SI
SI
discoversearch

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor.  We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community.  If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.
Politics : Foreign Affairs Discussion Group -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?


To: Karen Lawrence who wrote (56241)11/8/2002 1:35:03 PM
From: Karen Lawrence  Read Replies (1) | Respond to of 281500
 
A US mea culpa to current problems with Iraq...???
ragingbull.lycos.com
excerpt:
ARMING SADDAM

The United States and its European allies have laws and policies designed to prevent arms and military technology from getting into the hands of developing countries, especially where there is a likelihood of their reckless deployment. If these controls were aimed at anyone, certainly they were aimed at the highly repressive, swaggering Iraqi regime, with its history of threatening both its neighbors and its citizens.

Still, when Saddam went to war against Iran, becoming the world's chief practitioner of chemical warfare, U.S. realpolitikers dubbed him the lesser of two evils, and the one less likely to disrupt the oil flow. The essence of Iraqgate is that secret efforts to support him became the order of the day, both during his long war with Iran and afterward.

Much of what Saddam received from the West was not arms per se, but so-called dual-use technology -- ultra sophisticated computers, armored ambulances, helicopters, chemicals, and the like, with potential civilian uses as well as military applications. We've learned by now that a vast network of companies, based in the U.S. and abroad, eagerly fed the Iraqi war machine right up until August 1990, when Saddam invaded Kuwait.

And we've learned that the obscure Atlanta branch of Italy's largest bank, Banca Nazionale del Lavoro, relying partially on U.S. taxpayer-guaranteed loans, funneled $ 5 billion to Iraq from 1985 to 1989. Some government-backed loans were supposed to be for agricultural purposes, but were used to facilitate the purchase of stronger stuff than wheat. Federal Reserve and Agriculture department memos warned of suspected abuses by Iraq, which apparently took advantage of the loans to free up funds for munitions. U.S. taxpayers have been left holding the bag for what looks like $ 2 billion in defaulted loans to Iraq.

All of this was not yet clear in August 1989, when FBI agents raided U.S. branches of BNL, hitting the jackpot in Atlanta. The branch manager in that city, Christopher Drogoul, was charged with making unauthorized, clandestine, and illegal loans to Iraq -- some of which, according to the indictment, were used to purchase arms and weapons technology. Yet three months after the raid, White House officials went right on backing Saddam, approving $ 1 billion more in U.S. government loan guarantees for farm exports to Iraq, even though it was becoming clear that the country was beating plowshares into swords.

At the time, inquiring minds wondered whether Drogoul could possibly have acted alone in such a mammoth operation, as the U.S. government alleged. Was there a formal, secret plan to arm Iraq? And did the U.S. government engage in a massive coverup when evidence of such a plan began to emerge?

In fact, we now know that in February 1990, then Attorney General Dick Thornburgh blocked U.S. investigators from traveling to Rome and Istanbul to pursue the case. And that the lead investigator lacked the basic financial know-how to handle such an investigation, and made an extraordinarily feeble effort to get to the bottom of things. More damningly, we know know that mid-level staffers at the commerce department altered Iraqi export licenses to obscure the exported materials' military function -- before sending the documents on to Congress, which was investigating the affair.

Eventually, it would turn out that elements of the U.S. government almost certainly knew that Drogoul was funneling U.S.-backed loans -- intended for the purchase of agricultural products, machinery, trucks, and other U.S. goods -- into dual-use technology and outright military technology. And that the British government was fully aware of the operations of Matrix Churchill, a British firm with an Ohio branch, which was not only at the center of the Iraqi procurement network but was also funded by BNL Atlanta. (Precision equipment supplied by Matrix Churchill was reportedly a target this January when the Western allies renewed their attack on Iraq).

It would later be alleged by bank executives that the Italian government, long a close U.S. ally as well as BNL's ultimate owner, had knowledge of BNL's loan diversions. It looked to some like an international coalition. As New York Times columnist William Safire argued last December 7, "Iraqgate is uniquely horrendous: a scandal about the systematic abuse of power by misguided leaders of three democratic nations to secretly finance the arms buildup of a dictator."

Safire had been on the case since 1989, turning out slashing op-ed pieces. But readers of the Times's news pages must have wondered where Safire's body-blows were coming from, since the news columns contained almost nothing about Iraqgate for the longest time.



To: Karen Lawrence who wrote (56241)11/8/2002 2:01:12 PM
From: Nadine Carroll  Read Replies (1) | Respond to of 281500
 
As to the Kurds, after the Gulf War, we abandoned them

Karen, do I have to explain everything that has happened in Iraq since the Gulf War? The Kurds and the Shia rose against Saddam (as Bush 41 had urged them to do) and, shamefully, we let Saddam's Republican Guard crush the uprising. Then Saddam set out for a repeat Anfal (=genocidal) campaign against the Kurds and a million Kurdish refugees headed for the mountains. Remember? Then we established the northern no-fly zone. In that zone we don't let Saddam's troops at the Kurds anymore, and the Kurds have established de-facto autonomy there. The two Kurdish faction were fighting each other for a while, but they have patched things up lately. The Kurds are quite nervous about what will happen now becuase even if America takes out Saddam, the results for them after they are folded back into the new Iraq (the Turks won't stand for any other outcome) could easily be worse than what they have now.



To: Karen Lawrence who wrote (56241)11/8/2002 3:55:40 PM
From: aladin  Read Replies (1) | Respond to of 281500
 
Karen,

I tried to get a discussion on Africa going a couple of days back and no one responded. Mugabe is actually claiming we are threatening to invade, using the famine as an excuse (what we would want with Zambia or Zimbabwe is not explained - there is no oil).

John



To: Karen Lawrence who wrote (56241)11/8/2002 9:00:53 PM
From: Dennis O'Bell  Read Replies (1) | Respond to of 281500
 
However, interestingly, the Kurds view Europe as a haven, a heaven...and are seeking fake passports (they don't want to get them in Baghdad) to flee to Europe.

The Kurds and just about everyone else... and this doesn't date from yesterday, as evidenced by the well known novel by Jean Raspail « Le Camp des saints » - published in 1973.

amazon.fr

Naturally, the extreme right agitates the immigration scarecrow, while « les Français de souche » aren't particularly enthusiastic about doing the kind of menial labor that many of these people will do for them. Les Français de souche, bien entendu, whose ancestors most likely entered the country several generations ago and were themselves treated as « filthy immigrants »... I cite France, but no doubt it's the same elsewhere in Europe.