TranceAddict Forums (www.tranceaddict.com/forums)
- Political Discussion / Debate
-- Rumsfeld 'offered help to Saddam'

Rumsfeld 'offered help to Saddam'

Rumsfeld 'offered help to Saddam'

Declassified papers leave the White House hawk exposed over his role during the Iran-Iraq war

Julian Borger in Washington
Tuesday December 31, 2002
The Guardian

The Reagan administration and its special Middle East envoy, Donald Rumsfeld, did little to stop Iraq developing weapons of mass destruction in the 1980s, even though they knew Saddam Hussein was using chemical weapons "almost daily" against Iran, it was reported yesterday.
US support for Baghdad during the Iran-Iraq war as a bulwark against Shi'ite militancy has been well known for some time, but using declassified government documents, the Washington Post provided new details yesterday about Mr Rumsfeld's role, and about the extent of the Reagan administration's knowledge of the use of chemical weapons.

The details will embarrass Mr Rumsfeld, who as defence secretary in the Bush administration is one of the leading hawks on Iraq, frequently denouncing it for its past use of such weapons.

The US provided less conventional military equipment than British or German companies but it did allow the export of biological agents, including anthrax; vital ingredients for chemical weapons; and cluster bombs sold by a CIA front organisation in Chile, the report says.

Intelligence on Iranian troop movements was provided, despite detailed knowledge of Iraq's use of nerve gas.

Rick Francona, an ex-army intelligence lieutenant-colonel who served in the US embassy in Baghdad in 1987 and 1988, told the Guardian: "We believed the Iraqis were using mustard gas all through the war, but that was not as sinister as nerve gas.

"They started using tabun [a nerve gas] as early as '83 or '84, but in a very limited way. They were probably figuring out how to use it. And in '88, they developed sarin."

On November 1 1983, the secretary of state, George Shultz, was passed intelligence reports of "almost daily use of CW [chemical weapons]" by Iraq.

However, 25 days later, Ronald Reagan signed a secret order instructing the administration to do "whatever was necessary and legal" to prevent Iraq losing the war.

In December Mr Rumsfeld, hired by President Reagan to serve as a Middle East troubleshooter, met Saddam Hussein in Baghdad and passed on the US willingness to help his regime and restore full diplomatic relations.

Mr Rumsfeld has said that he "cautioned" the Iraqi leader against using banned weapons. But there was no mention of such a warning in state department notes of the meeting.

Howard Teicher, an Iraq specialist in the Reagan White House, testified in a 1995 affidavit that the then CIA director, William Casey, used a Chilean firm, Cardoen, to send cluster bombs to use against Iran's "human wave" attacks.

A 1994 congressional inquiry also found that dozens of biological agents, including various strains of anthrax, had been shipped to Iraq by US companies, under licence from the commerce department.

Furthermore, in 1988, the Dow Chemical company sold $1.5m-worth (�930,000) of pesticides to Iraq despite suspicions they would be used for chemical warfare.

The only occasion that Iraq's use of banned weapons seems to have worried the Reagan administration came in 1988, after Lt Col Francona toured the battlefield on the al-Faw peninsula in southern Iraq and reported signs of sarin gas.

"When I was walking around I saw atropine injectors lying around. We saw decontamination fluid on vehicles, there were no insects," said Mr Francona, who has written a book on shifting US policy to Iraq titled Ally to Adversary. "There was a very quick response from Washington saying, 'Let's stop our cooperation' but it didn't last long - just weeks."



*** the sources were in the Washington post, not some "arabic biased propaganda newspaper".

comments? what do you think Rumsfeld will answer to this?

Can't say I'm surprised....I mean any person with an IQ over 30 understands that US doesn't give a rats ass about peace, freedom & human rights. They're just protecting their various interests around the world. That's that they did then, when it suited them to help Sadam, now they're doing the exact opposite. They did the same thing with Afghanistan & Yugoslavia & in a million of other cases. Yet the US still encourages & assist (by selling weapons & technology) Israel to kill Palestinians everyday. They're not so peace-loving there.

as written from the article, of course i can not justify or agree with the policy of the USA during that period, it is a shame. that said i dont see how this would have relavence to me opposing the US doing the right thing now, getting rid of an evil oppressing tyrant, and i happen to agree with it. The US may have its reasons, i have mines...
everyone has to right to agree or disagree with any particular policy. i personally dont agree with the american policies dealing with iraq in the 80's but i do agree with the policies of the 90's and 2000's

quote:

Originally posted by Izzy as written from the article, of course i can not justify or agree with the policy of the USA during that period, it is a shame. that said i dont see how this would have relavence to me opposing the US doing the right thing now, getting rid of an evil oppressing tyrant, and i happen to agree with it. The US may have its reasons, i have mines... everyone has to right to agree or disagree with any particular policy. i personally dont agree with the american policies dealing with iraq in the 80's but i do agree with the policies of the 90's and 2000's

If the US doesnt agree with the actions of Hussein.. why wont they bring him to the international court of The Hague...and charge him with injustices like they did with Melosevic? Why do you think the US has to militarily strike down a whole nation in order to get one man. Is killing millions worth it for this one individual? If Saddam was such a threat... he would have already done massive damage to the US during the gulf war. He hasnt done anything..

Also.. how do you know if he's a tryant.. have you visited Iraq?
Last time i saw... over one million people celebrated his birthday on the streets of Baghdad. Im not saying he is innocent and all.. but i think its all an excuse to indirectly control the mid-east and its oil. And you know what.. i think Iran is next... They are already accusing them of making nuclear bombs.. yet its only a nuclear reactor plant to help with energy disrtibutions in the nation.

you have a good point.

if they wanted to get Saddam they could've done so in the 90s and spare the death of a million children.

Oil is what they want, then control another arabic country, iran, saudi arabia and syria are logically next.

quote:

Originally posted by ahlamalek you have a good point. if they wanted to get Saddam they could've done so in the 90s and spare the death of a million children. Oil is what they want, then control another arabic country, iran, saudi arabia and syria are logically next.

You read my mind Ahlamalek. I was actually going to mention that Iran was going to be next, seeing that the US has criticized the Iranian government for building a nuclear power plant with the help of the Russians in order to allocate more energy to places that do not have enough. For the love of God.. they are building a power plant for electricity... is that a crime?

woah guys, seriously sometimes you guys scare me.
im not dumb enough to think this has nothing to do with oil, but that america wants to control every arab country one by one, what realm of reality do you live in? the government of america's first most job is to secure the saftey and future of its people, whether i agree or disagree in the manner they do this is entirely beside the point.

quote:

if they wanted to get Saddam they could've done so in the 90s and spare the death of a million children.

yes they could have, and im sorry they didnt but let me remind you that at the time, the US was acting according to the UN resolution (i forget which) that was inacted to free kuwait from iraqi control, when that was achieved the UN and the rest of the world started calling the whole war an 'overkill' the second american forces moved northerward towards baghdad.

quote:

why wont they bring him to the international court of The Hague...and charge him with injustices like they did with Melosevic? Why do you think the US has to militarily strike down a whole nation in order to get one man.

sadly you and i both know saddam wont do this voluteraly, he has said it himself, he will not go down without a fight. seriously just think how great it would be if saddam stepped down from power all on his own, im quite certain there would be no excuse anyone could come up with to go to war with iraq.

quote:

Originally posted by Cyrus King i think Iran is next... They are already accusing them of making nuclear bombs.. yet its only a nuclear reactor plant to help with energy disrtibutions in the nation.

yes,we are the next target for sure. They(US Guv) are slowly making up bullshit excuses to come after us!!
I lived in Iran for 15 years, I can tell u that there is lack of energy in Iran, and I remember those nights with no power.SO I really think this nuclear reactor will really help the country big time.
but ocourse soon CNN will show maps and other shit to prove that we are making a nuclear bomb.

quote:

Originally posted by hardcore trancer yes,we are the next target for sure. They(US Guv) are slowly making up bullshit excuses to come after us!! I lived in Iran for 15 years, I can tell u that there is lack of energy in Iran, and I remember those nights with no power.SO I really think this nuclear reactor will really help the country big time. but ocourse soon CNN will show maps and other shit to prove that we are making a nuclear bomb.

They already have

http://www.cnn.com/2002/WORLD/meast...lear/index.html

quote:

Originally posted by Cyrus King They already have http://www.cnn.com/2002/WORLD/meast...lear/index.html

hooooly shit man thats scary,I was just simply making an example!!

ook so they have their stupid proof now,whats next??sending UN??trying to make another revolution by the help of CIA??
oooh god 2003 doesnt look good for middle east at all.

quote:

Originally posted by hardcore trancer hooooly shit man thats scary,I was just simply making an example!! ook so they have their stupid proof now,whats next??sending UN??trying to make another revolution by the help of CIA?? oooh god 2003 doesnt look good for middle east at all.

The thing is... they may have proof that the Iranians are making a Nuclear power plant.. but sure dont have an inch of evidence that a nuclear bomb is being made...ALL they can do is ACCUSE ACCUSE ACCUSE AND THEN KILL MILLIONS.

If they are so concerned... why not ask the Russian government if this is happening... Putin has had a friendly relationship with bush this past year...so no excuse can be made by the US about Russia supporting Terrorism...This all makes me fuking sick....im so glad im Canadian right now.

quote:

Originally posted by Cyrus King ...ALL they can do is ACCUSE ACCUSE ACCUSE AND THEN KILL MILLIONS.

damn man u are reading my mind.hehe
I just wished we could help somehow,but all we can do is to make other people who dont know much about these issues more educated,and tell then whats really going on out there,so that this way hopefully the future generation wont go through what we are going through right now.

quote:

Originally posted by hardcore trancer damn man u are reading my mind.hehe I just wished we could help somehow,but all we can do is to make other people who dont know much about these issues more educated,and tell then whats really going on out there,so that this way hopefully the future generation wont go through what we are going through right now.

The literate world is waking up.. many millions of people..espescially in Europe have condemned the actions of the US. The US can only go so far with its bullying. Soon.. uncle sam will regret picking on someone his own size.

hint hint China maybe??
I believe China is the only country that could stand against the U.S.

quote:

Originally posted by hardcore trancer hint hint China maybe?? I believe China is the only country that could stand against the U.S.

Yup.. and they have 6 times as many people too...Thats would be a very large army...hehehe

quote:

Originally posted by Cyrus King Yup.. and they have 6 times as many people too...Thats would be a very large army...hehehe

yaa too large!!
wellI hope that war never happens, because I think nukes will be involved and thats a very scary thought.
but the way things are going now, I wouldnt be surprised if that war happens.

Powered by: vBulletin
Copyright © 2000-2021, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.