Arms to Iraq

[Chorlton]

Dont say anything about all the poisin gas, guns, weapons, arms etc that that nice Mr Rumsfeld sold to Saddam Hussein?

Errr I don't know about the WMD part...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arms_sales_to_Iraq

Got a credible source for that?

From the same Wiki article, AD. The 'Official Statistics are barely believable.
Was Ollie North still around?

The United States did not supply any arms to Iraq until 1982, when Iran's growing military success alarmed American policymakers. It then did so every year until 1988. Although most other countries never hesitated to sell military hardware directly to Saddam Hussein's regime, the United States, equally keen to protect its interests in the region, adopted a more subtle approach. Howard Teicher served on the National Security Council as director of Political-Military Affairs. According to his 1995 affidavit and other interviews with former Regan and Bush administration officials, the Central Intelligence Agency secretly directed armaments and high-tech components to Iraq through false fronts and friendly third parties such as Jordan, Saudi Arabia, Egypt and Kuwait, and they quietly encouraged rogue arms dealers and other Private military companies to do the same:

"The CIA, including both CIA Director Casey and Deputy Director Gates, knew of, approved of, and assisted in the sale of non-U.S. origin military weapons, ammunition and vehicles to Iraq. My notes, memoranda and other documents in my NSC files show or tend to show that the CIA knew of, approved of, and assisted in the sale of non-U.S. origin military weapons, munitions and vehicles to Iraq."

The full extent of these hidden transfers is not yet known. Teicher's files on the subject are held securely at the Ronald Reagan Presidential Library and many other Reagan era documents that could help shine new light on the subject remain classified.

This is also interesting
http://www.iranchamber.com/history/arti ... g_iraq.php

Ive always considered it the unwritten policy of the US and UK to keep the Middle East unstable, so as to be able to use it as an excuse to go in. However, in Iraq the US now has the biggest Embassy in the world which, I suspect, will pretty soon (if not already) be fitted out with THE most up to date Sigint technology anywhere, so asto be able to peek upon Iraq's neighbours.

[Mod Edit: relevant quote from unrelated thread added]

[Access Denied]

This is also interesting
http://www.iranchamber.com/history/arti ... g_iraq.php

Yikes! It appears you’re correct about the WMD. I had forgotten about the Riegle Report …

U.S. Chemical and Biological Warfare-Related Dual Use Exports to Iraq and Their Possible Impact on the Health Consequences of the Persian Gulf War
http://www.gulflink.osd.mil/medsearch/F ... _main.html

What a colossal f*ck up! The CIA et. al. should not be involved in fighting wars by proxy… I’m not sure anything good has ever come out of it and the lack of oversight is appalling. The defense is that a war opposed public prevents us from doing what needs to be done… in that case I say what we really need is LEADERSHIP!

Ive always considered it the unwritten policy of the US and UK to keep the Middle East unstable, so as to be able to use it as an excuse to go in.

For what? We really don’t need their oil… I believe the Middle East only accounts for around 20% of our oil imports (not sure about the UK) and we have other potential sources (e.g. oil shale reserves) and of course there are alternatives to help reduce the demand (e.g. nuclear and solar).

Clearly the arming of Iraq was a “the enemy of my enemy is my friend” type of deal as part of an overall Cold War strategy to destabilize the Soviet Union and prevent them from gaining control of a large part of the world’s oil reserves that went horribly wrong… and then got even more out of control in the wake of the power vacuum created by the collapse of the “former” Soviet Union. SNAFU…

[sigh]

So many war lords, so few bullets...

[Chorlton]

The Embassy?, perfectly positioned (though Saudi would probably have been better but they wouldnt let them) for eavesdropping across the whole of the Middle East, India Africa etc.

As for the instability? Its in the UK and US interests for it to be unstable. They can then use that for an increased presence in the area. Looking after the oil and the entire region, Pakistan, Iraq, Iran, Northern Africa etc etc.
Iraq was a problem, yep Saddam wasnt very nice, but Iraq was quite politically stable, but there are other regimes in the world worse than his which the US and UK ignored.
Even after Kuwait ,Iraq was relatively stable and posed no threat to anyone. Yet we (for we read UK/US) decided to impose 'democracy' on a country and a people that had never asked for it. In over 3000 years Iraq had been OK with a dictatorship of sorts, yet 'we' decided we would give them democracy. Give it to a people that dont understand it. I truly believe there are many people in the world who are quite happy to live under dictatorship so long as their lifestyle is OK, and the everyday Iraqis werent that hard done by. So as the idea of an invasion for reasons of WMD and Democracy goes tits up, what other reason was there to invade?, other than to build the biggest embassy anywhere in the world, (and I suspect it wont last long once the allies are out of Iraq) and keep the region unstable, warranting an increasing and semi permanent presence in the area.

[Access Denied]

The Embassy?, perfectly positioned (though Saudi would probably have been better but they wouldnt let them) for eavesdropping across the whole of the Middle East, India Africa etc.

I don’t know… that would be a question only the NSA could answer. At the very least surely it’s a potential bonus.

In over 3000 years Iraq had been OK with a dictatorship of sorts, yet 'we' decided we would give them democracy. Give it to a people that dont understand it. I truly believe there are many people in the world who are quite happy to live under dictatorship so long as their lifestyle is OK, and the everyday Iraqis werent that hard done by.

Sure, for a large part of the population who have never known anything different, I suppose you could say it doesn’t matter whether they’re ruled by a murderous dictator or a benevolent democracy…on the other hand, I think you might be doing the Iraqi people a great disservice by dismissing them with such a broad stereotypical brush.

That said, I think it's safe to say there’s a lot of people outside of Iraq who are violently opposed to the idea of a democracy being established there…

[Chorlton]

But, IMHO Democracy has to be earned, and through that earning process comes an understanding. It isnt up to outsiders to say to a people in any country "You are going to have democracy" because that act, in itself is dictatorship.
Take Russia as an instance, though a lot of people (with money) wanted Democracy, a large swathe of the population didnt and were happy as they were and democracy for them meant nothing.
What they, and I suspect the Iraqi's want are the 'trappings' of Democracy, Satellite dishes, TV's, Schools, and the right to leave the country to go on holiday, the simple things.
Democracy is a very diverse thing and means many things to many people.

However I digress. I suspect that the new US embassy in Iraq is going to be the hub of an enormous middle east spiderweb. 106 Acres makes it nearly as big as Vatican City. An Embassy is supposedto be for Diplomacy. How do you project diplomacy from behind massive walls and sandbags?