sold to Iran.

The U.S. missiles proved to be critical to the Iranian defense against Iraq's superior Russian tank force. The result was a stalemate and the war ended.

France/Russia/China

The fact is that Saddam owes billions to France, Russia and China for weapons purchases. Clearly, Iraq is buying more weapons from Paris and Beijing despite a U.N. arms embargo. Perhaps one reason why Paris, Moscow and Beijing oppose a war in Iraq is because they would lose their best customer.

The propaganda spun by the far left that the U.S. armed Iraq is false and backed by no facts. The so-called anti-war types are more interested in slamming Bush than stopping a war. None have been able to name one American-made weapon in the Iraqi arsenal.

More importantly, none of them can give one good reason why Saddam should stay in power.

http://home.mindspring.com/~wsgilcrest/arming_saddam.jpg


...that was then, this is now.

[mocking_loudly_died]

Of cause America didn't directly arm Iraq, that would be political suicide.

I'm certain the intelligence services had their hand in helping them get a massive amount of arms from the USSR though.

To many people here a playing (left /right) politics rather than thinking objectfully.
The USA isn't the devil but it does play dirty at times.

Last point, all nations are conniving, backstabbing bastards that would slice each other’s throats for a buck.

Welcome to the real world.

[pinkeye]

hey budanski, why don't you take the time to read news articles that aren't published by wacky right-wing sources; appears your sole sources of info are newsmax, the national review, and those absurd tabloids one finds in supermarkets. guess what budanski, on the whole, these aren't terribly credible sources of information. you have access to the internet, so why don't you expand your horizons...

no one on this board has claimed the u.s. delivered apache helicopters and abrams' to iraq, so you're are engaged in a pointless argument. the u.s. supported iraq in other ways, as the article i and others have posted. again, r-e-a-d.

[Trigger]

I wrote:

I was simply saying that the article was playing the old 'blame the west' card, which at this point is very old news.
That's genius Trigger woot
Everyone has already heard this stuff ad nauseum, but I guess some people can hope that this will somehow embarass the Americans if they keep repeating it.
Great post! woot

[pinkeye]

I wrote:

I was simply saying that the article was playing the old 'blame the west' card, which at this point is very old news.
That's genius Trigger woot
Everyone has already heard this stuff ad nauseum, but I guess some people can hope that this will somehow embarass the Americans if they keep repeating it.
Great post! woot

congratulations on your very first "great post"!! ;)

[Trigger]

Thanks for noticing! :D
It sucks 'cause I work so hard but get no love :lol:

[Roger Rabbit]

He could pull his trousers down and show his arse on tv!

That would be embaressing

[Trigger]

Rupert wrote:

He could pull his trousers down and show his arse on tv!

That would be embaressing
Yes, especially when everyone saw that tattoo on his left cheek that says 'ducimus' p-)

[Kitsune]

Well this is actually what came to my mind. The West and especially the USA could be quite embarrased if Saddam spilles the beans...

The truth is quite ugly, even if Budansky does not want to see it. Fact is the US supported Saddam...France and Germany may have selled stuff but this happened because the US explicitly wished for him to be supported. Of course back then even the US had to ask the Soviet Union and this state supprted it, too (they greatly feared that Khomeinis Islamism could influence their southern provinces...and it did).

But it is even worse I fear. It seems indeed to be the case that the US (helped by Israel) did everything to lenghten the Iran/Iraq war as much as possible. They sold weapons and information to both sides...supporting more the side that was losing. So the war went on and on. This had quite a few advantages:

1. Weapons were sold to both sides...very lucrative.

2. Both sides had to sell oil to pay the bill...To get money they had to sell oil...leading to a low oil price. Very good for the economy of America and Europe.

3. When the war ended Iran and Iraq were exhausted. No mighty Iran threatening the Saudi Oil fields. No triumphant Saddam creating an Arab empire.

The war took 8 years and 1 to 2 million men perished in it. Budansky may state this is a conspiracy theory. But I fear this one is true.
Main culprit is indeed the US...but Europe profitted also. And the Soviet Union agreed. And of course Israel liked the Situation of two enemies tearing each other apart. About everyone has blood on their hands...not only Saddam.

We will see what will happen to him.

[budanski]

hey budanski, why don't you take the time to read news articles that aren't published by wacky right-wing sources; appears your sole sources of info are newsmax, the national review, and those absurd tabloids one finds in supermarkets. guess what budanski, on the whole, these aren't terribly credible sources of information. you have access to the internet, so why don't you expand your horizons...

no one on this board has claimed the u.s. delivered apache helicopters and abrams' to iraq, so you're are engaged in a pointless argument. the u.s. supported iraq in other ways, as the article i and others have posted. again, r-e-a-d.

Here is another source with the same info. It is from the Stockholm International Peace Research Institute. From the name, hardly a right-wing organization.

Main page for Iraqi arms purchases (http://projects.sipri.se/armstrade/atirq_data.html)
Table with values for each year by country and totals for year and country (http://projects.sipri.se/armstrade/Trnd_Ind_IRQ_Imps_73-02.pdf)
Table showing detail of what type of weapons (http://projects.sipri.se/armstrade/IRQ_IMPRTS_73-02.pdf)

Kitsune:
I'm not denying U.S. support of Saddam at one time. But when you start painting a "America is evil" picture. You should take a look at yourself first.

[Kitsune]

Well, of course, I am also evil....

*devilish mad laughter*

p-)


But to be honest budanski...decide for yourself wether the policy of the USA concerning the Iraq/Iran war can be classified as "evil". I am just trying to remind the readers of this board from time to time of some things to lower their too-high-held heads a bit.

Concerning Germany I at least can say that we have learned to behave...Germany foreign policy emphasizes morals very high. Probably even more than France or the US. Or did you mean our 12 dark years? (As a German I will have to hear it for the next 1000 years I think...OMG)
But we are still human and so Germans committ evil deeds too, especially to earn some easy money. So in the case of Iraq. But with US consent. Would not have been possible otherwise. The Germany of the eighties would not have dared to act like the Germany of today did concerning the attack on Iraq. The Soviet Union was still there after all.

If one asks me today which of the great powers of the world...USA, EU, China, Russia is the most "good" one...I would say: the EU. Only that she isn't really a power yet, cause she does not speak in one voice. Europeans always try to pull the rope in all directions at once.
That leaves the US. Morally far superior to the Chinese or the Russians. And more powerful at present. So you rank 2nd on the Goodnes-Scale...that's not to bad I think. Keep on going.

But please remember what the US has done. Even the part that is not so nice. It should make you think. And that may help you to evolve and get even better.

;)

[He219]

Main culprit is indeed the US...but Europe profitted also. .
:roll:
Care to elaborate on that?

Military sales brokered by Israel were quite limited and part of equipment/weapons for Iran- profits for Contra Revolutionary fighters and also for the release of US hostages by Iranian backed groups. That didn't last too long.

Sales to Iraq - name them first. We had the unfortunate experience of having Iraqis launch two French made Exocet missiles at the USS Stark.

Using tacit deference towards Iraqi foreign policy against the fundamentalist Iranian revolutionaries that held US citizens hostage in our own Embassy certainly is not a dubious enterprise and does not make the US the 'Main Culprit' as France, Russia and Germany built Saddam's bunkers, atomic program and furnished his munitions. They are also the same nations that vehemently opposed the removal of his regieme.

Two World Wars started in your backyard. Don't tell us of your Moral High-Ground...

[Zach R.]

If one asks me today which of the great powers of the world...USA, EU, China, Russia is the most "good" one...I would say: the EU. Only that she isn't really a power yet, cause she does not speak in one voice. Europeans always try to pull the rope in all directions at once.
That leaves the US. Morally far superior to the Chinese or the Russians. And more powerful at present. So you rank 2nd on the Goodnes-Scale...that's not to bad I think. Keep on going.



;)


Oh, now I'm gonna kick yer butt. What the f*ck is a "goodness scale"? Are you nuts or something? Listen, you just basicly said that a continent that has murdered millions of Jews, started two world wars, has had some of the most oppresive dictators the world has ever seen, and supports and aids dictators like Saddam, is good? Good Lord. You just took a dive off the tallest cliff in the world. If the EU is #1 on the "goodness scale", the USA is the best on the "freeing people and coming to Europe's aid in two world wars" scale.

[Pojo]

Umm exactly who doesn't know that we supported Sadam in the past? All the papers and news channel I have seen recently all state that fact very clearly. Its nothing new and wont shock or impress anyone simply because everyone already knows it. If anyone should be scared of being exposed its the French and Russians. We know they offered tons of support but if Sadam spills just how massive this support was then some heads may turn.

In the end we helped him to get where he is but he decided to bite the hand that feeds him. Of course we then did what anyone else would fixed our mistake. The only thing you can really blame the US for is not finishing him off during Gulf I.

p-)

[Zach R.]

We know they offered tons of support but if Sadam spills just how massive this support was then some heads may turn.



p-)

Or roll.

[Kitsune]

@Zach R: Perhaps You failed in your history lessons pal. But the EU did not even exist in WWII.

Same goes for He 119. "Two World Wars started in your backyard." Here we go again. And you murdered countless Indians. And the damn Norwegians raidet our shoreline, those bastards. Not to talk about the Egyptians and how they worked their slaves to death...

Wake up man: We have changed. And yes. The US had their part in it. Should be to your satisfaction, in fact.

Lets get back to the middle east of the eighties. The US are the main culprit because they were calling the shots. There simply was no independent French and especially no independent German policy towards Iraq back then. The USA outlined the policy. The rest had to follow. And yes...we tried to profit as much as we could. That is our part of the guilt. But the US had the leading role. Question: If Germany would have been in the US shoes back then...would they behaved better? My answer: a definite DON'T KNOW. But the US WAS calling the shots.

Befor Hussein attacked Iran he asked for green light out of Washington. And he got it. Pretty difficult for the US now to accuse him of attacking a neighbor. Could be embarassing in the upcoming trial. Are the US evil? Its a bit difficult for a country to be evil, don't you think? And anyway...a deed is deed. The US did it or not. They did give Hussein green light for his attack on Iran or not, they lengthened the war as much as they could or not. But it certainly does not change anything that Budanski, He 119 or ZachR do not like it. And it also does not change anything what some guy named "Hitler" did 40 years before these events. Thats hardly an excuse.

Why I think that Europe is more "good" than the US today? Because we seem to emphasize morals more than the US does nowadays. The US still has capital punishment. We don't. (One of the things that makes me proud to be a European). The US keeps Prisoners in a questionable way in Guntanamo bay...no EU state would do such a thing (not even France I think, and certainly not the UK or Germany). The US starts a war based on lies, frauds (Iraqs Niger uranium deal :cantbeli: ) and exaggerations, we at least partly opposed it.

Do not get me wrong. I am NOT saying that the US are a force of evil. But I am saying that they are NOT the force of justice and light. And that is what many here seem to think. That the US is so damn great and good that they may start wars, kill people, break laws, whatever they want...because they always represent the light. And only the French are evil, selfish and power hungry.
Lets not forget: YOU started a war (sry two) recently, YOU killed people. So YOU have to justify and explain your actions. Especially if you want to judge Mrs Hussein in the name of morals, justice and the light.

p-)

[Pojo]

No doubt there are still silly people that think US does no wrong but I also think that the majority of americans understand that our interest do come first. I mean every country tries to get the best slice for itself and the US is no different. At least in my view US tries (not always with good results mind you) to do the right thing by everyone. Of course US needs some incentive to put its own people at risk such as oil, political stability and other things. Often US goes in to accomplish multiple tasks some are self serving while others benefit the people or region in the end. In my view that's acceptable way of doing what's right for US and helping others. We not going to fight someone else's war unless it effects the US is some bad way. The only time you fight for free is when you defend your own territory.

As far as who is the lesser evil between US and Europe I think that's pretty easy to answer. Just look at the history and what may likely happen in the future. Europe is filled with constant conflicts, entire history is nothing but wars. With so many diverse countries of various sized crammed together the wars wont end any time soon. Its just human nature to want what they don't have and kill to get it.

I will agree that US does abuse its dominant position a bit too much. We should at least try to make pretend like we care about what others think. On our current path of ignoring the little guys we just make them hate the US more and more. p-)

[16 OBr SpN]

We know they offered tons of support but if Sadam spills just how massive this support was then some heads may turn.



p-)

Or roll.

And what is America going to do? Start a war with us!? :lol:

[Ratamacue]

You better watch what you say before the Imperial American War Machine comes rolling your way. ;)

[16 OBr SpN]

You better watch what you say before the Imperial American War Machine comes rolling your way. ;)

My friend, if war breaks out between us there won't be no more: you, me, this forum, White House, Kremlin... ;)

Regards,
16 OBr SpN

[Ratamacue]

That's cool, the Aussies will survive, and everyone loves the Aussies. :)

("WTF mates?")

[wreck]

This thread was begging for this:


We Finally Got Our Frankenstein... and He Was In a Spider Hole! -- by Michael Moore


December 14, 2003




Thank God Saddam is finally back in American hands! He must have really missed us. Man, he sure looked bad! But, at least he got a free dental exam today. That's something most Americans can't get.


America used to like Saddam. We LOVED Saddam. We funded him. We armed him. We helped him gas Iranian troops.

But then he screwed up. He invaded the dictatorship of Kuwait and, in doing so, did the worst thing imaginable -- he threatened an even BETTER friend of ours: the dictatorship of Saudi Arabia, and its vast oil reserves. The Bushes and the Saudi royal family were and are close business partners, and Saddam, back in 1990, committed a royal blunder by getting a little too close to their wealthy holdings. Things went downhill for Saddam from there.


But it wasn't always that way. Saddam was our good friend and ally. We supported his regime. It wasn’t the first time we had helped a murderer. We liked playing Dr. Frankenstein. We created a lot of monsters -- the Shah of Iran, Somoza of Nicaragua, Pinochet of Chile -- and then we expressed ignorance or shock when they ran amok and massacred people. We liked Saddam because he was willing to fight the Ayatollah. So we made sure that he got billions of dollars to purchase weapons. Weapons of mass destruction. That's right, he had them. We should know -- we gave them to him!

We allowed and encouraged American corporations to do business with Saddam in the 1980s. That's how he got chemical and biological agents so he could use them in chemical and biological weapons. Here's the list of some of the stuff we sent him (according to a 1994 U.S. Senate report):

* Bacillus Anthracis, cause of anthrax.

* Clostridium Botulinum, a source of botulinum toxin.

* Histoplasma Capsulatam, cause of a disease attacking lungs, brain, spinal cord, and heart.

* Brucella Melitensis, a bacteria that can damage major organs.

* Clostridium Perfringens, a highly toxic bacteria causing systemic illness.

* Clostridium tetani, a highly toxigenic substance.

And here are some of the American corporations who helped to prop Saddam up by doing business with him: AT&T, Bechtel, Caterpillar, Dow Chemical, Dupont, Kodak, Hewlett-Packard, and IBM (for a full list of companies and descriptions of how they helped Saddam, go here).


We were so cozy with dear old Saddam that we decided to feed him satellite images so he could locate where the Iranian troops were. We pretty much knew how he would use the information, and sure enough, as soon as we sent him the spy photos, he gassed those troops. And we kept quiet. Because he was our friend, and the Iranians were the "enemy." A year after he first gassed the Iranians, we reestablished full diplomatic relations with him!

Later he gassed his own people, the Kurds. You would think that would force us to disassociate ourselves from him. Congress tried to impose economic sanctions on Saddam, but the Reagan White House quickly rejected that idea -- they wouldn’t let anything derail their good buddy Saddam. We had a virtual love fest with this Frankenstein whom we (in part) created.

And, just like the mythical Frankenstein, Saddam eventually spun out of control. He would no longer do what he was told by his master. Saddam had to be caught. And now that he has been brought back from the wilderness, perhaps he will have something to say about his creators. Maybe we can learn something... interesting. Maybe Don Rumsfeld could smile and shake Saddam's hand again. Just like he did when he went to see him in 1983 (see the photo here).

Maybe we never would have been in the situation we're in if Rumsfeld, Bush, Sr., and company hadn't been so excited back in the 80s about their friendly monster in the desert.

Meanwhile, anybody know where the guy is who killed 3,000 people on 9/11? Our other Frankenstein?? Maybe he's in a mouse hole.

So many of our little monsters, so little time before the next election.



Stay strong, Democratic candidates. Quit sounding like a bunch of wusses. These bastards sent us to war on a lie, the killing will not stop, the Arab world hates us with a passion, and we will pay for this out of our pockets for years to come. Nothing that happened today (or in the past 9 months) has made us ONE BIT safer in our post-9/11 world. Saddam was never a threat to our national security.



Only our desire to play Dr. Frankenstein dooms us all.


Yours,

Michael Moore

[aktarian]

Who Armed Iraq?

Charles R. Smith
Monday, March 17, 2003
Newsmax (http://newsmax.com/archives/articles/2003/3/17/123424.shtml)

Myth vs. Fact

Name one weapon in the Iraqi arsenal that was made in the United States.
I have offered that challenge to dozens of so-called anti-war activists who claim that the U.S. armed Iraq. According to these protesters for "peace," George Bush Sr. and Ronald Reagan supplied Iraq with tons of weapons.

None have been able to name the specific weapon – missile, bomb, fighter, tank or shell – that is U.S.-made or has U.S. equipment installed in it. None have been able to name any specific weapon system.

All of them have failed the challenge, providing no more than allegations that U.S. parts are in Iraqi missiles or U.S. electronics are being used by the Iraqi military. One protester even claimed that Iraq was armed with U.S.-made trucks.


Mk.84 bombs. Bought from Saudi Arabia (US demands aproval of any sales of US military equipment to third party).

TOW missiles.

Hughes 300C training helicopters.

Hughes 500D/530F helicopters

Bell 214ST helicopters.

US also sold spraying equipment for these helicopters. Somehow they found themselves painted in desert camouflage and droping chemical weapons on Iranians. :roll:

[aktarian]

Sales to Iraq - name them first. We had the unfortunate experience of having Iraqis launch two French made Exocet missiles at the USS Stark.

And what was US reaction to this? USN established office in Bagad and put more pressure on Iran.

[ShotOver]

http://www.opflash.org/pt/troll.jpg

[Skaman]

Everyone looks for a viable excuse to cover their shady tracks. The United States is just having more trouble doing so, and their perpetual compounding of lies and political dilemmas reveal much to be said about American foreign policy. There is nothing to be said that has not already been clarified.

[papasmerf]

Everyone looks for a viable excuse to cover their shady tracks. The United States is just having more trouble doing so, and their perpetual compounding of lies and political dilemmas reveal much to be said about American foreign policy. There is nothing to be said that has not already been clarified.

Who gave you the right to speak?

[ShotOver]

Yeah, someone tell that guy to **** right off.

[earl]

That's cool, the Aussies will survive, and everyone loves the Aussies. :)

("WTF mates?")

No they won't, didn't you watch the whole documentary?
http://members.cox.net/impunity/endofworld.swf
.
.
.

[mocking_loudly_died]

Man, I have some really sweaty balls today.

Stinky.

[Durandal]

Hey guess what? Stalin was part of the Allies that defeated Nazi Germany before the Cold War.

hey, guess what? we all know that...
however, were the u.s. and britain supplying stalin with the resources stalin required to terrorise his people prior to the outbreak of ww2? i haven't seen any evidence of this, so if you are privy to such information, please share it with the rest of us.
and that was then, this is now. many have blood on their hands (be they french, german, american, etc.), so it's time their complicity is exposed to the larger public...

Had to step in here. There is no evidence that the United States provided anything to HELP Saddam terrorize his OWN people. During World War 2 Stalin waged several terror campaigns against his OWN people during WWII during which entire villages and towns were razed.

I mean, was there a time that Stalin did not terrorize the people he ruled? Come on now.

[pinkeye]

Hey guess what? Stalin was part of the Allies that defeated Nazi Germany before the Cold War.

hey, guess what? we all know that...
however, were the u.s. and britain supplying stalin with the resources stalin required to terrorise his people prior to the outbreak of ww2? i haven't seen any evidence of this, so if you are privy to such information, please share it with the rest of us.
and that was then, this is now. many have blood on their hands (be they french, german, american, etc.), so it's time their complicity is exposed to the larger public...

Had to step in here. There is no evidence that the United States provided anything to HELP Saddam terrorize his OWN people. During World War 2 Stalin waged several terror campaigns against his OWN people during WWII during which entire villages and towns were razed.

I mean, was there a time that Stalin did not terrorize the people he ruled? Come on now.

are you serious? there's plenty of concrete evidence. many articles have been posted on this site, for example, in the last few months proving that the u.s., among other states, directly and indirectly supported saddam's regime during the 1980s. do the research, or is that too much to ask?!? hell, the article i posted in this thread mentions american involvement.

and i never said anything about stalin not terrorising his own people, so you might as well cease and desist 'cause your point is going nowhere fast.

[duck]

Politics is not about objective truths. Politics is about images, the feel good-factor and personal and political survival. For all.

[stephane from Paris]

"Anyone with half of a brain knows that you cannot keep a modern jet fighter in the air without spare parts. Thus the Russian, Chinese and French jets should be museum pieces after 12 years of a so-called U.N. ban on weapons sales to Iraq. Yet somehow Saddam has his air force flying over 1,000 sorties a month.

Thanks to excellent reporting by Bill Gertz we now know that France has been supplying spare parts for Saddam's Mirage fighters. The French spare parts arrived in Baghdad not 20 years ago during the Cold War but last year, just in time to face our forces today.

Merci! With friends like, that who needs enemies?"

Hahahaha again a troll attack from ultra right americans journalists!!
Where 're the proof????? Nowhere it's a pure lie, say it: even if it's not true, people will record it! brain control!
No proof, and no Mirage 1 in the sky of Irak in OIF ! No use of the 16years old missiles that a muppets was sure that we sold recently!

Western countries supported Sadam againts Islamist integrist (you remembers the guys who did the 09/11) like Iran and shiats islamists leaders! Between 2 bad option we choose the tyran!
I hope to see the tyran in a trial and listen what he have to says about that! Maybee he will kill himself strangely before.
btw, chirac made business with Irak when he was prime minister in the 70's, before Sadam will be the boss!

Interresting to hear Bush says tonight that if sadam didn't have WMD he wanted to have some, that's enought!!!!!!
So if you thinks one day: "i hope to see this guy dead", police should arrest you! "hey i didn't kill someone!!!" "yes but you had the idea in mind"
Funny comments from Bush!
The lesser funny is that Bush said he had proof of WMD (not the old ones destroyed by UN) , so or CIA is full of muppets (i don't think so) or Bush gang lie to US people to sell his war!
For a ridiculous lie about a ****party, one US president was under fire!
What about Bush and his WMD and Al Qaida links lies????

[Trigger]

Everyone looks for a viable excuse to cover their shady tracks. The United States is just having more trouble doing so...
OK for the THIRD F**KING TIME this is old news that everyone already knows. There is no 'covering of tracks'. We realize that this is all you have to grasp at, but give it up.

[budanski]

For an extended period of time US policy was that any research labs were required to share viruses and items like anthrax with other research labs from other countries if that country was not deemed an "enemy." We sent three shipments to university research hospital in Iraq, with the first being in 1973. A lab in England supplied the fourth. The objective was to help others try to come up with antidotes or cures for certain diseases. It was not until Iraq invaded Kuwait that we put them on the "bad" list that would have prohibited the export of any anthrax or similar items.

The policy was naive but had good intentions. In hindsight, it was probably pretty stupid. In 1973 we were heavily involved in Vietnam and the Middle East was probably not high on our radar screen. Then in the 1980s after the hostage situation in Iran we saw Iraq as the enemy of our enemy so no flag would have been triggered by sales of viral strains to a University research hospital there at that time. Unfortunately, this has been spun into us somehow deliberatly creating a biological weapons program for Iraq as policy.

This is a copy of the Riegle report that was submitted to Congress in 1994. It is in regards to the possibility that some of our military were exposed to chemical or biological agents during the first Gulf War.

Full Report Here (http://www.gulfweb.org/bigdoc/report/riegle1.html)
Detailed list of every biological agent shipped to Iraq (http://www.gulfweb.org/bigdoc/report/r_1_2.html)

This shows only two shipments but each contained more than one sample. The third in 1973.

SNIP

Date : May 2, 1986
Sent To : Ministry of Higher Education
Materials Shipped:

1. Bacillus Anthracis Cohn (ATCC 10)
Batch # 08-20-82 (2 each)
Class III pathogen

12. Bacillus Anthracis (ATCC 14185)
Batch #01-14-80 (3 each)
G.G. Wright (Fort Detrick)
V770-NP1-R. Bovine Anthrax
Class III pathogen

13. Bacillus Anthracis (ATCC 14578)
Batch #01-06-78 (2 each)
Class III pathogen

Date : September 29, 1988
Sent To : Ministry of Trade
Materials Shipped:

1. Bacillus anthracis (ATCC 240)
Batch # 05-14-63 (3 each)
Class III pathogen

2. Bacillus anthracis (ATCC 938)
Batch # 1963 (3 each)
Class III pathogen

5. Bacillus anthracis (ATCC 8705)
Batch # 06-27-62 (3 each)
Class III pathogen

8. Bacillus anthracis (ATCC 11966)
Batch #05-05-70 (3 each)
Class III pathogen

from the text: "...pathogenic (meaning "disease producing"), toxigenic (meaning "poisonous"), and other biological research materials were exported to Iraq pursuant to application and licensing by the U.S. Department of Commerce. Records prior to 1985 were not available, according to the supplier."

[budanski]

Interesting newspaper articles as well as a lot of independent research here. Wisconsin Project (http://www.wisconsinproject.org/)

From a Wall Street Journal article: (http://www.ph.ucla.edu/epi/bioter/vilebusiness.html)

Will our troops find caches of poison gas, or even be hit by it on the battlefield? If so, German and French companies will be mainly to blame. In the 1980's, the German firm Karl Kolb and the French firm Protec combined to furnish millions of dollars' worth of sensitive equipment to six separate plants for making mustard gas and nerve agents, with a capacity of hundreds of tons of nerve agent per year. These companies had to know what the specialized glass-lined vessels they peddled were to be used for. It is insufferable that, like Pontius Pilate, Germany and France now wash their hands of the whole affair, and even chastise others for cleaning up the mess their companies helped create.

And how would the poison gas be carried? A gas doesn't stream through the ether by itself to reach a target. A specially prepared munition has to deliver it. Iraq admits that in the 1980's it bought more than 3,000 chemical-ready aerial bombs from Spain, more than 8,000 chemical-ready artillery shells from Italy and Spain, and more than 12,000 chemical-ready rocket warheads from Italy and Egypt. Most of these munitions remain unaccounted for. If our troops take casualties from a gas attack, they will have been inflicted by an international consortium of reckless suppliers.

There are also some Scud-type missiles to worry about that were left over from the first Gulf War. Saddam may fire some at Tel Aviv (as in 1991) to goad Israel into the fighting. Our friends the Russians sold Iraq 819 of these missiles, but the Iraqis soon discovered they didn't fly far enough. Their range had to be increased to reach Tel Aviv, where they flattened buildings in the first Gulf War, and to bombard Saudi Arabia, where they killed 28 American soldiers sleeping in their barracks. The Germans were only too happy to provide what was needed to make the missiles more lethal. From the German firm Thyssen came 35 turbopumps to enhance their rocket engines; from the firms BP, Carl Zeiss, Degussa and Tesa came training in wind tunnels and missile electronics; and from the electronic giant Siemens came switching devices and electrical systems to control missile fuel production. Not to be left out, Britain's Matrix Churchill Ltd. (in which the Iraqis had a controlling interest) supplied sensitive machine tools, Britain's TMG Engineering served as a front company for missile procurement, and U.S. defense contractor Litton Industries bankrolled the German firm that built Iraq's main missile production complex.

And anthrax? Botulinum? Most of the strains to make these deadly agents came from an outfit in Maryland - the American Type Culture Collection. France's Pasteur Institute also sold some. The Iraqis admitted producing 8,445 liters of anthrax (inspectors think three times as much was made) and almost 20,000 liters of botulinum. Both of these germs were loaded into missile warheads and aerial bombs. The Iraqis were also working on airborne spray devices. These weapons too remain mostly unaccounted for. If our troops or cities are attacked with this material, our own bugs will be coming back to bite us.

In all, the rush to outfit Saddam with mass destruction weapons reveals a lot about national morals. Our organization did a study of Saddam's pre-Gulf War suppliers a few year back. We discovered that Germany garnered fully half the total sales. In fact, just before the Gulf War, Germany was selling complete, ready-to-operate poison gas plants to Iraq and Libya at the same time. The rest of the world divided the remaining half of Iraq's purchases. The Swiss, who have an unreasonably good reputation in the world, placed second in the sweepstakes with about 8% of sales (specialized presses, milling machines, grinding machines and electrical discharge machines found at nuclear weapon sites; procurement of missile parts and supervision of missile plant construction; equipment for processing uranium to nuclear weapon grade). In third place, with 4% each, Italy and France scored a tie.

[budanski]

At one end, the critics are accusing the U.S. of suppling WMDs to Iraq. The other end, They ask "where are the WMDs?"

[stephane from Paris]

You should read again my post!
Every body knows that Irak had chemical WMD and tried to have missile technologies (sold by German's firms and US's ones for electronics parts).
I saw a TV report where the boss of a californian company asked the green light from CIA to sell sensitive electronics material that should be used for missiles, and officials said OK!! It was in the 80's!
US press accused France and Germany to sold WMD but USA did the same thing!
But this war begun because Bush said that Sadam had ready in 20minutes WMD, and links with bin laden!
After Bush spoke about freedom! Great news for all people who live in contries where the human rights are out: pakistan (Musharaf escape a bomb recently), saudi, Turkey, Egypt, dozens of south america's.... Ho god they're friends!
The UN inspectors didn't find any proof of more WMD that the ones they destroyed! And You don't find it!
Now Bush just speak about freedom (the lies on WMD and links with terrorists are deleted).

[budanski]

gay[/b] Paris]You should read again my post!
Every body knows that Irak had chemical WMD and tried to have missile technologies (sold by German's firms and US's ones for electronics parts).
I saw a TV report where the boss of a californian company asked the green light from CIA to sell sensitive electronics material that should be used for missiles, and officials said OK!! It was in the 80's!
US press accused France and Germany to sold WMD but USA did the same thing!
But this war begun because Bush said that Sadam had ready in 20minutes WMD, and links with bin laden!
After Bush spoke about freedom! Great news for all people who live in contries where the human rights are out: pakistan (Musharaf escape a bomb recently), saudi, Turkey, Egypt, dozens of south america's.... Ho god they're friends!
The UN inspectors didn't find any proof of more WMD that the ones they destroyed! And You don't find it!
Now Bush just speak about freedom (the lies on WMD and links with terrorists are deleted).
This is interesting. Can you please source where "Bush said that Sadam had ready in 20minutes WMD, and links with bin laden!"

Oh btw, did the UN inspectors find the WMD's Saddam admitted to in 1998?
Just before Iraq kicked out U.N. weapons inspectors in 1998, Saddam admitted he had:

• At least 3.9 tons of deadly VX nerve gas, along with 805 tons of precursor ingredients for the production of more VX.

• 4,000 tons of ingredients to produce other types of poison gas.

• 8,500 liters of anthrax.

• 500 bombs fitted with parachutes for the purpose of delivering poison gas or germ payloads.

• 550 artillery shells filled with mustard gas.

• 107,500 casings for chemical weapons.

• 157 aerial bombs filled with germ agents.

• 25 missile warheads containing germ agents, including anthrax, aflatoxin, and botulinum.

Again, the above arsenal is NOT what U.S. or European intelligence said it suspected Baghdad had.

[Jack Mehoff]

We often hear the liberal trash-talking about how the USA supported Saddam vs Iran in the 1980's and sometimes it is even combined with the flat-out lie that we installed him as President in the first place.

Any simple search on Google for a Saddam biography will show you that he murdered his way to the top and used his uncles high position in the Baath party as a stepping stone to achieve a Stalin-like dictatorship.

Did we sell arms to Saddam in the 1980's to fight Iran? Yes we did, but we also sold arms to Iran at the same time. Selling arms to two nations at war is not the cause of the war, they would have bought those arms elsewhere and they did in much larger numbers than we ever sold them.

So who did supply Saddam with most of his arms?

Well from 1979-1989 we know that:

USSR 19.2 billion (61% of total)
France 5.5 billion (18% of total)
China 1.6 biilionn (5%)
Brazil 1.1 billionn (4%)
Egypt 1.1 billionn (4%)
Others 2.8 billionn (8%)

The USA falls into that "Others" category along with the UK and many other nations.

So let's stop telling lies. It was not the USA who created Saddam. It was not the USA who did the most to help him. It was not even a close contest.

All you have to do is look at Iraq's debt. Who do they owe it to? It's mostly Russia, then comes France and the other Paris Club nations, and then the other Gulf states. Only about 2% is owed to the US and UK combined and you can be sure that is already forgiven.

Let's stop with the leftist propaganda bullcrap and start telling the truth. So next time someone asks you who created this monster, the appropriate answer would be nobody, but Russia sure helped him the most.

[martinexsquaddie]

uk broke its own rules flogging kit to iraq.
sending anthrax to saddam was stupid
rumsfield shaking hands with saddam should come back to haunt him as well as keeping relations going with him after the gas attack on the kurds.
the germans flogging poison gas equipment should get some more stick as should italy and spain.
russian and china well there goverment until the 1990s were evil through and through chinas still is.

[He219]

Just to clarify the repeated reference......


Note the formality in this picture


http://www.random-abstract.com/archives-gm/rumsfeld-sadam-bigger.jpg
CNN.com - Interview With Donald Rumsfeld (http://www.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/0209/21/cst.01.html)
MCINTYRE: Well, let me take you back about 20 years ago.
The date, I believe, was December 20th, 1983, you were meeting with Saddam Hussein.
I think we have some video of that, of that meeting. Tell me what was going on during this meeting.
RUMSFELD: Where did you get this video? From the Iraqi television...
MCINTYRE: This is from Iraqi television.
RUMSFELD: When did they give it to you? Recently or back then?
MCINTYRE: No, we've dug this out of the CNN library.
RUMSFELD: I see. Isn't that interesting? There I am.
MCINTYRE: So what was going on here? What were you thinking at the time?
RUMSFELD: Well, Iraq was in a battle, war with Iran. And the United States had just had 241 Marines killed. And President Reagan asked me to take a leave of absence from my company and serve as a temporary special envoy, and I traveled throughout the Middle East for a period of months. And we were trying to get the Syrians to get out of Lebanon and stop killings Americans at the Marine barracks. And among other things, we believed that it would be helpful if Saddam Hussein's Iraq would behave in a way in that region that would be helpful to our goals with respect to Syria and the terrorist threat that existed. And we decided it was worth having me go in and meet with him. In that visit, I cautioned him about the use of chemical weapons, as a matter or fact, and discussed a host of other things.




On the other hand......


France, however, was also a major supplier. When he was prime minister in 1974, Jacques Chirac went to Baghdad to see Saddam Hussein, then the power in Iraq, though not yet the president.

The following year, Saddam Hussein went to France and Prime Minister Chirac showed him round a nuclear plant.

They negotiated the sale to Iraq of two French nuclear reactors. One of them was destroyed in an air raid by the Israelis in 1981 amid fears that Iraq was developing a nuclear weapon.

France also agreed to provide Iraq with 133 Mirage F1 jet fighters over a 10-year period. It is reckoned that during the 1980s, 40% of France's arms exports went to Iraq.

'My dear friend'

In 1987, a French paper published a letter written to Saddam Hussein by Jacques Chirac a few months previously. It began: " My dear friend."

It refers obliquely to "the negotiation which you know about" and to the "co-operation launched more than 12 years ago under our personal joint initiative, in this capital district for the sovereignty, independence and security of your country."

Mr Chirac denied that the "negotiation" meant a discussion about repairing Iraq's nuclear reactors.

The French president has since said that, at the time, many governments supported Iraq in its war against Iran and that Iraq was seen as "progressive".

Indeed many other Western countries - including the United States, Britain, West Germany and Italy - also helped Iraq with equipment and expertise, both civilian and military, and with finance.

Iraq's Arab neighbours in the Gulf, Kuwait and Saudi Arabia among them saw revolutionary Iran as a threat and poured money into Baghdad.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/3324053.stm[/quote]



excerpt from The Sun

1 The French President first met Saddam in 1972 when the pair struck a lucrative oil deal. Chirac described Saddam then as a “personal friend” and little appears to have changed. Chirac is the only Western head of state to know Saddam personally.

2 France has sold the tyrant arms worth £15billion, more than even the Soviets at the height of the Cold War.

3 They have also built two nuclear reactors near Baghdad.

4 Saddam was close to getting an A-bomb before Israeli jets blitzed his facilities in 1981 in a raid condemned by Chirac as “unacceptable”. Without Israel’s hardline act, Saddam could have held the world to ransom with nuclear arms.

5 Chirac is so keen to build on relations with Saddam he has his own special envoy in Baghdad who is so trusted he is even allowed to sit in on Iraqi Cabinet meetings.

6 Despite world opinion, the men have continued to cut deals. Chirac encouraged French firms to help re-arm Iraq after its war with Iran in the 1980s. French companies sold Baghdad warplanes armed with Exocet missiles.

7 Chirac was so keen to help his old pal he even extended him credit when Iraq failed to meet the repayments. France also sold Iraq equipment to improve the accuracy and range of Scud missiles.

8 Despite tough UN trade sanctions, French firms hold massive oil contracts with Iraq. And there are many more in the pipeline — even in the aftermath of a second Gulf War, Chirac has told energy bosses.

9 Time and time again France has turned a blind eye to Iraq’s abuses when they have been exposed by the UN Security Council. It comes as no surprise to diplomats that French firms keep on landing lucrative deals.

10 World leaders were horrified after Iraq invaded Kuwait in 1990 but France again helped Saddam. Under pressure from Chirac, then President Francois Mitterrand sent emissaries to 24 countries assuring them France would only participate in the war as a “defensive” measure.

[2Sheds_Jackson]

Dealing with Saddam seems to have been a classic "the enemy of my enemy is my friend" or "lesser of two evils" type of situation. The geopolitical power game is a messy one & it's clear that everybody is jumping in & out of bed with each other as it suits them at the moment. Most of the West clearly dumped Saddam once it became clear he was more of a threat than an asset.

However, if the above posts (regarding France) are true - one really does have to question their credibility. They've been supplying Iraq all along. Seeing has how these deals were made "under the table" and on a personal level - I'd love to follow the money trail to see exactly where Saddam's money went to (what individuals it went to).

Hmmm wait a minute, we've got Saddam now...maybe he knows something about this! And, wait, didn't France really really really really NOT want us to get him? It's gonna be an interesting few weeks we're in for...

[Zach R.]

Steph, I know exactly how you feel, about how, we waited way too long to go after bin laden. You're absolutely right. Who do we have to thank for this? No, not Reagan. Nope, you're still wrong, it wasn't George H. Bush either. And no, you're still wrong. It was not G.W. that procrastinated over the issue (infact, plans were on the table to go after bin laden, before 9/11.). The man who screwd us over, is William Jefferson Clinton. Or just plain Wild Bill if you preffer. After the WTC terrorist attack in 93', no action was taken. A speech was made I think, but nothing really that big. And I don't even know how many U.S. embassies were bombed by al qaida during the Clinton administration. Not to mention the bombing of the USS Cole in 1998. A big speech was made, and a 6 man FBI team was sent to Afghanistan. Which lasted about a week (trust me, I've done the research). Missiles were launched into training camps, but unfortunately, no one was home to be on the receiving end. Ok, I'm done with my rant. If anyone needs me I'll be working on my last two pages of Algebra homework (Big test coming up). I got a 3.87 on my last grade card, let's see if I can get a 4.0 woot

[Trident-za]

An interesting article at the Jane's Defence website on the whole Saddam "can of worms"...

http://www.janes.com/security/international_security/news/jid/jid031217_1_n.shtml

While it is true that the role of the US/UK/Russia/France etc in Iraq is to some extent "old news", I don't think their respective roles have had to be defended in a legal court before...... Will it be a big deal? Or something that will be "smoothed over" quickly? Who knows, time (and the courts) will tell. Personally, I think this is gonna be a bit more embarrasing for the west (not just the USA) than most of you are thinking (or is that hoping?)

[2Sheds_Jackson]

An interesting article at the Jane's Defence website on the whole Saddam "can of worms"...

http://www.janes.com/security/international_security/news/jid/jid031217_1_n.shtml

While it is true that the role of the US/UK/Russia/France etc in Iraq is to some extent "old news", I don't think their respective roles have had to be defended in a legal court before...... Will it be a big deal? Or something that will be "smoothed over" quickly? Who knows, time (and the courts) will tell. Personally, I think this is gonna be a bit more embarrasing for the west (not just the USA) than most of you are thinking (or is that hoping?)

Any time I hear "world court" I get a sick feeling in my stomach...kind of like eating bad calimari. The UN is already a joke, as are the various other "world" entites. It implies a level of control, order, and even-handedness that simply does not exist.

The last thing anybody needs is for Saddam to be given more camera time. Try the f0cker in closed proceedings in Iraq...followed by a short march to the square for a light stoning, refreshments, and then the public beheading. End of problem

[Trident-za]

I'm sure there are a whole range of politicians around the planet who agree with you :)

[stephane from Paris]

Sorry Budanski but your articles have strange inaccuracies:
Chirac and Sadam's meeting was in 72 or 74 :roll: ????
It's not 133 mirage F1 but 64!!!!!!!!! How journalists can do so bad work!

Prior to 09/11, Colin Powell went to UN to justify embargo, and he said:
the embargo is efficient, Irak destroyed it's WMD stocks and sadam can't attack other countries with WMD or military forces.

Several weeks after 09/11, the same Colin powell said to UN :
Irak have tons of WMD, we knows them and where they are, we knows that there's link with al qaida, we have proffs too!!!!

Prior to the war Bush said that Irak get Uranium from Niger (we all know that it was a CIA misinformation and a pure lie).

Budanski don't you remember when Bush spoke on a aircraft carrier???? He said again the same, but now strangely everybody forget!!!!

Bush gang saids lies about the danger of Irak, the WMD, the link with al qaida (ridiculous everybody knows that sadam was the enemy of islamists integrists), the Niger's uranium.
The real ennemy was and is still islamists integrists, and know for most of muslims populations they are like Robin hood. Pray to not have a shiite islamist party for new iraki's government!!!!



Rumsfeld Visited Baghdad in 1984 to Reassure Iraqis, Documents Show
Trip Followed Criticism Of Chemical Arms' Use
By Dana Priest
Washington Post Staff Writer
Friday, December 19, 2003; Page A42


Donald H. Rumsfeld went to Baghdad in March 1984 with instructions to deliver a private message about weapons of mass destruction: that the United States' public criticism of Iraq for using chemical weapons would not derail Washington's attempts to forge a better relationship, according to newly declassified documents.




Rumsfeld, then President Ronald Reagan's special Middle East envoy, was urged to tell Iraqi Foreign Minister Tariq Aziz that the U.S. statement on chemical weapons, or CW, "was made strictly out of our strong opposition to the use of lethal and incapacitating CW, wherever it occurs," according to a cable to Rumsfeld from then-Secretary of State George P. Shultz.

The statement, the cable said, was not intended to imply a shift in policy, and the U.S. desire "to improve bilateral relations, at a pace of Iraq's choosing," remained "undiminished." "This message bears reinforcing during your discussions."

The documents, obtained under the Freedom of Information Act by the nonprofit National Security Archive, provide new, behind-the-scenes details of U.S. efforts to court Iraq as an ally even as it used chemical weapons in its war with Iran.

An earlier trip by Rumsfeld to Baghdad, in December 1983, has been widely reported as having helped persuade Iraq to resume diplomatic ties with the United States. An explicit purpose of Rumsfeld's return trip in March 1984, the once-secret documents reveal for the first time, was to ease the strain created by a U.S. condemnation of chemical weapons.

The documents do not show what Rumsfeld said in his meetings with Aziz, only what he was instructed to say. It would be highly unusual for a presidential envoy to have ignored direct instructions from Shultz.

When details of Rumsfeld's December trip came to light last year, the defense secretary told CNN that he had "cautioned" Saddam Hussein about the use of chemical weapons, an account that was at odds with the declassified State Department notes of his 90-minute meeting, which did not mention such a caution. Later, a Pentagon spokesman said Rumsfeld raised the issue not with Hussein, but with Aziz.

Pentagon spokesman Larry Di Rita said yesterday that "the secretary said what he said, and I would go with that. He has a recollection of how that meeting went, and I can't imagine that some additional cable is going to change how he recalls the meeting."

"I don't think it has to be inconsistent," Di Rita said. "You could make a strong condemnation of the use of chemical weapons, or any kind of lethal agents, and then say, with that in mind, 'Here's another set of issues' " to be discussed.

Last year, the Bush administration cited its belief that Iraq had and would use weapons of mass destruction -- including chemical, biological and nuclear devices -- as the principal reason for going to war.

But throughout 1980s, while Iraq was fighting a prolonged war with Iran, the United States saw Hussein's government as an important ally and bulwark against the militant Shiite extremism seen in the 1979 revolution in Iran. Washington worried that the Iranian example threatened to destabilize friendly monarchies in Kuwait, Saudi Arabia and Jordan.

Publicly, the United States maintained neutrality during the eight-year Iran-Iraq war, which began in 1980.

Privately, however, the administrations of Reagan and George H.W. Bush sold military goods to Iraq, including poisonous chemicals and deadly biological agents, worked to stop the flow of weapons to Iran, and undertook discreet diplomatic initiatives, such as the two Rumsfeld trips to Baghdad, to improve relations with Hussein.

Tom Blanton, executive director of the National Security Archives, a Washington-based research center, said the secret support for Hussein offers a lesson for U.S. foreign relations in the post-Sept. 11 world.

"The dark corners of diplomacy deserve some scrutiny, and people working in places like Saudi Arabia, Egypt, Pakistan and Uzbekistan deserve this kind of scrutiny, too, because the relations we're having with dictators today will produce Saddams tomorrow."

Shultz, in his instructions to Rumsfeld, underscored the confusion that the conflicting U.S. signals were creating for Iraq.

"Iraqi officials have professed to be at a loss to explain our actions as measured against our stated objectives," he wrote. "As with our CW statement, their temptation is to give up rational analysis and retreat to the line that U.S. policies are basically anti-Arab and hostage to the desires of Israel."

The declassified documents also show the hope of another senior diplomat, the British ambassador to Iraq, in working constructively with Hussein.

Shortly after Hussein became deputy to the president in 1969, then-British Ambassador H.G. Balfour Paul cabled back his impressions after a first meeting: "I should judge him, young as he is, to be a formidable, single-minded and hard-headed member of the Ba'athist hierarchy, but one with whom, if only one could see more of him, it would be possible to do business."

"A presentable young man" with "an engaging smile," Paul wrote. "Initially regarded as a [Baath] Party extremist, but responsibility may mellow him."

Staff writer Vernon Loeb contributed to this article.

[Zach R.]

rofl You talk like Gollum. rofl

[cut]

rofl harsh but true

[Saranof]

I should have been more clear. I didn't mean to imply that you were pro-Saddam. I was simply saying that the article was playing the old 'blame the west' card, which at this point is very old news. Everyone knows we supported him for obvious reasons. It was convenient. I'd like to see a country that would do differently if in the same position.


Many countrys DIDN'T support him. The fact is, it dosn't matter if the US (and other countrys) felt they had to. They still supported a dicatator and massmurderer.

[He219]

I should have been more clear. I didn't mean to imply that you were pro-Saddam. I was simply saying that the article was playing the old 'blame the west' card, which at this point is very old news. Everyone knows we supported him for obvious reasons. It was convenient. I'd like to see a country that would do differently if in the same position.


Many countrys DIDN'T support him. The fact is, it dosn't matter if the US (and other countrys) felt they had to. They still supported a dicatator and massmurderer.

GUESS WHO DID SOMETHING ABOUT HIM?

It would be a lot worse doing nothing and allowing continued deference to be responsible for the annihilation of Hundeds of Thousands more innocents....

;)

[aktarian]

GUESS WHO DID SOMETHING ABOUT HIM?

It would be a lot worse doing nothing and allowing continued deference to be responsible for the annihilation of Hundeds of Thousands more innocents....

;)

Guess who fought tooth and nail to keep him in power when others tried to depose him (and assembled around million troops to do it)?

[He219]

Guess who fought tooth and nail to keep him in power when others tried to depose him (and assembled around million troops to do it)?

Care to elaborate? One million troops assembled to remove him, Iran perhaps?

Don't even tell me GW1, the UN mission objective was clear at that time, though flawed.

[aktarian]

Guess who fought tooth and nail to keep him in power when others tried to depose him (and assembled around million troops to do it)?

Care to elaborate? One million troops assembled to remove him, Iran perhaps?

Don't even tell me GW1, the UN mission objective was clear at that time, though flawed.

Yes, Iran. Then US did everything in their power to keep Saddam in power. But then I guess he wasn't mass murderer and bloodthirsty tiran he was later. And he wasn't using chemical weapons either. :roll:

[stephane from Paris]

The fact is murders of oposants had grow largely after the first GW!
Btw USA did nothing to save people in Liberia or Zimbawe and do nothing against their allieds who don't knows the humans rights (saudi,egypt,turkey,pakistan...).
it's sad to says that our countries are often behind the oppressors!

Is american people will be OK for the war if Bush said the truth, that Irak wasn't a menace for USA safety?? I'm sure not.


ps: sorry guys for my poor english but i was in a school where Bush junior was geography and History teatcher, so thinks about my english teatcher! ;)
btw i thinks you understand most of my comments.

[He219]

Yes, Iran. Then US did everything in their power to keep Saddam in power. But then I guess he wasn't mass murderer and bloodthirsty tiran he was later. And he wasn't using chemical weapons either. :roll:

I can quote Trigger for that one:

Everyone knows we supported him for obvious reasons. It was convenient. I'd like to see a country that would do differently if in the same position.

If you don't understnd 'obvious reasons', let Rummy clarify for me:

RUMSFELD: Well, Iraq was in a battle, war with Iran. And the United States had just had 241 Marines killed. And President Reagan asked me to take a leave of absence from my company and serve as a temporary special envoy, and I traveled throughout the Middle East for a period of months. And we were trying to get the Syrians to get out of Lebanon and stop killings Americans at the Marine barracks. And among other things, we believed that it would be helpful if Saddam Hussein's Iraq would behave in a way in that region that would be helpful to our goals with respect to Syria and the terrorist threat that existed. And we decided it was worth having me go in and meet with him. In that visit, I cautioned him about the use of chemical weapons, as a matter or fact, and discussed a host of other things.


What do you think would have happened to Iraq had the 'Revolution' taken control there? It's a no brainer why Iraq was 'used' as a buffer against the radical anti-western Iranian Islamic theocracy.

Something else I can clarify for you?
;)

[Trigger]

Blah, blah, blah...go ahead and keep rehashing the past 100 years of world history. Keep twisting and revising history to suit your own needs. Keep absolving yourselves of any guilt in past mis-dealings...and we'll move forward in the present and into the future to make the world safer.

[He219]

The fact is murders of oposants had grow largely after the first GW!
Btw USA did nothing to save people in Liberia or Zimbawe and do nothing against their allieds who don't knows the humans rights (saudi,egypt,turkey,pakistan...).
it's sad to says that our countries are often behind the oppressors!

Is american people will be OK for the war if Bush said the truth, that Irak wasn't a menace for USA safety?? I'm sure not.

:cantbeli:



US pressure caused the downfall of Taylor. Zimbabwae was a British protectorate and there was no systematic mass murder that I am aware of, but there certainly is a Strongman in power and reverse descrimination being practiced against white landowners.

Rwanda and Congo is what you failed to mention.


Is american people will be OK for the war if Bush said the truth, that Irak wasn't a menace for USA safety?? I'm sure not.


Saddam was a menace for the safety of the US and the world - that is one thing the people of the US do know.
:roll:


'Btw FRANCE did nothing to save people in Iraq from Saddam'

[aktarian]

If you don't understnd 'obvious reasons', let Rummy clarify for me:


SO youa re saying that agressive wars and gassing peopel is OK as long as you are friends with US?



What do you think would have happened to Iraq had the 'Revolution' taken control there? It's a no brainer why Iraq was 'used' as a buffer against the radical anti-western Iranian Islamic theocracy.

Something else I can clarify for you?
;)


Yes. How did Saddam came from strong leader of buffer state who used his powers to invade source of islamic revolution but unfortunatlly used chemical weapons to brutal dictator ****e to agression and used to gasing people?

[Trigger]

aktarian, re-read the preceeding pages. The answers to your redundant questions have already been posted.
*edit*
from the 'Morality' thread:


Funny.
According to this logic.. I am wondering why Osama didn't bomb the **** out of Saddam's palaces. or France, or Italy, or..

Because Saddam was on his side.
One factor is the he probly can't make war on other muslims. Not that his war has any religious significance, but he would loose alot of support if he had done that.
In other words: CONVENIENCE. Like why we helped Iraq for a period of time
I know, it's OK for OBL and other tyrants to change sides when CONVENIENT, but it's not OK for the U.S.

[He219]

Alas peoples, the use of Chemical Weapons, the mass murder of HUNDREDS of THOUSANDS of people and the invasion of a neighboring nation for it's wealth did not go unpunished.

And you criticize the Coalition for doing so?

Go figure!

:D