Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

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: Hawkmoon who wrote (174757)	11/11/2005 8:43:57 AM
From: jttmab	Respond to of 281500

The whole subject of what support the Reagan Administration did, AND DID NOT, give to Saddam's regime has been extensively researched and documented. gwu.edu Good link. Thanks, that's a keeper. In the above link I had never seen the following statement "The United States finds the present Iranian regime's intransigent refusal to deviate from its avowed objective of eliminating the legitimate government of neighboring Iraq to be inconsistent with the accepted norms of behavior among nations and the moral and religious basis which it claims." washingtonpost.com ...The story of U.S. involvement with Saddam Hussein in the years before his 1990 attack on Kuwait -- which included large-scale intelligence sharing, supply of cluster bombs through a Chilean front company, and facilitating Iraq's acquisition of chemical and biological precursors... Follow the money pal.. I'm not saying there was not some shady dealings in how policy makers attempted to use some $4 Billion in American loans to Iraq (now forgiven) to make it feasible for Iraq to divert resources to buying weapons.. I wonder if that Chilean front company shows up in that $4B. I would doubt it. Nor would the facilitating of chemical and biological materials to the regime. Export licenses don't show up as DoD expenditures. $4B isn't chump change. I don't believe that anyone has ever claimed that the US was the only supporter/supplier to Saddam Hussein. I'm sure we would both agree that there were numerous countries supporting Iraq. The way Saddam did business all of the "loans" represent one big slush fund. How did the mujahideen fighting against the Soviets in Afghanistan get loaded up with AK-47s? Someone was passing them on. jttmab

To: Hawkmoon who wrote (174757)	11/11/2005 1:35:46 PM
From: Don Hurst	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 281500

>>"It's just plain F**king amazing to what extent you'll go to avoid admitting outright facts, including the BLATANT LIE that we were buying SOVIET Weapons and giving them to Saddam.."<< Ah yes, from the National Security document link, note below that Teicher said that we (the CIA) provided Iraq military hardware "compatible" with its Soviet-origin weaponry. Gee, it is not possible that the "compatible" weaponry could actually be Soviet weapons...NAAAAAH, not possible. You are such a simpleton. Read "Ghost Wars" and "Charlie Wilson's War" to see how we did it for the Afghani mujahadeen. Btw, were the Amman bombings the "Last Throes"? >>"Document 61: United States District Court (Florida: Southern District) Affidavit. "United States of America, Plaintiff, v. Carlos Cardoen [et al.]" [Charge that Teledyne Wah Chang Albany Illegally Provided a Proscribed Substance, Zirconium, to Cardoen Industries and to Iraq], January 31, 1995. Former Reagan administration National Security Council staff member Howard Teicher says that after Ronald Reagan signed a national security decision directive calling for the U.S. to do whatever was necessary to prevent Iraq's defeat in the Iran-Iraq war, Director of Central Intelligence William Casey personally led efforts to ensure that Iraq had sufficient weapons, including cluster bombs, and that the U.S. provided Iraq with financial credits, intelligence, and strategic military advice. The CIA also provided Iraq, through third parties that included Israel and Egypt, with military hardware compatible with its Soviet-origin weaponry."<<