Does anyone still think the Iraq War was not a colossal mistake?

Page 5 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.

werepossum

Elite Member
Jul 10, 2006
29,873
463
126
No, you do.

Decades before the US taking over the war, Ho Chi Minh wrote President WILSON a letter asking for the US, as a leader for freedom and democracy, to help them be free of foreign occupation - occupation that had a history, the Chinese, then the French. The US before JFK had a policy of supporting our 'allies' like France in their colonization policies, and we did not answer his letter, supporting France as an occupier.

In WWII, Japan replace France; at the end of the war, Japan had to leave. Ho Chi Minh took the occassion to ask the US again for help to not let France return, and let them be free of occupation. He created a 'Declaration of Independence' copied from the US as the basis for a new government. The US not only supported our ally France returning as an occupier - when the war got rough, we paid up to 90% of the war costs for the French.

The US in this period had a quite paranoid approach to global politics created after WWII, inventing a lot of threat that was not there, in part for justifying our own aggression.

The US ignorantly made assumptions - Ho Chi Minh was just a puppet of the Chinese, who would use a victory in Vietnam to conquer all Southeast Asia - and soon San Francisco.

This movement for freedom from occupation was falsely turned into a global communist threat - just as the US had a policy of installing far-right brutal dictators in many countries.

The US was actively opposing democracy in many countries during this period.

Funny thing is - the US lost, the communists won - and whaddya know, after they fought a brief war with China - funny way for a puppet to act - and they put down the Khmer Rouge monsters the US destabilzation had allowed to come to power - they became they very non-occupied country they'd always said they wanted, not the spearhead of global communism. Leaders who had played key roles like Robert McNamara came to admit the errors - go watch 'The Fog of War' for his admission how little the US understood.

No, my ideas about freedom are right - people don't like foreign occupiers. It's YOUR ideas about freedom - right-wing dictators, using torture and murder and tyranny, as 'freedom', that are the wrong ones. Millions of Vietnamese killed in an unjut war, to protect the US 'image', as 'freedom'.



The fact you have to make up a lie that's a straw man shows how you got the other argument wrong, too.

In fact, Kuwait was not all the great a mdoel of freedom before the invasion, with its typical middle east 'royal' plutocracy, limited rights for women, etc. But Saddam's invasion - whatever the justification of Kuwait 'side drilling' into Iraqi oil, historical patchwork nations built by the British to screw things up, and so on - made Kuwait less 'free'.

While the Bush administration screwed up - implying they were fine with Saddam invading Kuwait, something they'd reportedly promised him as a 'prize' for his starting a war with Iran, with our encouragement and eventual military intervention on his behalf (to punish those evil Iranians who we had screwed by removing THEIR democracy to install a brutal dictator for 25 years) - I'm consistent here - Kuwait was LESS free under Iraqi occupation and there was reason to oppose Saddam's invasion and occupation.

So, you will need to do better than a lie as a straw man. I won't hold my breath.
Wow, the USA is responsible even for the Khmer Rouge? Amazing the depth of your America-hating.

I never thought Ho Chi Min was a puppet of China, but Communism does NOT equal democracy OR freedom. (Well, outside the voices in your head it doesn't.) So you think Vietnam is now free since it's not occupied?

EDIT: For what it's worth, I do not think the USA should have supported France; we should have pressed for France to end it's colonialism in Vietnam as indeed as everywhere else. However people living under Communism, no matter how nationalistic, are never free.
 
Last edited:

Craig234

Lifer
May 1, 2006
38,548
350
126
Wow, the USA is responsible even for the Khmer Rouge? Amazing the depth of your America-hating.

Amazing the depth of your lying. My love for America as a leader for freedom constrasts with your hate for America trying to turn her into a tyrant.

Go read a book before you post for a change - the destabilization of Cambodia by the US invasion is the reason why the Khmer Rouge were able to take power.

The US never created, backed, supported the Khmer Rouge - but just as our invasion of Iraq inadvertantly strengthened Iran's power in the region, we destroyed the political stability of the government in Cambodia such that the brutal Pol Pot was able to begin his campaign of terror and mass murder and agricultural policies causing mass starvation.

There's some debate about the various factors in the Khmer Rouge victory, but the fact is, the US bombing of Cambodia had driven people to the Khmer Rouge; the US-backed forces that removed Prince Sinahouk from power while he was out of the country led to Sinahouk making a pact with the Khmer Rouge, and many Cambodians joined them as a result.

While not all historians have the same opinion, one for example in Wikipedia:

In his 1996 study of Pol Pot's rise to power, Kiernan argued that foreign intervention "was probably the most significant factor in Pol Pot's rise."


I never thought Ho Chi Min was a puppet of China

Who the hell cares what you think about that, when we're discussing the history of *US* opinion and its role in the war. Ho Chi Minh as 'puppet for global communist aggression' was a key story people wrongly believed that led them to support an unjust war. Do you need me to post the quote of LBJ saying if we don't have that was, we'll fight them in San Francisco?

but Communism does NOT equal democracy OR freedom. (Well, outside the voices in your head it doesn't.) So you think Vietnam is now free since it's not occupied?

You're a liar and an idiot, and you can do no better than to lie about my positions AGAIN as you do nearly every time you say something about my positions, because all you have are lies that are straw men to try to 'prove' your point. The voices in YOUR head are the lies here and you lack the honesy, integrity, and more to admit the errors.

Of COURSE communism does not equal democracy nor freedom.

That doesn't justify foreign occupation.

If I'm choosing between their having the freedom to form their own system or to be occuped by a foreign country, that is generally going to be better without occupation.

EDIT: For what it's worth, I do not think the USA should have supported France; we should have pressed for France to end it's colonialism in Vietnam as indeed as everywhere else. However people living under Communism, no matter how nationalistic, are never free.

And finally you say something reasonable. If we had NOT supported France's colonization (not to mention many other countries colonized by our 'allies'), if we had RESPONDED to Ho Chi Minh's request for our help to side with them against occupation, if we had approached the Vietnamese as an ally for freedom, things could have gone a lot, lot better for everyone - for the Vietnamese (occupation ended decades earlier, millions not murdered), France, the US. We could have had far more of an ally in the region grateful for our help.

Ho Chi Minh's policies as a communist were basically a disaster. The US might have been able to influence him in a better direction, or to work with others who wanted independence, had they wanted to. It was a brutal time on all sides, filled with murder and torture, including between communist factions.

Remember President Diem, the first and US-backed leader of the new South Vietnam? His brother had been an official in the French government - until the communists offered him a position in their own party, and he was buried alive when he refused. Yet, by 1963, Ho Chi Minh was writing to Diem, to pursue negotiated peace.

A crucial lost opportunity was after the Japanese occupation ended - during which the US had worked with Ho Chi Minh as he opposed the Japanese. From Wikipedia:

After the August Revolution (1945) organized by the Việt Minh, Hồ became Chairman of the Provisional Government (Premier of the Democratic Republic of Vietnam) and issued a Proclamation of Independence of the Democratic Republic of Vietnam that borrowed much from the French and American declarations.[14] Though he convinced Emperor Bảo Đại to abdicate, his government was not recognized by any country. He repeatedly petitioned American President Harry Truman for support for Vietnamese independence,[15] citing the Atlantic Charter, but Truman never responded.

Communism was often the place people who didn't want right-wing tyranny retreated to.

Similarly US backing for the corrupt Chiang Kai-Shek helped pave the way for Mao's revolution. If the US had pursued policies better for the people, things might have gone better. This lesson was learned over and over - remember Batista and Castro, with Castro rebuffed when he tried to establish relations. There wouldn't have been a Castor revolution without the people of Cuba backing it against oppression (to yes, a repressive Castro regime). But note the loyalty of the people to Castro - while opposing Batista.

Anyone who wanted freedom, democracy, an end to colonial occupation, was typically called a 'communist' as well and oftened murdered by the US's side.

But we agree - Ho Chi Minh was terrible with his policies - but ending foreign occupation matters.

"The last time the Chinese came, they stayed a thousand years. The French are foreigners. They are weak. Colonialism is dying. The white man is finished in Asia. But if the Chinese stay now, they will never go. As for me, I prefer to sniff French shit for five years than to eat Chinese shit for the rest of my life." — Ho Chi Minh, 1946

As bad as he was, isn't that a more American spirit than the colonization? I'd think we could have improved Vietnam a lot more once free (from foreign occupation) than we could under the boot of our own puppets ruling brutally. And as today Vietnam is a toursit destination and trading partner of the US, I think history supports that.
 

bamacre

Lifer
Jul 1, 2004
21,029
2
61
Keep dancing around and avoiding answering the question. By doing that it makes it pretty clear what your answer actually is and that you simply refuse to admit it.

I didn't answer your question because you offered a false choice.

We can defend ourselves quit well without being a policeman of the world. Any nation which chooses to ignorantly take on that position and spend themselves into oblivion doing so, is welcome to do so. I would be happy to let some other nation of idiots try to manage an illogical and irrational world, and pay for the honor of doing it. Better them than us, better their money than mine, better their wasted lives than ours. And may God help them if they ever fuck with us.
 
Sep 12, 2004
16,852
59
86
I didn't answer your question because you offered a false choice.

We can defend ourselves quit well without being a policeman of the world. Any nation which chooses to ignorantly take on that position and spend themselves into oblivion doing so, is welcome to do so. I would be happy to let some other nation of idiots try to manage an illogical and irrational world, and pay for the honor of doing it. Better them than us, better their money than mine, better their wasted lives than ours. And may God help them if they ever fuck with us.
There is no false choice in my question. I simply asked whether or not another country would take on the role of the superpower (i.e. - the world's policeman) if the US stepped away from it.

btw, taking on that role has more to it than simply defending ourselves. I can't believe you actually think that's all there is to it. It's a bit more complicated than that.
 

chucky2

Lifer
Dec 9, 1999
10,016
36
86
I didn't answer your question because you offered a false choice.

We can defend ourselves quit well without being a policeman of the world. Any nation which chooses to ignorantly take on that position and spend themselves into oblivion doing so, is welcome to do so. I would be happy to let some other nation of idiots try to manage an illogical and irrational world, and pay for the honor of doing it. Better them than us, better their money than mine, better their wasted lives than ours. And may God help them if they ever fuck with us.

You know, I really agree with this. Except it has one flaw...

...we're not a North Korea who is, mostly (so even for them, not fully), an isolationalist society. We import F*cktons of stuff. Your policy only works when you don't have countries and entire regions brainwashing themselves to hate us and then shipping over (pick a transpo method) a little "love" to us...

Chuck
 

Steeplerot

Lifer
Mar 29, 2004
13,051
6
81
Problem is throughout history isolating or threatening regimes like that only embolden the citizens through nationalism. No people want another country in their affairs and rally to the leader for protection from outside elements. This worldview enables dictators like castro since the late 50s and NK's dictator and Saddam to hold sway over their people instead of letting their failures take the natural course with the population pitchfork style.

Bombing a country or pulling these proxy wars only creates solidarity within the population and enables dictators hold on power. You would think righties would have learned this bombing London during the blitz to get Churchill to surrender. ;)

Oh well, right wingers never learn do they, thats the problem with writing your own history.
 
Last edited by a moderator:

chucky2

Lifer
Dec 9, 1999
10,016
36
86
I agree. Which is why Iraq was perfect. It was about the only country Bush could have done that to. No other country over there was in the same position at the time, both internally, and externally in world view.
 

Steeplerot

Lifer
Mar 29, 2004
13,051
6
81
I agree. Which is why Iraq was perfect. It was about the only country Bush could have done that to. No other country over there was in the same position at the time, both internally, and externally in world view.

Any country is ripe for the picking if has had its military decimated and its population starving for 10 years. Especially easy to find an excuse if it has juicy oil under it for the picking. If you righties are gonna try "realpolitik" be more honest about Machiavellian motives, you may find others agree instead of making our interests a black and white sided debate like bush did.

Sadly, I dont even think some folks can stop lying once they get rolling with some big ones. It's in the nature of corrupted power.

With big media in the pockets of the weapons manufacturers you guys could have annexed Saddam's country (our puppet anyhow) and called it New Texas or some shit and spun it all day and night. But nope, you guys had to act like it was about some moral crusade annoying everyone else in the world and turning on half this country for pointing out the weaksauce bullshit. Another conservative fail and just another sign of conservative wishy-washy cowardice on the world stage. No wonder it takes even spineless Dems to get us through tough world wars. Who could trust reps when they are more worried about money and their PR then the USA's interests?

WW2 and the republican isolationism shit and big business collusions that let hitler run amok to nixon cutting and running vietnam, reagans cowardice helping iran and terrorists to bushs bungling of iraqi resource grab worldwide PR fail are just a few examples why conservatism should not be allowed around wars, ever.
 
Last edited by a moderator:

chucky2

Lifer
Dec 9, 1999
10,016
36
86
Well, when others think so negative of you that no matter what you say is going to be discarded, and when the other 50-60% of your own country wants to nuke an entire region, saying what you really want to say is not always easy. You have to consider your audience.

As for the oil, I think that's been debunked repeatedly. Iraq's GDP is almost solely from oil. For Iraq to be a functioning ME country, they have to sell their oil. You cannot sell oil when the infrastructure is blown to sh1t. And, what the US did was proven to pay off for the Iraqi's: They made a lot of money, and will make even more, by selling their oil they're pumping through plant secured by the Western forces.

I get this sense you/Lefties/BDS'rs have to have Iraq fail, else if it does good (which it's relatively doing for an infant "democracy", especially given the brainf*ck done its populace and the internal tensions), you guys are going to look mighty F'ing bad having trash talked Bush on Iraq for so many years.

And now others in the ME are wanting the same opportunities that the Iraqi's are getting....I can see why the Lefties are in here cold sweat posting, it has to be any reason but Iraq for the unrest...sorta sad, but, not really unexpected...

Chuck
 

Steeplerot

Lifer
Mar 29, 2004
13,051
6
81
I get this sense you/Lefties/BDS'rs have to have Iraq fail,

Iraq was a fail before we even went in, everyone was telling conservatives this, you guys are just either too stupid or have too much faith-based emotions invested to catch up with the rest of the world and half this country still obviously. Or you are too cowardly to admit mistakes and hoping somehow this will pan out to your advantage on the world stage since its already fubared. (this half-assed strategy has been the problem the whole time since the get-go and it is PAINFULLY obvious to our soldiers who have to clean the mess up!)

Bring it on! That was the stupidest and most irresponsible thing have ever heard form a commander in chief. I dont really care about the presidency as its a ceremonial thing really but that was downright impeachment worthy in my book. Impeach his ass, give him a rifle and parachute his ass over saddam city in baghdad. One less incompetent spoiled child Texas CEO screwing things up here in the USA for us. (he can keep saddams pistol for self defense lol, the irony is delicious)
 
Last edited by a moderator:

Lemon law

Lifer
Nov 6, 2005
20,984
3
0
Gotta be amazed at TLC stupidly as he says. " btw, taking on that role has more to it than simply defending ourselves. I can't believe you actually think that's all there is to it. It's a bit more complicated than that."

Its not complicated at all TLC, look at our USA piss poor results, we try to oppose historical forces and get steamrolled for our own stupidity. How hard is it for you to understand our lack of results. We may get a few occasional short term gains, but we always lose in the end.

Just look at Iran, as we started wars in Afghanistan and Iraq to contain Iran, and now Iran is stronger and we are weaker. We tried to oppose the historical force of a United Vietnam and got our asses kicked, and now the world, our own allies, will no longer trust us in trying to be the key stone cops of the world after we lied about Iraqi WMD and proved totally incompetent in humanely managing twin quagmires.

And now Obama's inability to stand up to Israel has lost the USA all cred in the mid-east, and in the larger world.

Meanwhile the US economy has long past melted down, and if the US does not soon start tending to its own knitting, we will become a third world country.

And when TLC says, its complicated, he has to be about the dumbest idiot in the world.

Its only complicated because any attention is paid to idiots like you in the USA.

As a US citizen, I am outraged at our own stupidity. Please join me instead of saying stay the course.
 

Fern

Elite Member
Sep 30, 2003
26,907
173
106
"A colossal mistake?"

IDK. When I think of colossal mistakes in regards to starting wars I think of the Germans and WWII. I don't think the Iraq war comes close to that.

1. Nobody wants a war. wars costa lot of money, people get injured and killed. It's a 'no-brainer', people will choose 'no war' over a war unless they feel forced into it.

2. Were we forced into it? I don't think so. I do think Saddam pulled off enough jack-assery that there was justification toppling his regime.

3. Are we better for having done it? IDK. The Iraqi people are better off. But to determine if we are or not, we'd have to know how things would have played out had he remained in power. Nobody knows that. For all we know he may have done something a few years down the road to make us go in anyway, he had tendancy to start the sh!t.

4. IMO, a big part of all this is how things were managed after we kicked iraq's @ss. Did we really need to hang around there for years blowing billions and getting blown up by IED's? That the part that bugs me.

5. What's the lesson? Listen to the speech by Robert Bryd on the floor of the senate when debating the authorization. He pretty much nailed it. If you can roll in and kick@ss and then roll back out like Gulf war #1, fine. Otherwise you get stuck in a quagmire trying to 'nation build'. Those drain your resources, your national will, tie up your military assets and reduce your options to respond to other problems.

I just hope the Iraqi's will make the most of the opportunity they have been given.

Fern
 
Last edited:

chucky2

Lifer
Dec 9, 1999
10,016
36
86
Iraq was a fail before we even went in, everyone was telling conservatives this, you guys are just either too stupid or have too much faith-based emotions invested to catch up with the rest of the world and half this country still obviously. Or you are too cowardly to admit mistakes and hoping somehow this will pan out to your advantage on the world stage since its already fubared. (this half-assed strategy has been the problem the whole time since the get-go and it is PAINFULLY obvious to our soldiers who have to clean the mess up!)

Oh, for absolutely certain, there were mistakes made in Iraq (and Afghanistan). There is zero debate about that. But the actual liberating of Iraq...no, I don't view that at all as a mistake.

We've also been repeatedly told in these forums that we shouldn't be xenophobic/racist/culturally insensitive. Which means, the Iraqi's are all adults. And, it's The West who has an improper view of Muslim's not being peaceable, that we're really the ones that are mass murderers and they're not like that at all. So I don't know why you're saying the Iraqi's would be a big fail....surely you're not saying all the numbers trumped that were killed (100k, 300k, 1M) are really the Iraqi's (big fail) and not US? I mean, which is it? (I can't wait for the doubletalk here btw, it's either we killed them all and the Iraqi's/Muslim's are just total innocents and we're racist/xenophobe/etc, or, we view them in a fair light which means they own their own 100k/300k/1M...this'll be good)

Chuck
 

Fern

Elite Member
Sep 30, 2003
26,907
173
106
-snip-
Just look at Iran, as we started wars in Afghanistan and Iraq to contain Iran..

Neither of those wars were started to contain Iran.

Iraq was already serving that objective. By going after iraq we jeopardized the Iranian containment they provided.

Fern
 

Steeplerot

Lifer
Mar 29, 2004
13,051
6
81
We've also been repeatedly told in these forums that we shouldn't be xenophobic/racist/culturally insensitive. Which means, the Iraqi's are all adults. And, it's The West who has an improper view of Muslim's not being peaceable, that we're really the ones that are mass murderers and they're not like that at all. So I don't know why you're saying the Iraqi's would be a big fail....surely you're not saying all the numbers trumped that were killed (100k, 300k, 1M) are really the Iraqi's (big fail) and not US? I mean, which is it? (I can't wait for the doubletalk here btw, it's either we killed them all and the Iraqi's/Muslim's are just total innocents and we're racist/xenophobe/etc, or, we view them in a fair light which means they own their own 100k/300k/1M...this'll be good)

Chuck

The IRAQI WAR was a fail before we even went in. Iraq itself was one of the most secular and free countries in the area before daddy bush invaded over a local territorial dispute over a former oil-rich british colony on trumped up stories in the media about Iraqis throwing babies out of incubators through windows. (the first iraqi war's "WMD lie" from our war profiteering hungry media)

All this could have been solved by removing -our puppet, Saddam Hussein from power in Iraq. Not invading, that is a false choice talk radio/cable tee-vee foisted upon their watchers.
 
Last edited by a moderator:

chucky2

Lifer
Dec 9, 1999
10,016
36
86
Secular and free countries don't have their own people gassed, or killed by the thousands, have people snatched off the street to be raped by the POTUS's sons, etc. I think you have a very different 'secular and free' viewpoint than I do...

The other stuff :rolleyes: not even worth it...

EDIT: How do you "remove Saddam"? Tell me how the US was going to do that? You speak as if that's just snap your fingers easy. Can we remove Ackhawkagoober? No? Why? Because he's got large military Org's under his control and loyal to him. Which will butcher up civilians en masse. Now, think back, what did Saddam have? That's right, Republican Guard and Feyadeen (or however you spell that). No one was overthrowing Saddam or his Sons anytime soon.

So, now that that's straightened out, exactly how did you want Saddam to go? Bush gave him 48 hours or whatever to GTFO. He didn't. Now what?

Chuck
 
Last edited:

Steeplerot

Lifer
Mar 29, 2004
13,051
6
81
Secular and free countries don't have their own people gassed, or killed by the thousands, have people snatched off the street to be raped by the POTUS's sons, etc. I think you have a very 'secular and free' viewpoint than I do...

The other stuff :rolleyes: not even worth it...

Chuck

Most secular countries are not in a battle with a enemy next door for almost a decade either. They also usually not being supplied with nerve gases from bigger countries to keep the besieged oil rich puppet dictators in power. You need perspective from history Chuky, history does not fit into talk radio one sentence quips.

Regardless if you like it or not those killings took place in two main time frames.

1. During the worst parts of the Iran/Iraqi war when Saddam was losing the nerve gas stuff happened. Saddam was OUR BOY then. And the gas was probably OURS (whether someone covered their asses or not). Or should we get technical? REAGAN'S BOY.

2. Mass killings after the US promised the Iranian Shiite types in the south to revolt, then Bush's daddy cut and run, leaving our "Shiite Iranian Allies" and Kurds in the lurch and only to be identified as traitors. Thus MORE mass killings. Funny how when you look at history the mass killings always have something to do with external meddling. Where is the connection? Oh, a republican foreign policy screwup again! Imagine that..hmm.

And you guys wonder why so many folks said HELL NO to Republicans meddling in Iraq AGAIN?
 
Last edited by a moderator:

chucky2

Lifer
Dec 9, 1999
10,016
36
86
You keep having this debate with the radio or TV...you sure must listen/watch a lot of it. I hardly (an hour or two a week, if that) ever.

It doesn't matter if they're in a battle with the country next door, they don't go butchering up their own. If pre-liberated Iraq was as secular and free as you make it sound, then it wouldn't matter if Iran and Iraq had nukes and traded them off at each other, non-Sunni's (F, even Sunni's) wouldn't be butchered up like Saddam's regime did.

Chuck
 

Steeplerot

Lifer
Mar 29, 2004
13,051
6
81
It doesn't matter if they're in a battle with the country next door, they don't go butchering up their own. If pre-liberated Iraq was as secular and free as you make it sound, then it wouldn't matter if Iran and Iraq had nukes and traded them off at each other, non-Sunni's (F, even Sunni's) wouldn't be butchered up like Saddam's regime did.

History shows the Iran Iraq war and even Saddams's invasion of Kuwait were given the green light by the Republicans state departments at the time, Saddam was Reagan's boy gone maverick by screwing with the UK's oil interests in the early 90s plain and simple. The only time you heard a peep out of anyone for a decade or so about the VX gas in Karbala and such were human rights advocates and the occasional rock and roll song in the 1980s. It's such bullshit to use it as a justification after the fact of so many being gassed back then and ignored. (The VX gas attacks in Kurds were a pet issue of mine all throughout the 80s!) so dont go pulling sudden moral equivocation crap when it is politically convenient now. Back then gassing Iranians and Kurds were just a means to an end to keeping profits flowing to Republicans and the USA through Reagans dictator Saddam.

Where were the cries to liberate the Kurdish people from VX gas in the 80s from republicans? Nowhere, that was just Reagan's boy taking care of 'bidnezz.
 
Last edited by a moderator:

Fern

Elite Member
Sep 30, 2003
26,907
173
106
-snip-
1. During the worst parts of the Iran/Iraqi war when Saddam was losing the nerve gas stuff happened. Saddam was OUR BOY then. And the gas was probably OURS (whether someone covered their asses or not). Or should we get technical? REAGAN'S BOY.

Iraq was working on chemical weapons back in the early 70's, some years before the Iran/Iraq war.

It was German firms who primarily helped Iraq with it's chemical weapons program. Germany has arguably the best chemical industry in the world. When I lived in the late 80's their firms were still getting busted for dealing with iraq even though sanctions had kicked in.

See old PBS artilce here:

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/longroad/etc/arming.html

Edit: Saddam came to power during Carter's term.
 
Last edited:

Steeplerot

Lifer
Mar 29, 2004
13,051
6
81
Iraq was working on chemical weapons back in the early 70's, some years before the Iran/Iraq war.

It was German firms who primarily helped Iraq with it's chemical weapons program. Germany has arguably the best chemical industry in the world. When I lived in the late 80's their firms were still getting busted for dealing with iraq even though sanctions had kicked in.

See old PBS artilce here:

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/longroad/etc/arming.html

The provision of chemical precursors from United States companies to Iraq was enabled by a Ronald Reagan administration policy that removed Iraq from the State Department's list of State Sponsors of Terrorism. Leaked portions of Iraq's "Full, Final and Complete" disclosure of the sources for its weapons programs shows that thiodiglycol, a substance needed to manufacture mustard gas, was among the chemical precursors provided to Iraq from US companies such as Alcolac International and Phillips.

We will not know the full story for a long time I am sure, plenty of these folks work in our government and hold big offices even today.
 

Fern

Elite Member
Sep 30, 2003
26,907
173
106
-snip-
History shows the Iran Iraq war and even Saddams's invasion of Kuwait were given the green light by the Republicans state departments at the time.

There was no "Republicans state dept" at the time of Iran/Iraq war to give any "green light". The Carter admin was in power then, it would have been a Democratic State Dept.

Google is useful.

Fern
 

Fern

Elite Member
Sep 30, 2003
26,907
173
106

SETH CARUS: The Iraqis have worked since the early 1970s to develop a capability to make chemical weapons. They didn't have a lot of success at first. In the first, say, three to four years of use--

NARRATOR: Dr. Seth Carus is an arms specialist at the Washington Institute for Near East Policy.

Dr. CARUS: By the late '70s, however, they discovered that there were West German companies that would gladly provide this kind of equipment. So, basically, they went into Germany, they found companies and individuals who would help them, and over the course of four or five years they built a small but capable production infrastructure.

NARRATOR: Just three weeks ago, seven West German men were arrested for helping Iraq develop chemical weapons and violating German export laws. But over the years, hundreds of German companies may have been involved in the export of arms and technology, and opposition leaders accuse the government of dragging its feet.

NORBERT GANSEL, German Parliament: German authorities know, since 1984, that there are serious indications for the involvement of Germans and German companies for the development and production of poison gas in Iraq. It took them three years to start investigations by a state prosecutor, it took another three years to make the first arrest.

NARRATOR: Iraq's chemical weapons have been developed with the help of German engineers at the Samarra plant. These satellite pictures of the heavily guarded secret plant north of Baghdad reveal some details of the sophisticated installation. Samarra is surrounded by anti-aircraft and anti-missile defenses, and some of its buildings are merely shells, dummies to help thwart any military attack.

This West German technician says he and other Germans worked at the Samarra plant. Although Berndt Mayer says he only installed plumbing and air conditioning, he told BBC reporter Jane Corbin about his exposure at Samarra to hydrogen cyanide, the deadly gas used in World War I.

Fern
 

Steeplerot

Lifer
Mar 29, 2004
13,051
6
81
There was no "Republicans state dept" at the time of Iran/Iraq war to give any "green light". The Carter admin was in power then, it would have been a Democratic State Dept.



Fern

I-I war was not started rolling until 82 when the Iranians went on the offensive. It was the panic of the western powers meddling when things started looking bad and getting desperate from 82 on. Even imperialists are not going to just hand out gas until big money is at risk thus big PR problems.

Once again the devil is in the details not so easily put into one sentence.

Although Iraq hoped to take advantage of revolutionary chaos in Iran and attacked without formal warning, they made only limited progress into Iran and within several months were repelled by the Iranians who regained virtually all lost territory by June, 1982. For the next six years, Iran was on the offensive.[20] Despite calls for a ceasefire by the United Nations Security Council, hostilities continued until 20 August 1988.

Saddam was our guy, and losing badly so we hooked Saddam up out of desperation. (then to be back-stabbed by Saddam messing with OUR allies territory of Kuwait in 91) Same as the Muj were our guys then in Afganistan who were losing to the Hinds the Soviets were using, so they got AA missles from us. Same mess.
 
Last edited by a moderator: