quote:

Originally posted by ogvh5150 "...The German government reportedly 'actively encouraged' weapons co-operation and assistance was allegedly given to Iraq in developing poison gas used against Kurds..." And: "..The Security Council agreed to US requests to censor 8000 pages -- including sections naming western businesses which aided Iraq's weapons of mass destruction programme." Sunday Herald - 23 February 2003, Revealed: 17 British firms armed Saddam with his weapons, Investigation: By Neil Mackay Home Affairs Editor Mr. Boortz is not making an accurate statement by leaving out the two other agents in those vials. Soman and VX. "..Sarin originally was developed in 1938 in Germany as a pesticide." CDC: Facts about Sarin "..Soman was originally developed as an insecticide in Germany in 1944." CDC: Facts about Soman "..VX was originally developed in the United Kingdom in the early 1950s." CDC: Facts about Vx

___________________

http://la.indymedia.org/news/2002/12/24725.php

None of this is new though.
It was very well known that the U.S. had dealings with the Saddam/Iraq during the cold war because it was a very different time then and for a very different reason.
Sure we can argue that the U.S. were securing their energy investments but that's nothing new either.

As for the other countries, like France, they were merely taking advantage of the situation by selling arms to whomever had a cheque book...
Ok maybe not, but they also had (and have) a LOT of foriegn investment there.
Why cough it all up to the Commies?

Come to Canada!
Didn't you know we have more oil than the Saudis?

you don't even need an army here...

___________________
"...End? No, the journey doesn't end here. Death is just another path...one that we all must take.
The grey rain-curtain of this world rolls back, and all change to silver glass...and then you see it...
...white shores...and beyond...the far green country under a swift sunrise."

quote:

Originally posted by Fir3start3r None of this is new though. It was very well known that the U.S. had dealings with the Saddam/Iraq during the Iran / Iraq war.

Most people don't know that Saddam was a CIA asset and that the story, just like many others - is technically just another case of blowback. We seem to create a lot of bogeymen, don't we?

Anyway, even though it was reported by the Lebanese magazine Ash-Shiraa on November 3rd, 1986 the majority of people don't seem to know that we were duplicitously supplying arms to both Iran and Iraq while they were in the midst of a heated war with one another. And on November 14th, 1986 - a White House spokesperson even made admissions regarding the CIA's involvement in those deals.

quote:

Copied from the web: While arms were flowing to Iran and profits heading toward the Contras, there were also elements within the Reagan administration, most notably VP Bush, who viewed Saddam Hussein as the lesser of the evils of the region. BNL-Atlanta, relying on government-backed loans, provided some $5 billion in assistance to Iraq between 1985-1989. This money purchased agricultural supplies, but also machinery and notably dual-use technology. Bush, Schultz, and Weinberger pressured the CCC and the Ex-IM bank to extend credit and materials to Iraq. The full story here is yet to be uncovered. Cast of Characters Now: Robert McFarlane: CEO of Global Energy Investors, Director of International Center for Religion and Diplomacy, Co-founder and Vice-Chairman of America-China Society, sits of board of Washington Institute for Near East Policy, and is an active participant in the National Prayer Breakfast movement. He was also in Afghanistan meeting with opposition leader Abdul Haq, before 9/11—this leader was later ambushed and executed. John M. Poindexter: Before being appointed as the Director of the newly created Information Awareness office [created by Pentagon Agency DARPA, to gather intelligence from internet, phone, and fax lines], he was Vice President of Syntek Technologies, a government contractor, which created a sophisticated electronic surveillance system. Cap Weinberger: Prior to serving under Nixon and Reagan, Weinberger was a senior official at Bechtel, a large government contractor. Escaped any major linkage to Iran-Contra affair and went on to become Chairman of Forbes, Inc. Currently he is a news analyst for Fox news, among others. George Bush, Sr: Prior to serving as VP for Reagan, Bush held positions in the Drug Interdiction Task Force and the Counterterrorism Task Force, in addition to serving as director of CIA (1976-77)—although there are some allegations that his ties to CIA go back to the early 1960s and anti-Castro efforts. He staunchly maintained that he was “out of the loop;” however, memos with subject headings would reveal at least some knowledge. After his failed run for a second term in 1992, he became a senior advisor to the Carlyle Group, a major defense contractor. Oliver North: Reportedly sold over $16 million in arms to Iran, but managed to funnel less than $4 million to the Contras. After his convictions were overturned, he founded Guardian Technologies International, a company which supplies protective gear to Law enforcement. He also serves as an analyst and news commentator for Fox and has his own “War Stories” series. George Schultz: [MIT alumnus]—Prior to serving Nixon and Reagan, he worked for Bechtel—he is currently on the latter’s board, as well as a number of other companies and financial conglomerates. Ronald Reagan: Like George Bush Sr., he claimed to be “out of the loop,” although North’s testimony indicated knowledge by both Bush Sr. and Reagan. He has remained out of public life since disclosing his Alzheimer’s Disease. John Negroponte: Ambassador to Honduras during the Iran-Contra years, now is the US representative to the United Nations.

quote:

November of 1989: Congress passed economic sanctions against Iraq due to Human Rights abuses. Among the issues discussed were Iraq’s chemical, biological, and nuclear weapons programs.

quote:

Early 1990: President Bush issues an executive order waiving economic sanctions against Iraq.

Bush Administration Critics May Be Too Generous

By Devin Nordberg
October 2002

A growing number of critics accuse the Bush administration of inciting war against Iraq to divert attention from our economic woes and the administration's attacks on environmental protections and our personal freedoms. After all, we call several other brutal dictatorships our allies, including Saudi Arabia, Uzbekistan, and Pakistan, so why is Bush so determined to topple Saddam Hussein?

But perhaps the critics are too generous to suspect merely political gamesmanship or settling a score for dad, for the allies and enemies that Mr. Bush and Mr. Cheney choose are exactly those of the oil industry they still serve.

Iraq crossed western oil corporations 30 years ago, and the oil executives have long memories. In 1972, Saddam Hussein and his Ba'ath party nationalized the oil holdings of the Iraq Petroleum Company, which actually was owned by a group of western oil companies including Royal Dutch and American and French firms.

The U.S. and Britain launched an embargo of Iraq in an attempt to persuade Hussein to re-privatize oil -- a tactic that succeeded for the U.S. when it embargoed Iran in retaliation for nationalizing its oil industry in 1951. In that case the economic squeeze was topped off with a CIA-assisted coup and "regime change," which instituted the Shah as the new leader in 1953. Obediently, the Shah agreed to let British and American oil companies take over oil production again.

But when the U.S. instigated an embargo against Iraq, Hussein simply found a new customer-- the Soviet Union. Good timing also helped Iraq "get away" with nationalization. A year after Iraq nationalized its oil, the eleven members of the Organization of Petroleum Exporting Countries (OPEC) agreed to pricing solidarity and forced oil importing countries to pay dramatically more for oil. The OPEC cartel gained the upper hand in negotiating with western oil companies and insulated Iraq from economic attack.

Near the time of Iraq's oil nationalization, Hussein made a peace offer to the dissident Kurds in Iraq, who were warring against his regime. The Kurds were about to accept his offer, but President Nixon offered them $16 million in weapons as incentive to keep fighting--and they did (with additional help from the Shah of Iran).

During the subsequent Iran-Iraq war, U.S. officials facilitated arms sales to Iraq (while Israel sold arms to Iran) not so much to support Hussein, but to perpetuate the bloody war and punish Iran's Ayatollah Khomeini, who overthrew our hand-picked dictator, the Shah.

After Iraq won that devastating war, Hussein continued to pursue independent economic development rather than letting transnational corporations reap profit from his country's resources. He worked to form the Arab Cooperation Council to join Iraq with Jordan, Egypt, and Yemen in a regional trading bloc.

Not surprisingly, the Gulf War of 1991 was welcomed by President George Bush Sr. as an excuse to bring down Hussein. Just eight days before Iraq invaded Kuwait, U.S. ambassador April Glaspie told Hussein that the Administration had "no opinion" regarding Iraq's "border dispute" with Kuwait. U.S. intelligence learned of the invasion plans several days in advance, but no deterrence was attempted.

Although we don't know that Bush Sr. deliberately baited Iraq, skeptics should consider that President Carter's Secretary of State, Zbigniew Brzezinski, publicly bragged that the U.S. funded the Mujahedeen of Afghanistan six months before the Soviet Union invaded (in 1979) in an attempt to provoke the Soviets into an "unwinnable" war.

Western oil companies still aim to repossess Iraq's oil, and they need Hussein removed to do it. So it shouldn't surprise us that Bush's war drums haven't missed a beat even after Hussein conceded to the return of U.N. weapons inspectors in September.

Mr. Bush seems to continue our tendency to base alliances less on a nation's degree of democracy, peacefulness, or freedom than whether they open markets to transnational corporations. Thus, China gets friendly relations while Cuba gets sanctions and Iraq gets threats of annihilation.

It's a serious decision to send our soldiers to war to defend our national security; for Mr. Bush to send them into battle to serve corporate oil interests would be tantamount to treason.

http://reclaimdemocracy.org/article...rporations.html

http://www.zmag.org/zmag/articles/ShalomIranIraq.html

Hey TX you should watch lord of war. thats a real good movie...hey you wanna know something TOP SECRET? My dad used to be a CIA agent

quote:

Originally posted by Trancer-X [color=#33ccff]Most people don't know that Saddam was a CIA asset and that the story, just like many others - is technically just another case of blowback. We seem to create a lot of bogeymen, don't we?

Won't disagree with you on that point.
But I would add double-crossing bogeymen...

___________________
"...End? No, the journey doesn't end here. Death is just another path...one that we all must take.
The grey rain-curtain of this world rolls back, and all change to silver glass...and then you see it...
...white shores...and beyond...the far green country under a swift sunrise."

quote:

Originally posted by Trancer-X Bush Administration Critics May Be Too Generous By Devin Nordberg October 2002 A growing number of critics accuse the Bush administration of inciting war against Iraq to divert attention from our economic woes and the administration's attacks on environmental protections and our personal freedoms. After all, we call several other brutal dictatorships our allies, including Saudi Arabia, Uzbekistan, and Pakistan, so why is Bush so determined to topple Saddam Hussein? But perhaps the critics are too generous to suspect merely political gamesmanship or settling a score for dad, for the allies and enemies that Mr. Bush and Mr. Cheney choose are exactly those of the oil industry they still serve. Iraq crossed western oil corporations 30 years ago, and the oil executives have long memories. In 1972, Saddam Hussein and his Ba'ath party nationalized the oil holdings of the Iraq Petroleum Company, which actually was owned by a group of western oil companies including Royal Dutch and American and French firms. The U.S. and Britain launched an embargo of Iraq in an attempt to persuade Hussein to re-privatize oil -- a tactic that succeeded for the U.S. when it embargoed Iran in retaliation for nationalizing its oil industry in 1951. In that case the economic squeeze was topped off with a CIA-assisted coup and "regime change," which instituted the Shah as the new leader in 1953. Obediently, the Shah agreed to let British and American oil companies take over oil production again. But when the U.S. instigated an embargo against Iraq, Hussein simply found a new customer-- the Soviet Union. Good timing also helped Iraq "get away" with nationalization. A year after Iraq nationalized its oil, the eleven members of the Organization of Petroleum Exporting Countries (OPEC) agreed to pricing solidarity and forced oil importing countries to pay dramatically more for oil. The OPEC cartel gained the upper hand in negotiating with western oil companies and insulated Iraq from economic attack. Near the time of Iraq's oil nationalization, Hussein made a peace offer to the dissident Kurds in Iraq, who were warring against his regime. The Kurds were about to accept his offer, but President Nixon offered them $16 million in weapons as incentive to keep fighting--and they did (with additional help from the Shah of Iran). During the subsequent Iran-Iraq war, U.S. officials facilitated arms sales to Iraq (while Israel sold arms to Iran) not so much to support Hussein, but to perpetuate the bloody war and punish Iran's Ayatollah Khomeini, who overthrew our hand-picked dictator, the Shah. After Iraq won that devastating war, Hussein continued to pursue independent economic development rather than letting transnational corporations reap profit from his country's resources. He worked to form the Arab Cooperation Council to join Iraq with Jordan, Egypt, and Yemen in a regional trading bloc. Not surprisingly, the Gulf War of 1991 was welcomed by President George Bush Sr. as an excuse to bring down Hussein. Just eight days before Iraq invaded Kuwait, U.S. ambassador April Glaspie told Hussein that the Administration had "no opinion" regarding Iraq's "border dispute" with Kuwait. U.S. intelligence learned of the invasion plans several days in advance, but no deterrence was attempted. Although we don't know that Bush Sr. deliberately baited Iraq, skeptics should consider that President Carter's Secretary of State, Zbigniew Brzezinski, publicly bragged that the U.S. funded the Mujahedeen of Afghanistan six months before the Soviet Union invaded (in 1979) in an attempt to provoke the Soviets into an "unwinnable" war. Western oil companies still aim to repossess Iraq's oil, and they need Hussein removed to do it. So it shouldn't surprise us that Bush's war drums haven't missed a beat even after Hussein conceded to the return of U.N. weapons inspectors in September. Mr. Bush seems to continue our tendency to base alliances less on a nation's degree of democracy, peacefulness, or freedom than whether they open markets to transnational corporations. Thus, China gets friendly relations while Cuba gets sanctions and Iraq gets threats of annihilation. It's a serious decision to send our soldiers to war to defend our national security; for Mr. Bush to send them into battle to serve corporate oil interests would be tantamount to treason. http://reclaimdemocracy.org/article...rporations.html

Yup, that's exactly what I'm talking about.
Unfortunately, the power Saddam received broke a synapse in his brain and he thought he was, "it" and could do what he wanted.
The dismantling of Saddam was really two-fold and a win/win for the Iraqis / Western world; a) they got rid of a tyrant with a history of human rights violations (a win for the Iraqis for sure) and b) the previous investments go back to their rightful owners (mostly the Western world).

___________________
"...End? No, the journey doesn't end here. Death is just another path...one that we all must take.
The grey rain-curtain of this world rolls back, and all change to silver glass...and then you see it...
...white shores...and beyond...the far green country under a swift sunrise."

quote:

Originally posted by Fir3start3r Yup, that's exactly what I'm talking about. Unfortunately, the power Saddam received broke a synapse in his brain and he thought he was, "it" and could do what he wanted. The dismantling of Saddam was really two-fold and a win/win for the Iraqis / Western world; a) they got rid of a tyrant with a history of human rights violations (a win for the Iraqis for sure) and b) the previous investments go back to their rightful owners (mostly the Western world).

I wouldn't consider 28,088-31,676 dead civlians, imprisonment, torture, rape (including women and children), destruction of the infrastruction (which equates to biological warfare; no power, no clean water, no medical supplies, no sewage system etc.), or depleted uranium all over the place a win/win situation. Neighter would I consider creating an entire generation that wants revenge and making Iraq a training groud for terrorist a win/win situation.

___________________
"The Greatest enemy of knowledge is not ignorance, it is the illusion of knowledge." -Stephen Hawking
"First they came for the communists, and I did not speak out— because I was not a communist;
Then they came for the socialists, and I did not speak out— because I was not a socialist;
Then they came for the trade unionists, and I did not speak out— because I was not a trade unionist;
Then they came for the Jews, and I did not speak out— because I was not a Jew;
Then they came for me— and there was no one left to speak out for me." -Martin Niemöller

To say that the US was wholly responsible for creating the atmosphere in Iraq is a bit of an understatement.

There have been long range plans for Mesopotamia since around the beginning of the 20th century when Britain named a certain area Iraq.

Also, don't forget the breakup of Rockefeller owned Standard Oil where at the same time created oil cartel monopolies overseas.

___________________