*Documents newly released under the freedom of information act place Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld in Baghdad in 1984, personally assuring Saddam Hussein that the dictator's use of chemical weapons in the Iran-Iraq war, did not threaten U.S.-Iraqi ties. Rumsfeld was then President Reagan's special Middle East envoy. *
No wonder the American's are not keen on sending Saddam to the Hague, as Rumsfeld would then have to be called to counter these charges.
What an unmittigated pile of crap.
Over a year ago we had this same discussion under the thread "Suffering of Iraqi's under Saddam". Please read the entire thread, but I will post again a number of resources detailing what was known and when.
The real summary is that a picture is worth a thousand words if you are ignorant. Showing a picture of Rumsfeld in his one meeting with Saddam means nothing. But the ignorant presume from one historical picture that they know what went on during that meeting. Since I have written all of this before, I will liberally copy my answers from that now closed thread, as absolutely no new information is really being presented here.
Nadia,
Perhaps you need to be further informed. Here is a 1984 report on chemical weapons used in the Iran-Iraq war, Created by the Stockholm International Peace Reasearch Institute:
…Tear gas: In August 1982, US officials were quoted in the press as being “confident” that the Iraqis did not possess any “deadly chemical weapons”, only tear gas.
…With the exceptions, maybe, of the last two of these different categories of putative Iraqi agent, sources of supply might as well be indigenous as external to Iraq, given the technology implied. Involvement of the last three categories would, in some circles, implicate the USSR as supplier, for the reason that the USSR is said, on evidence that has yet to be solidly substantiated but which has nonetheless attracted some firm believers, to have weaponized all three of them in recent years. For its part, the USSR has expressly denied supplying Iraq with toxic weapons. Reports of Soviet supply attributed to US and other intelligence sources have nonetheless recurred. The earliest predate reports of Iraqi use of chemical weapons in the Gulf War.
Official Iranian commentaries, too, have pointed to the USSR as a supplier of the Iraqi weapons. These sources have also accused Brazil, France and, most conspicuously, Britain of supplying the weapons. No basis for any of these Iranian accusations has been disclosed. France, alongside Czechoslovakia and both Germanies, is reportedly also rumoured, among “foreign military and diplomatic sources” in Baghdad, to have supplied Iraq with chemical precursors needed for an indigenous production effort. Unofficial published sources have cited Egypt as a possible supplier of actual chemical weapons. In the mid-1960s, when Iraq was alleged to be using chemical weapons against insurgent Kurdish forces, Swiss and German sources of supply were reported in the Western press.
Export controls
On 30 (1984) March, the US government announced the imposition of ‘foreign policy controls’ on the export to the Gulf-War belligerents of five chemicals that could be used in the production of mustard and nerve gases. US officials told the press that this had been done in response to an unexpected volume of recent orders from Iraq for those chemicals. They also said that Japan, FR Germany and other unspecified European countries had been exporting the chemicals to Iraq. The British government took action similar to that of Washington on 12 April, adding three more chemicals to the control list (see table). Since then, other European governments have also announced embargoes of varying scope, and on 15 May the Foreign Ministers of the European Community agreed in principle on a common and complementary policy. There are Western press reports of suspicions in Western diplomatic circles in the Middle East that the USSR is shipping intermediates to Iraq through Jordan
http://projects.sipri.se/cbw/resear...sheet-1984.html
It seems as if a mere 6 days after Rumsfelds’ visit to Saddam the US was slapping export restrictions on Iraq, Britain soon after that. Wonder if that got mentioned at the meetings? Can’t imagine that it would not have come up. As you can see, as of 1982 the US did not believe that Iraq still had chemical weapons, the technology and precursors were being supplied largely by the USSR and EU countries. It seems to be apparent that the US and the UK were trying to limit Saddams’ access to WMD as early as 1984. The UK’s efforts to reign in Saddam started a good 18 years before the dossier!
Are you certain of what happened at that meeting? Could your outrage be a little misplaced? How about a little anti-Russia tirade just for some balance. OOppps, I forget, they are the ones who STILL support Saddam, provided technology for chemical weapons, sold Billions of dollars of military weapons to Saddam, and funded the Iran-Iraq war. But if you are ANTI-US, it is a lot more fun to blame only one party for every ill in the world…
[Last edited by Ohioguy on 12-03-2002 at 05:06 PM]
From the afore mentioned thread…
[QUOTE]
*Originally posted by Ohioguy: *
The real summary is that a picture is worth a thousand words if you are ignorant. Showing a picture of Rumsfeld in his one meeting with Saddam means nothing.
[/QUOTE]
This is not just about one picture, this is about officially released documents which expose the US Administrations moral and economic support of an evil, totalitarian regime, this support flourished even when they knew about the use of Chemical weapons by Sadam.
Dil,
The records show that both iran and iraq used Chemical weapons and six days after Rumsfled's visit the US the EU countries, and the UK slapped saddam with export controls on a list of precursors. Additionally the document showed that the US issued a condemnation of all uses of chemical weapons. If you look further, Rumsfelds instructions from Reagan were to insure that iraq "did not lose the war to Iran". As far as I have been able to find that meant only one thing. Through satellite photos we showed the iraqis where the iranian "human wave" attacks would be coming. without a doubt Saddam and the US had a common enemy, and that is about the extent of the relationship.
Some day you might be able to distinguish "support" from "relations" How could the US have played a major role in Iraq when we have only had diplomatic realtions with the country for 7 of the last 35 years? Your anti-US rhetoric would be better placed to the USSR, France and Germany as MAJOR suppliers and financiers of Iraq. But that is not as fun, nor does it fit with your rabidly anti-US agenda.
Very true. Even after the chemical bombing at Halabja (which the UK PM at the time dismissed as “an internal affair of Iraq”), the US administration of Reagan tried to cover it up.
http://www.pbs.org/newshour/forum/march98/intervention1.html
During these years, Saddam Hussein has also carried out major crimes. The worst by far were committed in the 1980s, including his gassing of Kurds at Halabja in 1988, chemical warfare against Iran, torture of dissidents, and numerous others. His invasion of Kuwait, though a serious crime, in fact added little to his already horrendous record. Throughout the period of his worst crimes, Saddam remained a favored ally and trading partner of the US and Britain, which furthermore abetted these crimes. The Reagan Administration even sought to prevent congressional reaction to the the gassing of the Kurds, including the (failed) plea of Senate Foreign Relations Committee Chairman Claiborne Pell that “we cannot be silent to genocide again” as the world was when Hitler exterminated Europe’s Jews. So extreme was Reaganite support for their friend that when ABC TV correspondent Charles Glass revealed the site of one of Saddam’s biological warfare programs a few months after Halabja, Washington denied the facts, and the story died; the State Department “now issues briefings on the same site,” Glass writes (in England). There were no passionate calls for a military strike against this brutal killer and torturer. Quite the contrary: much of what was known, including US support, was downplayed or not reported.
After the Gulf War, the Senate Banking Committee found that the Commerce Department had traced shipment of “biological materials” of a kind later found and destroyed by UN inspectors, continuing at least until November 1989. A month later, during his invasion of Panama, Bush authorized new loans for Saddam: to achieve the “goal of increasing U.S. exports and put us in a better position to deal with Iraq regarding its human rights record…,” the State Department announced, facing no criticism in the mainstream (in fact, no report). The Bush Administration continued to support the mass murderer up to his invasion of Kuwait, which shifted his status from ally to enemy, much as the Suharto coup and slaughters of 1965 shifted Indonesia from enemy to friend. In these and many other cases, the criterion that distinguishes friend from enemy is obedience, not crime. Immediately after the Gulf war ended in March 1991, Washington returned to support for Saddam. The State Department formally reiterated its refusal to have any dealings with the Iraqi democratic opposition: “Political meetings with them would not be appropriate for our policy at this time,” the Department spokesman declared. “This time” was March 14 1991, while Saddam was decimating the southern opposition under the eyes of US forces, which refused even to grant rebelling Iraqi military officers access to captured Iraqi arms, to defend the population and perhaps overthrow the monster. Had it not been for unexpected public reaction, Washington might not have extended even weak support to rebelling Kurds, subjected to the same treatment shortly after.
Hmmm.
If we were such "favored trading partners", why are we no owed Billions and Billions of dollars as are the members of the Paris club?
The gassing of the Kurds was not a slam dunk as to culpability. The Iraqi's had used chemical weapons on the Iranians, but never had nerve agents been used. The IRANIANS did have that type of nerve agent, and it was first assumed that the Iranians had committed the attack. Of course you well remember that as nearly a year ago in other threads we were seeing articles from CIA analysts who were against the recent invasion arguing that the "gassing of the Kurds" was the subject of great debate at the time.
The biological materials, namely the Anthrax samples, were given to the University of Baghdad. At the time, no one on earth though that Iraq had any interest in a bio progrqam. It was not until after the first Gulf War and the defection of Saddam's son in law that it was ever revealed that Saddam had such a program. Or perhaps maybe all Muslim Universities should be issued kindergarten scissors, as the students and faculty cannot be trusted?
You can paint this in your worst anti US rhetoric, but the REAL bottom line is, whatever the US involvement with Saddam we had the sense to end his regime, whereas your best friends the French and the Germans and the Russians are still demanding payment for the billions of dollars of weapons they sold. Did you see a single US weapon used by the iraqi's in Gulf war II? Wonder how they got Russian tanks, and French Mirages and AK 47's manufactured in every former Soviet country?
Perhaps the ignorant masses thrive on a picture of Rumsfeld shaking hands with Saddam. I am sure we could find a nice picture of Chirac kissing his arse. Of course the ignorant have no sense of PROPORTION as to the culpability with Saddam. They do not understand that a country that has only had diplomatic relations with Iraq for 7 of the past 35 years cannot be a major player.
Last of all, did this man have a mother and father? A town? A Mullah?, a religion, or any sense of right and wrong? Who created Saddam, a test tube? How many Arab leaders did Saddam shake hands with? How many Imam's? Did the UN expel Iraq, or create a tribunal?
[QUOTE]
*Originally posted by Malik73: *
No wonder the American's are not keen on sending Saddam to the Hague, as Rumsfeld would then have to be called to counter these charges.
[/QUOTE]
Exactly, the Bush Administration seems to be making statements ridiculing the need for an International war crimes tribunal knowing full well this could open up a huge can of worms and hinder their chances of re-election.
OG, just because the Bush Administration seems to think its above international law and does not have to abide by Human Rights Conventions, doesnt mean that we all have to jump on the Bush Bandwagon waving I love Bush banners and loving his pro-war views. And millions of American citizens have rejected Bush's foreign policies knowing that they are disastrous for america and have destabilised entire regions.. this DOES NOT mean that they are being anti-us. Same applies to millions of Europeons, Africans and Asians with anti-war views.
Latest article from the New York Times about the Rumsfeld-Saddam links.
Rumsfeld Made Iraq Overture in '84 Despite Chemical Raids](http://www.nytimes.com/2003/12/23/international/middleeast/23RUMS.html?ex=1072760400&en=d7c9af43a51d25fe&ei=5062&partner=GOOGLE) New York Times Published: December 23, 2003
WASHINGTON, Dec. 22 — As a special envoy for the Reagan administration in 1984, Donald H. Rumsfeld, now the defense secretary, traveled to Iraq to persuade officials there that the United States was eager to improve ties with President Saddam Hussein despite his use of chemical weapons, newly declassified documents show. …