Announcement

Collapse

Forum Rules (Everyone Must Read!!!)

1] What you CAN NOT post.

You agree, through your use of this service, that you will not use this forum to post any material which is:
- abusive
- vulgar
- hateful
- harassing
- personal attacks
- obscene

You also may not:
- post images that are too large (max is 500*500px)
- post any copyrighted material unless the copyright is owned by you or cited properly.
- post in UPPER CASE, which is considered yelling
- post messages which insult the Armenians, Armenian culture, traditions, etc
- post racist or other intentionally insensitive material that insults or attacks another culture (including Turks)

The Ankap thread is excluded from the strict rules because that place is more relaxed and you can vent and engage in light insults and humor. Notice it's not a blank ticket, but just a place to vent. If you go into the Ankap thread, you enter at your own risk of being clowned on.
What you PROBABLY SHOULD NOT post...
Do not post information that you will regret putting out in public. This site comes up on Google, is cached, and all of that, so be aware of that as you post. Do not ask the staff to go through and delete things that you regret making available on the web for all to see because we will not do it. Think before you post!


2] Use descriptive subject lines & research your post. This means use the SEARCH.

This reduces the chances of double-posting and it also makes it easier for people to see what they do/don't want to read. Using the search function will identify existing threads on the topic so we do not have multiple threads on the same topic.

3] Keep the focus.

Each forum has a focus on a certain topic. Questions outside the scope of a certain forum will either be moved to the appropriate forum, closed, or simply be deleted. Please post your topic in the most appropriate forum. Users that keep doing this will be warned, then banned.

4] Behave as you would in a public location.

This forum is no different than a public place. Behave yourself and act like a decent human being (i.e. be respectful). If you're unable to do so, you're not welcome here and will be made to leave.

5] Respect the authority of moderators/admins.

Public discussions of moderator/admin actions are not allowed on the forum. It is also prohibited to protest moderator actions in titles, avatars, and signatures. If you don't like something that a moderator did, PM or email the moderator and try your best to resolve the problem or difference in private.

6] Promotion of sites or products is not permitted.

Advertisements are not allowed in this venue. No blatant advertising or solicitations of or for business is prohibited.
This includes, but not limited to, personal resumes and links to products or
services with which the poster is affiliated, whether or not a fee is charged
for the product or service. Spamming, in which a user posts the same message repeatedly, is also prohibited.

7] We retain the right to remove any posts and/or Members for any reason, without prior notice.


- PLEASE READ -

Members are welcome to read posts and though we encourage your active participation in the forum, it is not required. If you do participate by posting, however, we expect that on the whole you contribute something to the forum. This means that the bulk of your posts should not be in "fun" threads (e.g. Ankap, Keep & Kill, This or That, etc.). Further, while occasionally it is appropriate to simply voice your agreement or approval, not all of your posts should be of this variety: "LOL Member213!" "I agree."
If it is evident that a member is simply posting for the sake of posting, they will be removed.


8] These Rules & Guidelines may be amended at any time. (last update September 17, 2009)

If you believe an individual is repeatedly breaking the rules, please report to admin/moderator.
See more
See less

Iraqi-US History

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Iraqi-US History

    http://www.ithaca.edu/gagnon/talks/us-iraq.htm

    To most Americans, the history of the US-Iraqi relationship begins in late 1990, when Saddam Hussein appears out of nowhere and attacks Kuwait.

    But, in fact there's a long history between Iraq -- Saddam Hussein in particular -- and the United States.

    This history is important because the Bush White House is claiming that the US must immediately, preemptively, and unilaterally attack Iraq and remove Saddam Hussein from power because he is evil. The evidence of his evilness is his possession of weapons of mass destruction, and his use of chemical weapons against his own people.

    But as we'll see, this is not new information, and has been very well known to the people running Bush's foreign policy for twenty years. If it is so well known, why have they waited so long to call for this action? Why are they demanding that it be undertaken now? Why are they portraying Saddam Hussein as an immediate threat?

    What will also become clear in an examination of US-Iraq relations before the Gulf War is the extremely bad judgment shown by these same officials, and the pattern of deception, secrecy and lies by which they sought to cover up those mistakes. What we will see is that the people now running US foreign policy were in the 1980s directly responsible for supplying Saddam Hussein with the materials as well as the diplomatic and military support necessary for him to acquire and use weapons of mass destruction.

    Since I do believe that this history matters, I will here briefly discuss the history of the US-Iraq relationship; or more specifically, the relationship between Saddam Hussein. and the people now running US foreign policy, who were very much involved in foreign policy of Reagan and Bush I administrations.

    We could start this history with the Iranian revolution in 1979, which marked a significant change in US policy toward that region.

    1979 also marks the year Saddam Hussein became president of Iraq; prior to that he had been vice president, and a member of the ruling Ba'ath party (which itself had been helped into power in 1963 with CIA assistance).

    In November 1979 came the Iranian hostage crisis, when students took Americans at the US embassy in Tehran hostage, and held them for over a year.

    In late 1979 President Jimmy Carter's State Dept. put Iraq on list of countries sponsoring "terrorist" groups.

    In 1980, the US Defense Intelligence Agency reported that Iraq had been actively acquiring chemical weapons capacities since the mid-1970s.

    In September 1980 the eight-year long Iran-Iraq war begins.

    Ronald Reagan takes office in Jan 1981.

    1982:

    Spring of 1982 marked the beginning of tilt toward Iraq by Reagan. This tilt was formalized in a secret National Security Decision Directive issued in June 1982. While the US was officially neutral, this NSDD declared that the US would do whatever was necessary to prevent Iraq from losing its war against Iran.



    Apparently without consulting Congress, Reagan also removed Iraq from the State Dept. list of terrorist sponors. This meant that Iraq was now eligible for US dual-use and military technology.

    This shift marked the beginning of a very close relationship between the Reagan and Bush administrations and Saddam Hussein. The US over following years actively supported Iraq, supplying billions of dollars of credits, US military intelligence and advice, and ensuring that necessary weaponry got to Iraq.

    1983:

    The State Dept. once again reported that Iraq was continuing to support terrorist groups

    - Iraq had also been using chemical weapons against Iranian troops since 1982; this use of chemical weapons increased in 1983. The State Dept. and the National Security Council were well aware of this.

    - Overriding NSC concerns, the Secretaries of Commerce and State pressured the NSC to approve the sale to Iraq of Bell helicopters "for crop dusting" (these same helicopters were used to gas Iraqi Kurds in 1988).

    In late 1983, Reagan secretly allowed Jordan, Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, Egypt, to transfer US weapons to Iraq; Reagan also asked the Italian prime minister to channel arms to Iraq

    December 1983 was a particularly interesting month; it was the month that Donald Rumsfeld -- currently US Secretary of Defense and one of the most vocal proponents of attacking Iraq -- paid a visit to Saddam Hussein in Baghdad as Reagan's envoy.

    Rumsfeld claims now that the meeting was about terrorism in Lebanon.

    But State Dept. documents show that in fact, Rumsfeld was carrying a message from Reagan expressing his desire to have a closer and better relationship with Saddam Hussein.

    Just a few months before Rumsfeld's visit, Iraq had used poison gas against Iranian troops. This fact was known to the US. Also known was that Iraq was building a chemical weapons infrastructure.

    NBC and The New York Times have recently reported that Rumsfeld was a key player in the Reagan administration's strong support for Iraq, despite knowing of Iraq's use of chemical weapons. This relationship became so close that both Reagan and VP Bush personally delivered military advice to Saddam Hussein. [1]


    1984

    In March, the State Dept. reported that Iraq was using chemical weapons and nerve gas in the war against Iran; these facts were confirmed by European doctors who examined Iranian soldiers

    The Washington Post (in an article in Dec.1986 by Bob Woodward) reported that in 1984 the CIA began secretly giving information to Iraqi intelligence to help them "calibrate" poison gas attacks against Iranian troops.

    1985

    The CIA established direct intelligence links with Baghdad, and began giving Iraq "data from sensitive US satellite reconnaissance photography" to help in the war.

    This same year, the US House of Representatives passed a bill to put Iraq back on State Dept. supporters of terrorism list.

    The Reagan administration -- in the person of Secretary of State George Schultz -- pressured the bill's sponsor to drop it the bill. The bill is dropped, and Iraq remains off the terrorist list.

    Iraq labs send a letter to the Commerce Dept with details showing that Iraq was developing ballistic missiles.

    Between 1985-1990 the Commerce Dept. approved the sale of many computers to Iraq's weapons lab. (The UN inspectors in 1991 found that: 40% of the equipment in Iraq's weapons lab were of US origin)

    1985 is also a key year because the Reagan administration approved the export to Iraq of biological cultures that are precursors to bioweapons: anthrax, botulism, etc.; these cultures were "not attenuated or weakened, and were capable of reproduction."

    There were over 70 shipments of such cultures between 1985-1988.

    The Bush administration also authorized an additional 8 shipments of biological cultures that the Center for Disease Control classified as "having biological warfare significance."

    This information comes from the Senate Banking Committee's report from 1994. The report stated that "these microorganisms exported by the US were identical to those the United Nations inspectors found and recovered from the Iraqi biological warfare program."

    Senator Riegle, who headed the committee, noted that: "They seemed to give him anything he wanted. It's right out of a science fiction movie as to why we would send this kind of stuff to anybody." [2]

    1988

    The Reagan administration's Commerce Dept. approved exports to Iraq's SCUD missile program; it was these exports that allowed the extension of the SCUDs' range so that in 1991 they were able to reach Israel and US bases in Saudi Arabia.

    In March, the Financial Times of London reported that Saddam had recently used chemical weapons against Kurds in Halabja, using US helicopters bought in 1983.

    Two months later, an Asst. Secretary of State pushed for more US-Iraq economic cooperation.

    In September of that year, Reagan prevented the Senate from putting sanctions on Iraq for its violation of the Geneva Protocol on Chemical Weapons.

    The US also voted against a UN Security Council statement condemning Iraq's use of chemical weapons. [3]

    1989

    In March, the CIA director reported to Congress that Iraq was the largest chemical weapons producer in the world.

    The State Dept reported that Iraq continued to develop chemical and biological weapons, as well as new missiles

    The Bush administration that year approved dozens of export licenses for sophisticated dual-use equipment to Iraq's weapons ministry.

    In October, international banks cut off all loans to Iraq. The Bush administration responded by issuing National Security Directive 26, which mandated closer links with Iraq, and included a $1 billion loan guarantee.

    This loan guarantee freed up cash for Iraq to buy and develop WMDs.

    This directive was suspended only on August 2, 1990, the day Iraq invaded Kuwait.

    One US firm reportedly contacted the Commerce Dept. two times, concerned that its product could be used for nuclear weapons and ballistic missiles. Bush's Commerce Dept requested and received written guarantees from Iraq that the equipment was only for civilian use.

    1990

    Between July 18 and August 1 (the day before the invasion), the Bush Administration approved $4.8 million in advanced technology sales to Iraq's weapons ministry and to weapons labs that were known to have worked on biological, chemical and nuclear weapons.

    So when US ambassador April Glaspie told Saddam the US did not have an official position on disputes between Arab countries, is it any wonder that he thought the US would look the other way when he invaded Kuwait? After this close and very supportive relationship with the Republican administrations throughout the 1980s?



    We all know about the Gulf War. But I want to bring in one more piece of history here, from after the Gulf War.

    xxxx Cheney, before becoming Vice President, was CEO of Halliburton Corp. from 1995 until August 2000, when he retired with a $34 million retirement package.

    According to the Financial Times of London, Halliburton in that time period sold $23.8 million of oil industry equipment and services to Iraq, to help rebuild its war-damaged oil production infrastructure. For political reasons, Halliburton used subsidiaries to hide this. [4]

    More recently, the Washington Post on June 23, 2001, reported that figure was actually $73 million.

    The head of the subsidiary said he is certain Cheney knew about these sales.

    Halliburton did more business with Saddam Hussein than any other US company.

    Asked about this by journalists by ABC News in August 2000, Cheney lied and said "I had a firm policy that I wouldn't do anything in Iraq, even arrangements that were supposedly legal." [5]

    The US media never followed up on this.


    So: That's the history:

    A saga of incredibly bad judgment.

    A story of men so obsessed with Iran that they made numerous incredibly bad judgements, consistently, time and time again, over the course of eight years.

    What can we learn from that history?
    "Nobody can give you freedom. Nobody can give you equality or justice or anything. If you're a man, you take it." ~Malcolm X

  • #2
    Re: Iraqi-US History

    I want to add to that history some things we are seeing now.

    We're seeing more of this now in the ways in which the Administration is lying to us to try to convince us to go to war.

    Back to 1990: Before the Gulf War, President Bush claimed that satellite photos showed 250,000 Iraqi troops massing on Iraq's border with Saudi Arabia, with 1500 tanks. The Christian Science Monitor reported on 9/6/02 that was not true. [6]

    As the journalist who broke this story pointed out: "That Iraqi buildup was the whole justification for Bush sending in troops and it just didn't exist."

    Now to the present again. George W. Bush in early September 2002, as part of his argument for the need to immediately attack Iraq, claimed that the International Atomic Energy Agency had issued a report in 1998 saying Iraq was 6 months from having nuclear weapons. The IAEA denied this, saying they had never issued any such report. The Bush White House then said that they had mispoken, and that the report was actually issued in 1991. Again, the IAEA denied this. [7]

    A second such example of deception are Bush's claims of links between Saddam and Al Qaeda.

    French intelligence agencies have been investigating these possible links for years (after an Algerian group carried out bombings in Paris in 1995). Again, the Financial Times reported earlier this month that this French investigation has produced zero evidence of any such link, not a trace. [8]

    Finally, I will cite a report in the Houston Chronicle earlier this month, which reported that:

    "A growing number of military officers, intelligence professionals and diplomats in [Bush's] own government privately have deep misgivings about the administration's double-time march toward war.

    These officials charge that administration hawks have exaggerated evidence of the threat that Iraqi leader Saddam Hussein poses... They charge that the administration squelches dissenting views and that intelligence analysts are under intense pressure to produce reports supporting the White House's argument that Saddam poses such an immediate threat to the US that pre-emptive military action is necessary.

    'Analysts at the working level in the intelligence community are feeling very strong pressure from the Pentagon to cook the intelligence books,' said one official, speaking on condition of anonymity.

    A dozen other officials echoed his views in interviews. No one who was interviewed disagreed. ... [9]


    So the history is one of lies, deception, and incredibly bad judgement that continues to this day.

    Over the course of the 1980s, two Republican administrations, and individuals who are once again running US foreign policy, supplied Saddam Hussein with the means to wage brutal warfare against his neighbors and his own citizens; supplied him with the means to make nuclear, chemical, and biological weapons, with the means to build missile technology. (All of these weapons, as well as the facilities, research and otherwise, were destroyed or dismantled before UNSCOM was pulled out of Iraq in 1998.)

    Where was their concern about Saddam Hussein then? Why are Donald Rumsfeld and xxxx Cheney only now suddenly worried about Saddam Hussein, when as recently as a couple of years ago the company Cheney headed was doing deals with him?

    Based on this history, there is absolutely no reason to take this administration's word on anything related to Iraq.

    This conclusion is further confirmed by the opposition to Bush's policy among some military leaders. Retired General Brent Scowcroft (National Security Advisor of the first Pres. Bush), three four-star generals, General Wesley Clark (former NATO military commander), and Marine Gen. Anthony Zinni have all denounced Bush's push for unilateral war. Zinni went so far as to say, "I'm not sure which planet they live on because it isn't the one that I travel." [10]

    Another military figure, Major General Patrick Cordingly, commander of the British "Desert Rats" in the 1991 Gulf War, has recently declared that he is "absolutely opposed to a war" and that there is "no justification for sending troops." [11]

    (At this point it is important to mention that none of the current leadership which is pushing for war has ever been in combat, and all of them except Rumsfeld actively worked to avoid seeing combat, allowing others less well-connected and wealthy to fight the country's wars.)

    We are also hearing from religious leaders; the US Catholic Bishops' conference, the Mormon Church, George W. Bush's own Methodist Church, among other religious leaders and organizations, have all condemned the rush to war. [12]

    Internationally as well. Perhaps the best known and one of the most respected moral authorities in the world, Nelson Mandela, has issued a "strong condemnation" of the US's attitude towards Iraq, lambasted vice-president xxxx Cheney for being a "dinosaur" and accused the US of being "a threat to world peace." [13]

    So given all of this history, the history of lies, deception, obsession and incredibly bad judgment on the part of the people driving this country's foreign policy, given the harsh criticism of the Bush/Rumsfeld/Cheney/Wolfowitz push to war coming from military, religious, and other moral authorities, we have to ask ourselves what this war is really about.
    "Nobody can give you freedom. Nobody can give you equality or justice or anything. If you're a man, you take it." ~Malcolm X

    Comment


    • #3
      Re: Iraqi-US History

      I'm speechless.
      ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
      Iraqi lawmakers approve $400M payment to Americans

      By BUSHRA JUHI, Associated Press Bushra Juhi, Associated Press – 1 hr 5 mins ago

      BAGHDAD – Iraqi lawmakers approved a controversial $400 million settlement Saturday for Americans who claim they were abused by Saddam Hussein's regime during the 1990 invasion of Kuwait.

      The settlement is part of a deal reached between Baghdad and Washington last year to end years of legal battles by U.S. citizens who claim they were tortured or traumatized, including hundreds held as human shields.

      Many Iraqis consider themselves victims of both Saddam's regime and the 2003 U.S.-led invasion and wonder why they should pay money for wrongs committed by the ousted dictator.

      Lawmakers approved the settlement by a majority after listening to the foreign and finance ministers as well as the head of the central bank describe why it was necessary, said Abbas al-Bayati of the State of Law political bloc.

      Another lawmaker, Mahmoud Othman, said by approving the settlement, Iraq would be protecting itself from more lawsuits in the future that could have been well above the $400 million that was agreed to.

      "They explained very well what was the settlement and how it will be negative if we don't approve it," he said. "That's why people were persuaded."

      Lawmakers affiliated with anti-American cleric Muqtada al-Sadr rejected the settlement, said one of the bloc's legislators, Hakim al-Zamili. Al-Zamili said he was surprised that so many lawmakers who had been arguing against the legislation before Saturday's session reversed course at the last minute.

      "It's better to compensate the Iraqi martyrs and detainees than the Americans," he said.

      Saddam's regime held hostage hundreds of Americans during the run-up to the Gulf War, using them as human shields in hopes of staving off an attack by the U.S. and its allies. Most of the Americans had been living and working in Kuwait and after being taken hostage were dispersed to sites around Iraq.

      Many of the Americans pursued lawsuits for years against Saddam's government and kept up their legal fight after Saddam was overthrown in 2003 and a new government came to power.

      Some former American troops who were captured by Saddam's military during the Gulf War and repeatedly tortured and abused have also sued as have relatives of American oil workers who were working in Kuwait when they were picked up by Iraqi guards along the border.

      It's not clear exactly who will be entitled to money under the settlement. When asked who would receive the money, a spokesman for the U.S. Embassy in Baghdad, David Ranz, said: "We are not in a position to confirm whether specific cases or claims by specific individuals are covered by the agreement." He declined to comment further.

      Iraq was under a time crunch to approve the settlement before June 30, when Iraq will assume responsibility for overseeing its oil revenue account. Since 2003, the country's oil revenue has been held in a New York-based account that shelters it from international creditors' claims. The U.N.-backed protection expires when the oil revenue is transferred to Iraqi control, and Iraq could face international creditors like any other country.

      According to the parliament's website, Foreign Minister Hoshyar Zebari told lawmakers the Iraqi government still had the right to submit its own demands for compensation to the American government.

      The latest news and headlines from Yahoo News. Get breaking news stories and in-depth coverage with videos and photos.
      Azerbaboon: 9.000 Google hits and counting!

      Comment


      • #4
        Re: Iraqi-US History

        Originally posted by Federate View Post
        I'm speechless.
        ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
        Iraqi lawmakers approve $400M payment to Americans

        By BUSHRA JUHI, Associated Press Bushra Juhi, Associated Press – 1 hr 5 mins ago

        BAGHDAD – Iraqi lawmakers approved a controversial $400 million settlement Saturday for Americans who claim they were abused by Saddam Hussein's regime during the 1990 invasion of Kuwait.

        The settlement is part of a deal reached between Baghdad and Washington last year to end years of legal battles by U.S. citizens who claim they were tortured or traumatized, including hundreds held as human shields.

        Many Iraqis consider themselves victims of both Saddam's regime and the 2003 U.S.-led invasion and wonder why they should pay money for wrongs committed by the ousted dictator.

        Lawmakers approved the settlement by a majority after listening to the foreign and finance ministers as well as the head of the central bank describe why it was necessary, said Abbas al-Bayati of the State of Law political bloc.

        Another lawmaker, Mahmoud Othman, said by approving the settlement, Iraq would be protecting itself from more lawsuits in the future that could have been well above the $400 million that was agreed to.

        "They explained very well what was the settlement and how it will be negative if we don't approve it," he said. "That's why people were persuaded."

        Lawmakers affiliated with anti-American cleric Muqtada al-Sadr rejected the settlement, said one of the bloc's legislators, Hakim al-Zamili. Al-Zamili said he was surprised that so many lawmakers who had been arguing against the legislation before Saturday's session reversed course at the last minute.

        "It's better to compensate the Iraqi martyrs and detainees than the Americans," he said.

        Saddam's regime held hostage hundreds of Americans during the run-up to the Gulf War, using them as human shields in hopes of staving off an attack by the U.S. and its allies. Most of the Americans had been living and working in Kuwait and after being taken hostage were dispersed to sites around Iraq.

        Many of the Americans pursued lawsuits for years against Saddam's government and kept up their legal fight after Saddam was overthrown in 2003 and a new government came to power.

        Some former American troops who were captured by Saddam's military during the Gulf War and repeatedly tortured and abused have also sued as have relatives of American oil workers who were working in Kuwait when they were picked up by Iraqi guards along the border.

        It's not clear exactly who will be entitled to money under the settlement. When asked who would receive the money, a spokesman for the U.S. Embassy in Baghdad, David Ranz, said: "We are not in a position to confirm whether specific cases or claims by specific individuals are covered by the agreement." He declined to comment further.

        Iraq was under a time crunch to approve the settlement before June 30, when Iraq will assume responsibility for overseeing its oil revenue account. Since 2003, the country's oil revenue has been held in a New York-based account that shelters it from international creditors' claims. The U.N.-backed protection expires when the oil revenue is transferred to Iraqi control, and Iraq could face international creditors like any other country.

        According to the parliament's website, Foreign Minister Hoshyar Zebari told lawmakers the Iraqi government still had the right to submit its own demands for compensation to the American government.

        http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20110430/..._mi_ea/ml_iraq
        This must be like the oil for food program.... except now they are stealing the oil AND any internal revenue.
        "Nobody can give you freedom. Nobody can give you equality or justice or anything. If you're a man, you take it." ~Malcolm X

        Comment

        Working...
        X