To: ajtj99 who wrote (96480 ) 4/15/2009 8:45:48 AM From: Hawkmoon 2 Recommendations Respond to of 116555 The US provided tactical assistance in the deployment of the chemical weapons by Iraq in the Iran/Iraq war. That's just ludicrous, especially given your "caveat" that we may not have known the warheads were chemical.. What the Reagan Administration COULD be accused of was making the conscious choice not to pursue condemnation of Iraq in the UN for using CW against Iran, given their preference that Saddam's regime remain in power over an Iranian victory and occupation of Iraq. And besides, we really wanted BOTH Iran and Iraq to bleed each other to death as it would decrease the threat to both Israel and our oil interests in the Persian Gulf. There were several instances where the Reagan administration prevented shipment to Iraq of potential precursor ingredients that could have been used for CW production: In February 1984, Iraq's military, expecting a major Iranian attack, issued a warning that "the invaders should know that for every harmful insect there is an insecticide capable of annihilating it whatever the number and Iraq possesses this annihilation insecticide" [Document 41]. On March 3, the State Department intervened to prevent a U.S. company from shipping 22,000 pounds of phosphorous fluoride, a chemical weapons precursor, to Iraq. Washington instructed the U.S. interests section to protest to the Iraqi government, and to inform the Ministry of Foreign Affairs that "we anticipate making a public condemnation of Iraqi use of chemical weapons in the near future," and that "we are adamantly opposed to Iraq's attempting to acquire the raw materials, equipment, or expertise to manufacture chemical weapons from the United States. When we become aware of attempts to do so, we will act to prevent their export to Iraq" [Document 42]. The public condemnation was issued on March 5. It said, "While condemning Iraq's chemical weapons use . . . 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" [Document 43].Later in the month, the State Department briefed the press on its decision to strengthen controls on the export of chemical weapons precursors to Iran and Iraq, in response to intelligence and media reports that precursors supplied to Iraq originated in Western countries. When asked whether the U.S.'s conclusion that Iraq had used chemical weapons would have "any effect on U.S. recent initiatives to expand commercial relationships with Iraq across a broad range, and also a willingness to open diplomatic relations," the department's spokesperson said "No. I'm not aware of any change in our position. We're interested in being involved in a closer dialogue with Iraq" [Document 52]. Iran had submitted a draft resolution asking the U.N. to condemn Iraq's chemical weapons use. The U.S. delegate to the U.N. was instructed to lobby friendly delegations in order to obtain a general motion of "no decision" on the resolution. If this was not achievable, the U.S. delegate was to abstain on the issue. Iraq's ambassador met with the U.S. ambassador to the U.N., Jeane Kirkpatrick, and asked for "restraint" in responding to the issue - as did the representatives of both France and Britain. gwu.edu The next thing you're going to try and convince us of is that we actually armed Saddam.. Like we'd be willing to buy weapons from Russia and China just to give them to Saddam.. You ever bother to reflect upon the ACTUAL AID that Saddam received from the former USSR? Then take some time to reflect upon the assistance that Jacques Chirac's government lent to Saddam in providing nuclear technology. Hawk