RE: [marketliberal] Re: [cal-libs] RE: Questions that remain unanswered by pro-aggressionists
Tom Knapp wrote: DT) and when they were also used against the Kurds, , the Great Communicator suppressed the knowledge for over two years until it could not be hiden any longer. (DT BH) What is your [David Terry's] evidence that Reagan for two years suppressed the knowledge of Saddam's poison attacks on the Kurds? (BH TK) From 1988-1990, the US line was that the attack on Halabja was most likely an Iranian attack, since the condition of the bodies was consistent with cyanide (an agent known to be used by the Iranians but not the Iraqis). It only magically became an Iraqi attack when, for whatever reason, the George HW Bush administration decided to throw hands with Saddam instead of continuing to shake hands with him. (TK I gave Halabja as an example, but it was hardly the only case in which Saddam had been accused of using poison attacks against the Kurds. In fact, it was a very special case, as the attack was not strictly part of the Anfal Campaign, but rather came as the city was being taken by Iranian troops. The DIA concluded that both sides were using chemical weapons in the battle, and that the evidence of cyanide blood agents among the Kurdish civilians pointed to Iran. The U.S. condemned both sides for the use of chemical weapons at Halabja. The facts about Halabja were ambiguous enough that when an Army War College academic monograph repeated the DIA conclusion, a critical reviewer in the 1990 New York Review Of Books said http://www.nybooks.com/articles/3441 : EM) I accept that in the specific case of Halabja the possibility that the chemical attack came from Iran (which might not have realized that Iraqi troops had already evacuated the town), or indeed from both sides consecutively, cannot be ruled out. (EM (It ended up being clear that Iraq had gassed the civilians in Halabja, but Bush critics were themselves finding it convenient to blame http://www.ericmargolis.com/archives/2004/12/put_saddamas_ba.php Iran as recently as 2004.) The 1990 reviewer continued: EM) State Department officials said on September 8, 1988, that US intelligence agencies had confirmed Iraq's use of chemicals in its recent drive against Kurdish civilians in Northern Iraq. The same information prompted Secretary of State George Shultz, a man who had presided over a strong pro-Iraq tilt in US policy, and who continued to oppose sanctions against Iraq, to accuse Iraq of unjustifiable and abhorrent use of poison gas against the Kurds in a meeting on the same day with Iraqi Minister of State for Foreign Affairs Saadoun Hammadi. Although there was vigorous debate between Congress and the executive branch about the policy conclusions to be drawn, in 1988 and again in 1990, there has been no difference between them about the facts of Iraqi misconduct. (EM Human Rights Watch echoes http://www.hrw.org/reports/1989/WR89/Iraq.htm this: HRW) Iraq's use of poison gas against its Kurdish citizens in late August and early September 1988 drew a vigorous protest from then Secretary of State George Shultz. During a visit to Washington on September 8 by Iraqi Minister of State Saadoun Hammadi, a member of President Saddam Hussein's inner circle, Shultz made known publicly, in extraordinarily candid and undiplomatic terms, his and the Reagan administration's dismay over Iraq's action. (HRW Yes, the U.S. should have been tougher with Saddam in the late 1980s, but they knew they had very little leverage over him, and they were foolishly eager to use him as a way to punish Iran for sponsoring Hezbollah and its continuing holding of American hostages and attacks on Israel. However, it's just flatly hallucinatory for David Terry to suggest that Reagan somehow suppressed for two years the world's knowledge that Saddam used chemical weapons on Iraqi Kurds. This is just blatant disinformation, that you abet with your own suggestion that American assignment of responsibility for chemical attacks against Iraqi Kurds was a cynical function of geopolitical strategy. You can draw all the black hats and curly moustaches you want on the pictures of our nanny state enemies, but distorting the truth will in the long run hurt our cause more than it will help it. BH) Iraq's arsenal was of overwhelmingly Soviet and French origin, and apparently did not include a single weapon system of American origin. (BH TK) I can think of at least four discrete types of Iraqi weapon systems of American origin that I personally saw in 1991: - Thousands of M21 anti-tank mines - Thousands of M16 anti-personnel mines (Bouncing Bettys) - Several M18 anti-personnel mines (Claymores) - One F-4 Phantom combat aircraft (TK Hmm, I wonder if the F-4 was this http://cgi.ebay.com/ws/eBayISAPI.dll?ViewItemitem=6612789209 one. Nothing on the web mentions any F-4s in the Iraqi inventory, nor in Kuwait's 1990 inventory (F-1s and A-4s). Iran received about 200 F-4s, and so perhaps the one you saw was an Iranian Phantom that had defected or been forced down. I'd be
[marketliberal] Re: [cal-libs] RE: Questions that remain unanswered by pro-aggressionists
Quoth Brian Holtz: TK) I can think of at least four discrete types of Iraqi weapon systems of American origin that I personally saw in 1991: - Thousands of M21 anti-tank mines - Thousands of M16 anti-personnel mines (Bouncing Bettys) - Several M18 anti-personnel mines (Claymores) - One F-4 Phantom combat aircraft (TK Hmm, I wonder if the F-4 was this http://cgi.ebay.com/ws/eBayISAPI.dll?ViewItemitem=6612789209 one. Nothing on the web mentions any F-4s in the Iraqi inventory, nor in Kuwait's 1990 inventory (F-1s and A-4s). Iran received about 200 F-4s, and so perhaps the one you saw was an Iranian Phantom that had defected or been forced down. I'd be surprised if your F-4 had been operational as of Desert Storm, and one or two sightings do nothing to suggest that America was arranging for Saddam to acquire F-4s. The F-4 I saw was not the one pictured on eBay. The one on eBay was apparently destroyed on the ground, as it was photographed sitting in a collapsed hangar (I _may_ have seen that one as well -- I saw the tail portion of a destroyed aircraft poking out from under debris at the al Jabr base in a building that looked a lot like that one, but did not identify the aircraft type). The F-4 I saw was airborne over al Jubail, Saudi Arabia, until it was shot down by a US Navy F-14 Tomcat. Of course, what I saw were two dots in the sky and then one of the dots exploding -- the downed aircraft was identified as an Iraqi F-4 by higher headquarters twice (once to let us know that an enemy aircraft was coming in our direction, the second time in response to sighting reports going up the chain of command from guard posts). It was the only Iraqi aircraft I ever saw in the air, and I never did hear if they figured out what the hell its pilot was trying to do. He apparently just flew the thing south as fast as he could get it to go (the F-4 is pretty fast -- last time I heard, its top speed was STILL classified -- which may be why it wasn't intercepted further north) until he got shot down. Maybe it was an intended suicide attack, maybe the guy was trying to defect. Wikipedia says of Bouncing Bettys: The mines were sold widely and copies were produced in several countries including Greece, India, South Korea and Turkey. Of Claymores: A number of licensed and unlicensed copies of the mine were produced in at least 11 countries. I can't find any accusation of U.S. sales of mines to Saddam, and none of the weapons systems you list above are in the 100-row table at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arms_sales_to_Iraq_1973-1990 . It remains the case that apparently none of the militarily significant weapons systems comprising the Iraqi arsenal were of confirmed American origin. There's no doubt in my mind that the M21 anti-tank mines were US-made mines. For one thing, in our pre-deployment briefing, we were specifically told that the US had sold thousands of them to Saddam. For another thing, I actually got close enough to one to observe that it bore English markings corresponding to the US ones, and in the US colors (yellow markings on an overall olive green background). Likewise, the Claymores looked to be of US make -- the molded front toward enemy marking, etc. I stayed too far from the Bouncing Bettys to determine their national make -- all I saw of them were the little upward-sticking probes, and in some cases the top of the canister where sand had blown away. As to whether or not these mines were militarily significant, that's not even in question. Schwarzkopf's entire strategy was preemptively dictated by their existence. my understanding of Iran-Iraq is that any significant armor battles were over well before these TOWs were supplied in 1985. In a multi-year war of attrition on relatively static front lines like the later Iran-Iraq war, 1000 TOWs are a miniscule change to the order of battle. On the contrary, 1,000 TOWs would be precisely what the doctor ordered to KEEP the conflict a multi-year war of attrition on relatively static front lines. Saddam's military doctrine was essentially the Soviet model -- particularly, an offensive warfare doctrine of large artillery barrages followed by an armor breakout. A weapon system with the potential to take out 20% of Saddam's tank inventory would not have been a miniscule factor. Tom Knapp
[marketliberal] RE: [cal-libs] RE: Questions that remain unanswered by pro-aggressionists
David Terry wrote: BH) used chemical WMDs in a war of aggression, and used chemical WMDs in genocidal attacks on his own citizens (BH DT) This is disgraceful hypocracy: You know as well as anyone (DT No, I know better than most. Why? Because unlike most people, when I encounter a factual claim that tickles my confirmation bias, I don't just swallow it -- as you apparently do about America's alleged provision of chemical weapons to Saddam. Instead, I take the time to find out what a well-informed opponent of my views would find out if she were to investigate that claim. Otherwise, what's going to happen to your claims below might happen to mine, and I try to avoid that. DT) that the chemicals were supplied by Sadaams faithful American ally while at war with the evil Empire of Iran (DT Urban legend. Do your homework. I have: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/marketliberal/message/1621 http://groups.yahoo.com/group/marketliberal/message/1408 The only such claims that stand up to scrutiny are the breathless descriptions of the small amounts of dual-use pesticides and industrial research materials that American firms sold to Iraq. These are at worst precursors to chemical weapons, and not the poisons themselves let alone actual chemical weapons systems. Wikipedia tells us: In December 2002, Iraq's 1,200 page Weapons Declaration revealed a list of Eastern and Western corporations and countries, as well as individuals, that exported a total of 17,602 tons of chemical precursors to Iraq in the past two decades. By far, the largest suppliers of precursors for chemical weapons production were in Singapore (4,515 tons), the Netherlands (4,261 tons), Egypt (2,400 tons), India (2,343 tons), and Federal Republic of Germany (1,027 tons). Do you see America on that list? I don't. The people who scream that America's trickle of dual-use pesticides etc. to Iraq constituted provision of a chemical weapons arsenal are the same people who claim despite the above tonnages that Iraq did not have any WMDs. So which is it? Talk about hypocrisy... DT) and the great communicator KNEW that the those [allegedly American-supplied] weapons were to be used against Iranians (DT This was during the 1980s, when Iran through Hezbollah was holding American civilian hostages in Lebanon for years and had executed an American embassy official. DT) and when they were also used against the Kurds, , the Great Communicator suppressed the knowledge for over two years until it could not be hiden any longer. (DT Huh? The infamous 1988 poison gas attack on Halabja was reported internationally within days. Wikipedia says the use of chemical weapons in the Anfal Campaign only started in 1987. What is your evidence that Reagan for two years suppressed the knowledge of Saddam's poison attacks on the Kurds? DT) And during the same period the great white father was selling weapons to Iran to use against his allies in Iraq. (DT Iraq was not an ally, it was a pawn. When Iran's Shiite revolutionary fervor was perceived as the greater threat to our actual allies (e.g. Saudi Arabia) and was coming close in 1982 to winning the war Saddam had started over American protests, the Reagan administration sought to punish Iran and forestall Iranian victory by offering limited support for Iraq. The most significant part of that support was battlefield satellite intelligence. PBS describes the history well: PBS) When Ronald Reagan becomes president in 1981, he endorses a policy aiming for a stalemate in the war so that neither side emerges from the war with any additional power. But in 1982, fearing Iraq might lose the war, the U.S. begins to help. Over the next six years, a string of CIA agents go to Baghdad. Hand-carrying the latest satellite intelligence about the Iranian front line, they pass the information to their Iraqi counterparts. The U.S. gives Iraq enough help to avoid defeat, but not enough to secure victory. (PBS Iraq's arsenal was of overwhelmingly Soviet and French origin, and apparently did not include a single weapon system of American origin. The arms transfers to Iran were miniscule, totaling less than one planeload and consisting primarily of about 1000 TOW tactical anti-tank missiles, and 18 Hawk anti-aircraft missiles (which Iran sent back to Israel after being unhappy with a test firing). The transfers to Iran were well after Iran's flirtation with outright victory in 1982, and were intended to win the release of hostages held by Iran's Hezbollah clients. They in fact won the release of 3 of the 6 Americans taken by Hezbollah -- but some of the 6 were taken after Hezbollah started freeing earlier hostages. Reagan's use of Iraq as a pawn in 1982 to stop the possible spread of Shiite revolutionary fervor toward Saudi Arabia was quite reasonable -- though with three decades of hindsight we now know that the Iranian revolution translates very poorly from Farsi to Arabic. Reagan's attempt to buy the freedom of
