Did the US "sell weapons" to Iraq?

[Tgace]

Heres a new home for this topic.

 

[Makalakumu]

Heres a new home for this topic.

Thanks, Tom. And the answer is yes.

The original 11,000 page report to the UN security council is a primary source for the US involvement in the arming of Iraq. I have not been able to find the original report online, but the secondary sources suffice...and they allude to transfers of small arms, missiles, aircraft, and weapons grade chemicals...not test tubes and ice cream scoops.

Further, this claim in corroborated by US Senate action to ban all US weapon sales to Iraq after Saddam "supposedly" gassed the Kurds. (This measure was killed by the White House and support of Iraq continued) Also, top officials in the Reagan administration testified this was true after they killed the measure.

The following is a list of the weapons the US government directly traded with Iraq.

http://www.sipri.org/contents/armst...P_IRQ_70-04.pdf

This list does not include arms that were privately traded with Iraq by private corporations at the behest of White House. The 24 corporations implicated before were involved in these deals. Some of them have been reported to be massive.

"It is also becoming increasingly clear that George (H. W) Bush, operating largely behind the scenes throughout the 1980, initiated and supported much of the financing, intelligence and military help that built Saddam's Iraq into the aggressive power the US ultimately had to destroy..." Ted Koppel Nightline 1992

http://www.politicalclothing.com/ir...line_letter.pdf

This claim is detailed at length in Craig Unger's book House of Bush - House of Saud. Apparently, certain officials in the Reagan and Bush adminstration were obsessed with using Iraq to defeat Iran while others were hell bent on using Iran to defeat Iraq. Thus the policies of the adminstrations flip flopped and resulted in the arming of both states...not to mention Iran/Contra. Much of the aid to Iraq took the form of financing and the building of oil infrastructure which, in the end, allowed Saddam to buy most of his weapons from Russia.

Here is the same information corropborated breifly in Wikipedia...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arms_s..._Iraq_1973-1990

Those who allege US support for Iraq may not be referring solely to arms sales; the US also supported Iraq (though not necessarily the Iraqi military itself) through various financial and political means, and permitted the sale of dual-use technology to Iraq.

If you are denying that the US (or US corporations) were involved in the sale of arms to Iraq, then you are incorrect. If you are denying that the US played a major role in the arming of Iraq, then, again, you are incorrect.

upnorthkyosa

ps...Another interesting thing happens when we put some of the claims made about what was actually traded in this debate under scrutiny. They seem to originate with the corporations involved in the trading. Especially where weapons grade chemicals and biological agents are concerned. This seems a little suspect don't you think. I imagine those corporations implicated in the UN security council report had quite an incentive to cover their butts...

 

[Makalakumu]

"It is also becoming increasingly clear that George (H. W) Bush, operating largely behind the scenes throughout the 1980, initiated and supported much of the financing, intelligence and military help that built Saddam's Iraq into the aggressive power the US ultimately had to destroy..." Ted Koppel Nightline 1992...

I'd love to find Mr. Koppel's sources for his claims regarding US financing of Iraq.

 

[Andrew Green]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Saddam_Hussein#The_Iran.E2.80.93Iraq_War

Iraq successfully gained the support of the United States of America (Ronald Reagan) and took supply of chemical weapons from them [6]

http://counterpunch.org/dixon06172004.html

The Reagan administration gave Saddam roughly $40 billion in aid in the 1980s to fight Iran, nearly all of it on credit. The U.S. also sent billions of dollars to Saddam to keep him from forming a strong alliance with the Soviets. 7

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Saddam_Hussein#fn_7


So that one is a yes...

Sadam did a lot of good for Iraq, he modernized it, unified it, brought free education, worked to eliminate illiteracy.

But the Iran war destroyed the economy, and left them with a huge debt. Kuwait, to whom a lot of it was owed refused to relieve debt and was slant drilling into wells they claimed as theres. Iraq asked the US for assistence on the border dispute with Kuwait, the US refused to get involved. Talks with Kuwait failed and, well, thats where the war starts...

But until that invasion of Kuwait, the US supported Iraq. Before the Iran war he did a lot to stabilize and build Iraq. He even fought against Muslim extermists.

 

[Tgace]

They seem to use a LOT of Soviet Block equipment seeing that we "massively" supplied them. I dont recall seeing one rifle, vehicle, tank, plane, bomb, missile that looked like it was of US make. When it came to this sort of thing in the 70-80's it was either "you" (NATO and its allies) made a relationship with them or the Comm. Bloc did. Even if we did. What is the argument? That if you supply arms to a nation you forefit any right to go to war against them once they turn into a problem? As I recall there was massive support for Gulf War 1. The critic's then took issue with the fact that we didnt dipose Sadaam or take Bagdad. After a number of years of him not abiding to the terms that ended the war, we are now acting like we invaded an innocent country without cause. IMO, Bush Sr. didnt want to have the problem facing us on his hands so he left it for the following administration to deal with. They managed to avoid the issue. EVERYBODY believed Iraq had WMD after GWI, but nobody wanted to do anything about it except drop a few bombs or launch a few missiles. Personally I think the President should have stated the reasons for going over there in terms of Gulf War I cease fire violations rather than WMD.

Either Way, in terms of selling "weapons" the list looks more like busniess selling components and equipment.

 

[Tgace]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iran-Iraq_War

Iraq's army was primarily armed with weaponry it had purchased from the Soviet Union and its satellites in the preceding decade. During the war, it purchased billions of dollars worth of advanced equipment from the Soviets and the French [2], as well as from the People's Republic of China, Egypt, Germany, and other sources (including European facilities for making and/or enhancing chemical weapons). Germany [3] along with other Western countries (among them United Kingdom, France, Italy, and the United States) provided Iraq with biological and chemical weapons technology and the precursors to nuclear capabilities. Much of Iraq's financial backing came from other Arab states, notably oil-rich Kuwait and Saudi Arabia.

Iran's foreign supporters included Syria and Libya, through which it obtained Scuds. It purchased weaponry from North Korea and the People's Republic of China, notably the Silkworm antiship missile. Iran acquired weapons and parts for its Shah-era U.S. systems through covert arms transactions from officials in the Reagan Administration, first indirectly (possibly through Israel) and then directly. It was hoped Iran would, in exchange, persuade several radical groups to release Western hostages, though this did not result; proceeds from the sale were diverted to the Nicaraguan Contras in what became known as the Iran-Contra Affair.

....

Much of what Saddam received from the West, however, were not arms per se, but so-called dual-use technology—ultrasophisticated computers, armored ambulances, helicopters, chemicals, and the like, with potential civilian uses as well as military applications. It is now known that a vast network of companies, based in the U.S. and abroad, eagerly fed the Iraqi war machine right up until August 1990, when Saddam invaded Kuwait [6].

Companies selling stuff is different from the government arming a nation. Should the gvt. have allowed the sales? Hindsight says NO! but I still dont know if I buy the "The US armed Iraq" argument. I wonder if all the equipment our country imports for weapon development counts as those nations "arming" us?

 

[Tgace]

BTW. This is the nature if international relations. Nobodies hands are clean.

http://www.canadafreepress.com/2005/cover042205a.htm

 

[michaeledward]

Personally I think the President should have stated the reasons for going over there in terms of Gulf War I cease fire violations rather than WMD.

Either Way, in terms of selling "weapons" the list looks more like busniess selling components and equipment.

It's tough to argue 'cease fire violations' when American Planes are dropping bombs inside the State's borders. Regardless of provocations, it takes two to have a fight.

The critics arguing that the military didn't capture Baghdad apparently weren't paying attention to the resolutions authorizing Gulf War I. That 'coalition' was a coalition because the specific objectives were clear. While I agree that President GHW Bush stopped the campaign several hours too early, I would have objected to a longer, deeper campaign into the country; not that my opinion would have mattered ... although the opinion of coalition partners like Saudi Arabia, Pakistan, Oman, Syria, Turkey and Qatar may have had opinions that carried more weight.

I think what weapons from the us might have reached Iraq is secondary to the intelligence that we seemed to provide to Iraq during the Iran-Iraq war. Still got to love that photo of Donald Rumsfeld shaking hands with the Man, himself - December 19, 1983.

 

[Makalakumu]

Still got to love that photo of Donald Rumsfeld shaking hands with the Man, himself - December 19, 1983.

This thread wouldn't be complete without it!

I wonder why John Kerry failed to use this photo during the election?

 

[Dan G]

They seem to use a LOT of Soviet Block equipment seeing that we "massively" supplied them. I dont recall seeing one rifle, vehicle, tank, plane, bomb, missile that looked like it was of US make. When it came to this sort of thing in the 70-80's it was either "you" (NATO and its allies) made a relationship with them or the Comm. Bloc did. Even if we did. What is the argument? That if you supply arms to a nation you forefit any right to go to war against them once they turn into a problem? As I recall there was massive support for Gulf War 1. The critic's then took issue with the fact that we didnt dipose Sadaam or take Bagdad. After a number of years of him not abiding to the terms that ended the war, we are now acting like we invaded an innocent country without cause. IMO, Bush Sr. didnt want to have the problem facing us on his hands so he left it for the following administration to deal with. They managed to avoid the issue. EVERYBODY believed Iraq had WMD after GWI, but nobody wanted to do anything about it except drop a few bombs or launch a few missiles. Personally I think the President should have stated the reasons for going over there in terms of Gulf War I cease fire violations rather than WMD.

Either Way, in terms of selling "weapons" the list looks more like busniess selling components and equipment.

http://web.amnesty.org/pages/ttt4-article_7-eng

I'm pretty certain the UK ostensibly sold the kit for WMD to Iraq, the mystery is where it went...

We definitely sold them the kit for a "supergun" (Canadian designer), although businessmen later charged were exonerated by the courts who found that they had been operating under MI6 instructions, but had been left high and dry when the matter came under criminal investigation (Matrix-Churchill case). Wheels within wheels, or just incompetent, who knows?
http://www.fas.org/nuke/guide/iraq/other/supergun.htm

http://news.bbc.co.uk/onthisday/hi/dates/stories/february/15/newsid_2544000/2544355.stm

For what it's worth the UK was cheerfully flogging arms to Iraq, it isn't by any means a US speciality. Bear in mind also that many figures are hard to read as intermediary countries are frequently used for sales, and a Russian AK-47 is not the equivalent of a UK "super gun", even though they could both count as 1 unit.

The UK government had a pretty good idea what was going on, firstly export licences are needed for arms, and secondly the government subsidises the arms business. Some anti-arms trade sources claim the UK tax payer is owed about £26 million by Iraq for weapons.

WMD - maybe they were destroyed as requested, but they definitely existed at one point. We are still owed cash for them! I'm pretty certain we sold some tanks to Iraq as well, but can't find the source.

But the Iran war destroyed the economy, and left them with a huge debt. Kuwait, to whom a lot of it was owed refused to relieve debt and was slant drilling into wells they claimed as theres. Iraq asked the US for assistence on the border dispute with Kuwait, the US refused to get involved. Talks with Kuwait failed and, well, thats where the war starts...

I think this is an excellent point! Gulf I itself was on the face of it a reasonably understandable action by Iraq, and they had the decency to ask beforehand for help. When the US expressed disinterest it is hardly surprising that Iraq thought they had the go ahead to invade Kuwait, itself hardly a paragon of democracy, after all they had been supported previously in war against Iran.
I still wonder what was really going on behind the scenes, mixed messsages, or a good excuse to get rid of an embarassment to the US and UK?

Can't dig up much more info easily, it is very hard to judge the accuracy of sources on anything this topical and controversial.

Good thread!

Dan

 

[Andrew Green]

Sudam wanted to raise oil prices to pay off his war debt, Kuwait kept them low. So with Iraq in charge of Kuwait oil that would mean -1 important source of cheap oil for the rest of the world.

 

[Phoenix44]

While I agree that President GHW Bush stopped the campaign several hours too early, I would have objected to a longer, deeper campaign into the country; not that my opinion would have mattered ...

MichaelEdward, you know why George HW Bush stopped, right? Here's how he explained it in a 1999 address to Desert Storm veterans: “You guys could have done it…and then what? We’re going to be an occupying power—America in an Arab land—with no allies at our side. It would have been a disaster.”

 

[sgtmac_46]

Thanks, Tom. And the answer is yes.

The original 11,000 page report to the UN security council is a primary source for the US involvement in the arming of Iraq. I have not been able to find the original report online, but the secondary sources suffice...and they allude to transfers of small arms, missiles, aircraft, and weapons grade chemicals...not test tubes and ice cream scoops.

Your entire argument has seemed to have altered. No doubt this is because you now realize that you cannot support your initial statement that the US was Iraq's biggest arms dealer. Now you've resorted to the attempt to prove that the US sold a lot of "dual use" technology. That argument is just as flawed, because the US isn't even in the running for the top five spots for the most Dual use sales. What are you going to do now that your argument has fallen flat? How's that crow tasting now?

Further, this claim in corroborated by US Senate action to ban all US weapon sales to Iraq after Saddam "supposedly" gassed the Kurds. (This measure was killed by the White House and support of Iraq continued) Also, top officials in the Reagan administration testified this was true after they killed the measure.

The following is a list of the weapons the US government directly traded with Iraq.

http://www.sipri.org/contents/armst...P_IRQ_70-04.pdf

Lets look at your figures here. According to YOUR site, the US sold

1970's to 2003
31 Bell Civilian Helicopters
30 Hughes Civilian Helicopters
30 MD-500 Civilian Helicopters
26 MD-530F Civilian Helicopters

Post-2003 (i.e. Not sold to Saddam)
4 C-130E Hercules
7 Comp-Air Aircraft
43 M-1117 APC's

Heck, don't bother to compare this with France or Russia, who sold so many weapons to Iraq I won't even bother to list, compare it to Poland and Brazil, who still dwarf us in arms sales. Heck, Denmark sold 3 landing ships to Saddam. That puts us in the running with Denmark as Iraq's arms supplier. Way to go North, way to prove that asinine assertion that the US was Iraq's biggest arms deal. You're not even making this hard.

This list does not include arms that were privately traded with Iraq by private corporations at the behest of White House. The 24 corporations implicated before were involved in these deals. Some of them have been reported to be massive.

Of course you are forced to say this, because you know that real arms sales come no where close to supporting your assertion. So you resort to this smoke and mirrors argument. You are insinuating that that 24 companies sold HUGE amounts of weapons. You know good and well the truth is that you are referring to "dual use" technology, not weapons. The assertion that dual use technology is arms, is like calling a sporting goods store an arms dealer for selling baseball bats (a "dual-use" assault weapon).

"It is also becoming increasingly clear that George (H. W) Bush, operating largely behind the scenes throughout the 1980, initiated and supported much of the financing, intelligence and military help that built Saddam's Iraq into the aggressive power the US ultimately had to destroy..." Ted Koppel Nightline 1992

http://www.politicalclothing.com/ir...line_letter.pdf



This claim is detailed at length in Craig Unger's book House of Bush - House of Saud. Apparently, certain officials in the Reagan and Bush adminstration were obsessed with using Iraq to defeat Iran while others were hell bent on using Iran to defeat Iraq. Thus the policies of the adminstrations flip flopped and resulted in the arming of both states...not to mention Iran/Contra. Much of the aid to Iraq took the form of financing and the building of oil infrastructure which, in the end, allowed Saddam to buy most of his weapons from Russia.

Of course we plotted Iran and Iraq against each other. Given the nature of the two, that's only a smart move. But that's a far cry from proving your assertion that we armed Iraq. Also, claiming that we helped Iraq build oil wells is not the same as supplying them with weapons. The two have very little to do with one another, except for money. Claiming that we helped Saddam make more money, which he used to buy weapons from someone else, is not showing that we supplied him with arms. You're getting desperate. Just admit it, we weren't Iraq's biggest arms dealer.

Here is the same information corropborated breifly in Wikipedia...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arms_s..._Iraq_1973-1990

Why don't you put the COMPLETE quote in.

"
During the controversy over the April 2003 invasion of Iraq by the United States and its allies, it was frequently alleged the United States had supported the regime of Saddam Hussein in Iraq during the period of the Iran-Iraq War between 1980 and 1988. The figures above suggest that the United States was a relatively minor supplier of conventional weapons, and did not play a major role in arming Iraq for its attack on Iran. However, the US was officially neutral during the Iran-Iraq war, and the question of whether any such arms sales were ethical remains controversial. Those who allege US support for Iraq may not be referring solely to arms sales; the US also supported Iraq (though not necessarily the Iraqi military itself) through various financial and political means, and permitted the sale of dual-use technology to Iraq."

We've really back-pedalled from that original claim haven't we? lol.

If you are denying that the US (or US corporations) were involved in the sale of arms to Iraq, then you are incorrect. If you are denying that the US played a major role in the arming of Iraq, then, again, you are incorrect.

upnorthkyosa

Attempting to build a strawman where you claim that my argument is that we did not ever sell Iraq anything that could be used as a weapon. This is a final, futile last act of desperation before your inevitable defeat. You know, now, after doing the research, that your original assertion was made on a bit of ignorance. The evidence shows that the US played a minor role in arming Iraq, even when talking about "dual use", which is arguable in itself. The fact is that this assertion that has been bandied about by the left, is nothing but smoke and mirrors. It's like i've been saying, these types of "myths" are built on the idea that people will simply pay attention to the hyperbole and not look too closely at the evidence.

So, in short, we've established that the assertion that the US was the biggest arms dealer to Iraq is DEAD WRONG, and a BOLD FACED LIE.

ps...Another interesting thing happens when we put some of the claims made about what was actually traded in this debate under scrutiny. They seem to originate with the corporations involved in the trading. Especially where weapons grade chemicals and biological agents are concerned. This seems a little suspect don't you think. I imagine those corporations implicated in the UN security council report had quite an incentive to cover their butts...

Now you're seeing reality. Far from being a conspiracy on the part of the US government, the sale of dual use products to Iraq had much more to do with making a sale by the company, than anything else. It wasn't conspiracy that allowed these sales, it was incompetence on the part of the commerce commission who failed, like many other governments, to screen what was and could be used to build WMD. The bureaucracy is the true bad-guy in this situation.

How do you think a normal average Habib, caught in the middle of the Iran/Iraq war is going to feel when he learns that the chemical weapons, the bombs, the missiles, and the guns being used on the both sides were sold to the countries involved by the US?

Still waiting for that list of chemical weapons, bombs, missiles and guns we sold Iraq. I won't hold my breath.


P.S. I'm glad we had the chance to put this ignorant myth about the US being the country responsible for arming Iraq to rest. Thank you for the opportunity.

 

[Makalakumu]

So, in short, we've established that the assertion that the US was the biggest arms dealer to Iraq is DEAD WRONG, and a BOLD FACED LIE.

P.S. I'm glad we had the chance to put this ignorant myth about the US being the country responsible for arming Iraq to rest. Thank you for the opportunity.

Please find where I stated that the US was the biggest arms dealer to Iraq. My argument is that the US was responsible for arming Iraq. Two very different beasts that you seem unable to differentiate.

The bottom line is that you've done nothing to address the financing issue. In fact, you conveniently chopped that out of your rebuttle. Saddam could not have armed Iraq without that financing. The costs of the war with Iran were too deep and Iraq's economy was in a shambles. The US is responsible for billions in public financing and billions of private. Most of this financing bought Saddam's weapons.

Myth indeed... There is a very small moral step between giving a man a gun to commit a crime and giving a man the money to buy a gun to commit a crime. Our leaders know how to tread this line well.

With public sales of weapons detailed above, and private sales detailed in the UN Security council report, and finacially with billions of public and private investment, the United States is responsible for arming Iraq.

upnorthkyosa

 

[Makalakumu]

Far from being a conspiracy on the part of the US government, the sale of dual use products to Iraq had much more to do with making a sale by the company, than anything else. It wasn't conspiracy that allowed these sales, it was incompetence on the part of the commerce commission who failed, like many other governments, to screen what was and could be used to build WMD. The bureaucracy is the true bad-guy in this situation.

Do you have any definitive proof that it was all just a big mistake? If that is the case, why, when the US Senate attempted to shut off all flow of these kinds of goods to Iraq, did the White House kill the measure?

 

[Makalakumu]

Here is the Sunday Herald Article that sgtmac46 mentioned...



** MODERATOR NOTE: COPYRIGHTED MATERIAL REMOVED TO COMPLY WITH COPYRIGHT LAWS AND MT POLICY. - G KETCHMARK / SHESULSA**

 

[Makalakumu]

This is the best article I've found so far...


http://www.ithaca.edu/politics/gagn...s-iraq.htm#note

**NOTE: POST EDITED TO COMPLY WITH COPYRIGHT LAWS AND MARTIALTALK'S COPYRIGHT POLICY - G KETCHMARK / SHESULSA**

 

[sgtmac_46]

Please find where I stated that the US was the biggest arms dealer to Iraq. My argument is that the US was responsible for arming Iraq. Two very different beasts that you seem unable to differentiate.

They are the same in the context you used the term "The US was responsible for arming Iraq", since we've now established that it was NOT the US that "was responsible for arming Iraq". If you're changing that statement to mean "The US was very marginally responsible for arming Iraq with civilian helicopters, and some US companies (among many, many others) sold "Dual-Use" technology to Iraq", then you are telling the truth. Are you now saying that is what you meant? If that was what you meant the whole time, you and a lot of other people were using that information disingenuously to give the impression that it was the US that "armed Iraq", when that if factually untrue.

The bottom line is that you've done nothing to address the financing issue. In fact, you conveniently chopped that out of your rebuttle. Saddam could not have armed Iraq without that financing. The costs of the war with Iran were too deep and Iraq's economy was in a shambles. The US is responsible for billions in public financing and billions of private. Most of this financing bought Saddam's weapons.

I don't have to deal with the financing issue. If I buy a legitimate product from someone (say, oil for instance) and that person takes the money he made selling me oil, and then turns around and buys weapons from someone else, are you saying that I dealt him arms? Again, that is a desperate, face saving argument that has reached beyond the realm of credibility. Your original statement was that the US "armed Iraq". I have established that that statement is not true in any reasonable way, we did not provide the MOST arms, the second MOST arms, the third MOST arms, etc, either in actual weapons or in dual use arms sales. That statement is untrue no matter how you try to spin it to save face.

Myth indeed... There is a very small moral step between giving a man a gun to commit a crime and giving a man the money to buy a gun to commit a crime. Our leaders know how to tread this line well.

Again, you've failed to prove your original assertion, so you are attempting to alter the discussion to save some face. The fact is there is a very LARGE moral step between helping someone gain money from selling a legitimate product, and that person turning around and using that money to buy weapons. Let me get this straight, if I have someone I pay for a legitimate product service, a grocery store or gas station, and I pay them to provide that product or service, and the owner turns around and buys crack cocaine, are you saying that I am now a drug dealer? lol. The smell of desperation is palpable.

With public sales of weapons detailed above, and private sales detailed in the UN Security council report, and finacially with billions of public and private investment, the United States is responsible for arming Iraq.

upnorthkyosa

Well, lets see.

We've established that those "public sales of weapons" consisted of the sale of civilian helicopters. Arms sells which put us in line with Denmark's arms sales to Iraq (they sold three landing ships).

We've established that those "private sales" detailed in "UN security council reports" consisted of "Dual Use" products such as pumps, piping, labratory equipment and computers AND that the sales of these type of non-weapon products were not exclusively or primarily US dominated, that, in fact, relatively minor in the overall Iraqi purchases of "Dual Use" products.

As far as investments are concerned, we've now reached beyond the realm of the culpable mindset, in to saying that because we purchased oil, and helped Iraq sell oil, that we are responsible for arming Iraq. Of course, even here you've failed to prove we were a primary player. British and French companies spent more money and energy helping Iraq build infrastructure for oil sales than the US did. They also bought more oil from Iraq than the US.

So, in every single category, Arms sales, Dual Use technology, Infrastructure, Financial support, it has conclusively been proven that the US was a minor player in arming Iraq and, therefore, your statement that "The US was responsible for arming Iraq" is a lie.

Your only hope now is an argument based on semantics where you argue about the definition of "The United States is responsible for arming Iraq". Your hope is to prove that even if the US was even in the most miniscule way responsible for arming Iraq, that your statement is true, and you can save face. Sorry, you lose again.


As for your "This is the best article I found", even the title's of it's two main sources are factually incorrect.

"
Hurd's main sources are:

Mark Phythian, Arming Iraq: How the U.S. and Britain Secretly Built Saddam's War Machine (Boston: Northeastern University Press, 1997).

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

Now, lets see, since we've established that the US not only didn't provide anything of direct armament other than a few civilian helicopters

and we've established that the US didn't provide anywhere near the bulk of lions share of Dual Use products

and, since we've established that we didn't provide anywhere near the MOST financial support OR bought the most oil

the whole thing you've built is a very impressive looking.....house of cards. Thank your for playing.

 

[Makalakumu]

It has been firmly established that the US played a large role in arming Iraq through public sales, private sales, billions in financing, and by using its political might to get others to look the other way for Saddam. This peice of the discussion is over. All of your counter arguments have been addressed two and three times over. I'm not sure why you persist...

Why not address some other questions related to this? Even the people in our administration seem to agree that doing what they did with Saddam was a huge mistake. If anything, they are attempting to cut their losses and correct the problem.

 

[sgtmac_46]

It has been firmly established that the US played a large role in arming Iraq through public sales, private sales, billions in financing, and by using its political might to get others to look the other way for Saddam. This peice of the discussion is over. All of your counter arguments have been addressed two and three times over. I'm not sure why you persist...

Lets take it apart again:

"Public sales" (i.e. civilian helicopters)
"Private sales" (dual use products such as pumps, machining tools, measuring equipment, etc, along with a multitude of other nations. These items bought through front companies for Iraq in an intentional effort to avoid being blocked by regulating bodies of the US and the UN)
"Billions in financing" (i.e. oil sales and help with building infrastructure to sell oil)

All of the above were provided in amounts FAR LESS than provided by a host of other nations. Therefore, the assertion "The US armed Iraq" is a disingenuous lie.

Your sad attempt to declare victory in the face or you obvious defeat is laughable. It's obvious to any reasonable observer (i.e. anyone who knows what is trying to be insinuated by the phrase "The US is responsible for arming Iraq") that you have fallen far short of supporting that assertion. The fact that you've fallen back on arguments that have nothing to do with that initial assertion only goes to further illustrate how untenable YOU view your own position.

Why not address some other questions related to this? Even the people in our administration seem to agree that doing what they did with Saddam was a huge mistake. If anything, they are attempting to cut their losses and correct the problem.

You mean why not ignore your obvious attempt at deception, and look at what you were TRYING to prove? Is this another "Fake, but Accurate" moment? Supporting Saddam in the way we did, at the time, which consisted of pitting him against Iran (with the biggest assistance being satellite intelligence) was not a mistake in context. Nor is it evidence that "The US armed Iraq"

Here's a better idea...stop trying to change the subject from your erroneous assertion. Just admit that the US wasn't THE country that "Armed Iraq". We're far down on the list of countries that "Armed Iraq", providing him, even at your admission, a few civilian helicopters.

In no single category you listed, arms sales, dual-use sales, or financial support, have you shown the US to be THE country that "Armed Iraq", nor even in the running for the top 5. In fact, if you look at arms sales, we aren't in the running for the top 10. Give it up.