Endymon32

Lets end this lie that the Americans Armed Saddam

The main sources for the below are the Desert Shield Fact Book (Frank Chadwick, Loren Wiseman et al, GDW 1991) and the Gulf War Fact Book (Frank Chadwick, Matt Caffrey et al, GDW 1991). Equipment will be listed by category, along with the nation of origin. For those scoring at home, items of AMERICAN origin will be highlighted thusly, and of European (FRANCE) likewise. As of 90/91, Iraq had the following:

Aircraft
MiG-29s - 70 (Soviet)
Mig-25s - 18 (Soviet)
MiG-23s - 20 (Soviet)
MiG-21s - 105 (Soviet)
F-7s - 20 (Red China)
MiG-17s - 30 (Soviet)
Su-25s - 20 (Soviet)
Su-20s - 30 (Soviet)
Su-7s - 50 (Soviet)
F-6s - 20 (Red China)
Su-24s - 10 (Soviet)
Mirage F1s - 100 (FRANCE)
MiG-23/27s - 70 (Soviet)
Il-20s - 10 (Soviet)
Tu-22s - 7 (Soviet)
Tu-16s -12 (Soviet)

Armored Vehicles
T-54/55 - 1400 (Soviet)
Type 59 - 500 (Red China)
Type 69 - 1000 (Red China)
T-62 - 1600 (Soviet)
T-72 - 1000 (Soviet)

IFVs, armored recon vehicles, and APCs - 9000 total, aprox (biggest component BTR - 60s); no precise breakdown but consist of:

EE-3 (Brazil)
EE-9 (Brazil)
EE-11 (Brazil)
ERC-90 (FRANCE)
AML-60 (FRANCE)
AML-90 (FRANCE)
Panhard M-3 (FRANCE)
FUG-70 (Hungary)
BRDM-2 (Soviet)
BTR-40 (Soviet)
BTR-50 (Soviet)
BTR-60 (Soviet)
BMP-1 (Soviet)
Type 63 (China)
OT-62 (Czechoslovakia)
OT-63 (Czechoslovakia)
BVP-1 (Czechoslovakia)
Walid (Egypt)

Navy
Interesting to note, at the time Iraq had 13 modern ships on order from ITALY

Artillery
G-5 155mm (South Africa)
GHN-45 155mm (AUSTRIA)
Astros-II SS-30 MRL (Brazil)
Astros-II SS-40 MRL (Brazil)
M56 105mm (BRITAIN)
D-74 122mm (Soviet)
D-30 122mm (Soviet)
2S1 122mm (Soviet)
2S3 152mm (Soviet)
M1937 152mm (Soviet)
M1938 122mm (Soviet)
M1939 37mm (Soviet)
M1943 152mm (Soviet)
M-1975 122mm MRL (Soviet)
BM-21 122mm MRL (Soviet)
BM-13 132mm MRL (Soviet)
S-23 180mm (Soviet)
ZSU-23-4 23mm (Soviet)
ZSU-57-2 (Soviet)
ZU-23 23mm (Soviet)
"Majnoon" 155mm (Iraq/Gerald Bull of CANADA)
"Al Fao" 210mm (Iraq/Gerald Bull of CANADA)
82 mm Mortar (Soviet)
SA-2 SAM (Soviet)
SA-3 SAM (Soviet)
SA-6 SAM (Soviet)
SA-7 SAM (Soviet)
SA-13 SAM (Soviet)

Small Arms
AK-47 (Soviet)
RPK (Soviet)
RPG-7 (Soviet)

Clearly, the vast majority of Iraq's weapons came from the Soviet Union and other Communist nations. Behind them, however, it's largely European countries that armed Iraq. The best I can tell, the U.S. provided Iraq with some spare parts for systems Iraq acquired elsewhere, relatively trivial support compared with even what France provided (much less the Soviets). Even on the level of parts and logistical support, America's contribution was small compared with that supplied by those nations. Hysterical reports to the contrary of how America armed Saddam are belied by the facts of Iraq's TO&E on the eve of the Gulf War. Therefore, it is deceptive to the point of dishonesty for anyone - especially anyone from Europe - to say America armed Iraq. People are only able to get away with this like they do with inflated civilian casualty figures for the Afghanistan campaign - feeding off of people's ignorance. The ignorant then take the accusation at face value and pass it on.
In the key period between 1973-91 the US exported a mere $5 million of weapons to Iraq; more reprehensibly the UK sold $330 million-worth of arms. Of much greater interest are the arms export totals to Iraq of the four countries most against military action: Germany with $995 million, China $5,500 million, France $9,240 million, and the Russians a massive $31,800 million. So the claim that we armed Saddam has to be treated with a degree of care, particularly by those who would award the moral high ground in this debate to the leaders of nations such as Germany, France and Russia.

You dont believe me here is a link to the Stockholm International Peace Research Institute. I cant cut and paste it for some reason.
http://projects.sipri.se/armstrade/T...Imps_73-02.pdf


Dont you think it odd that the four major nations opposing the war had the most invested in Saddam's army?

Dragonlich

Might I add that the countries that had most to gain from not going to war, but from lifting of the UN sanctions instead were, in no particular order: France, Germany, Russia and China. (mostly thanks to lucrative oil deals)

(sorry, had to be said)

But one might argue that Iraq was simply very good at playing political-economical games to drive her enemies against another. The constant in-fighting at the UN kept him in power for a loooooong time.

lordjeebus

I was under the understanding that US support for Iraq was not in the equipment department, but rather in chemical and biological weapons.

For instance:
(from http://www.somalilandtimes.net/2003/60/6020.htm)

and from the Washington Post (downloaded from http://www.jonathanpollard.org/2002/123002.htm):
and (from http://www.sfbg.com/News/32/21/Features/iraq.html):

I agree that the "The US armed Iraq" argument is a bit silly because lots of other countries were also complicit -- but the US should still acknowledge that it played a role as well as other countries. It is ironic that the alleged WMD programs that justify our occupation of Iraq were founded on technology sold by US corporations with US government approval.

Endymon32

So you are then saying that Iraq DOES have WMD?

Dragonlich

lordjeebus, looking at the big picture, it seems that, again, the US is hardly a big player in the Iraqi WMD area. German companies build the chemical plants that made Saddam's nerve gas; French companies build the nuclear power plant that might have led to the Iraqi's having nukes (if Israel hadn't blown up said plant). Apparently, Russia later build *another* nuclear power plant for them.

If I'm not mistaken, the US "merely" supplied Iraq with reverence strains of biological agents. Nasty of course, but not something those other countries were unable or unwilling to do, I'd imagine.

In short, your claim that "the WMD programs ... were founded on technology sold by US corporations with US government approval" is clearly inaccurate (at the very least). Biological weapons programs, maybe; but chemical and nuclear weapons programs were not based on technology supplied by the US. Well, unless you count the Manhatten project as a direct source for Iraqi WMDs; and even that was initiated by an European (Einstein)...

silent_jay

German factories may have made the nerve gas for saddam but the US and the rest of the world turned a blind eye to its use. the list doesn't mean these countries supplied the weapons to Iraq the black market is so vast that people can get anything they do not need to go to the country where it was made. go to Mogadishu and find anything you want.

__________________
Absence makes the heart grow fonder

SLM3

The Orweillian nature of thsi thread astounds me. The logic here astounds me. No one defends France, Russia et al. for selling weapons to Iraq. But to somehow infer that because they might have sold more than the US so what the US did was ok or not as bad is simply rediculous. Are you really assigning levels of guilt dependant on who sold more chemical weapons than the other?!

The selective nature of your little list is also very suspect. According to the Iraq Weapons Dossier Report (remember that 12,000 page document?), several (more than 20) US companies were identified for their involvement in arming Iraq. And that's not just chemical or nuclear programs (like that's somehow not as bad, ok guys). There's Honeywell, Spectra Physics, Semetex, TI Coating, Unisys, Sperry Corp, just to name a few who all helped supply rocket programs as well as conventional weapons and military logistics.

According to the German Press Agency DPA, the dossier report was reduced from 12,000 pages to 3,000 pages and it was this truncated version that was given to Non-permanent members on the Security Council.

Ya know, as much as I'd love to put all my faith in your source, the fact that it was written as part of a war game casts a shadow upon it.


SLM3

silent_jay

it does seem like a very suspect list, the US funded the mujahadeen in Afghanistan with money and weapons,

__________________
Absence makes the heart grow fonder

MSD

Iraq DID have WMD. Most were destroyed by inspectors and bombing (I think it started on Dec. 15, 1997,) anything that wasn't disarmed or destroyed was forgotten about or lost.

We supplied them with the gas that was repeatedly used on the Kurds, we smoothed things over when people got pissed about Saddam's use of WMD. Then, like the parent who confiscates a kid's BB gun when he starts shooting the other kids with it, we got rid of what we had given him.

rogue49

Let's put it this way.
Yes, the US unfortunately funded and/or helped the Iraqi war-machine.
As did many OTHER nations, including many who also profited from Iraq
and then protested the war against them.

Iraq was found in the past to have had WMD,
and it's willingness to use them.

Considering it invaded another country,
and then didn't comply on several terms with its first surrender by UN definition
and intelligence was showed that Iraq was continuing to research
and "perhaps" develop WMD on top of it arsenal then (whether valid or not)

Then all things considered, both past & present
violations, attitude, aggressions, actions (against outside & internal civilians)
It was decided it was best to pop a potentially festering sore.
That by past action showed that it was more than likely to NOT be benign.

Same reason we went into Kosovo.
The unstability in either area,
had the ability to pull our nation into major conflicts & wars and the greater international community too.
Both have done so in the past, and then with great potential in the future.

The current administration decide to head it off aggressively,
rather than being passive and letting it grow.
(although I disagreed with their international relations diplomacy)

And it acknowledged the past mistake of feeding that growth,
and took action to correct its mistake.
Simple.

Other nations decide to let it just be, and continue to make profits from it.
And even now, they are trying to get back into the deal.

Let's remember the decisions of ALL nations made are first for strength,
the rationalization after is that "value-based" rhetoric.
And hell, if it "promotes" your way of living...even better.

No one is innocent here.

Endymon32

Nice post Rogue

Endymon32

And the mujahedeen fought againts soviet invaders, legitimate military targets. This means that they were not, terrorists, as the current meme by the likes of Michael Moore like to keep spewing. Terrorists dont fight legitimate military targets.

By the way, you are the first person to call the SPRI a suspect source of information.

silent_jay

the iraqi gureillas are fighting foreign invaders much like the viet cong. no matter what the US administration says there are always going to be people in iraq who see America as an occupier instead of a liberator.

i must give credit that was a nice post rogue.

__________________
Absence makes the heart grow fonder

Mojo_PeiPei

For the record we funded Pakistan who funded the Mujahadeen.

__________________
To win a war you must serve no master but your ambition.

Zeld2.0

With the intention of funding the Mujahadeen to fight the Soviets. Duh - its the way to fund and have soemone else to blame.

Endymon32

And what is wrong with fighting Soviet invaders from your homeland?

Sun Tzu

Among others listed here’s some specifics:

1. Honeywell
2. Spectra Physics
3. Semetex
4. TI Coating
5. Unisys
6. Sperry Corp.
7. Tektronix
8. Rockwell
9. Leybold Vacuum Systems
10. Finnigan-MAT-US
11. Hewlett-Packard
12. Dupont
13. Eastman Kodak
14. American Type Culture Collection
15. Alcolac International
16. Consarc
17. Carl Zeiss
18. Cerberus
19. Electronic Associates
20. International Computer Systems
21. Bechtel
22. EZ Logic Data Systems, Inc.
23. Canberra Industries Inc.
24. Axel Electronics Inc.


Here’s a link that has a directory of some unclassified Congressional documents. I’d hate to see the classified ones.

http://www.chronicillnet.org/PGWS/tuite/default.htm

__________________
To confine our attention to terrestrial matters would be to limit the human spirit.- Stephen Hawking

Endymon32

We sold Iraq lots of things, just as we sell weapons to France, England and any nation not being sanctioned by the UN. When it became ILLEGAL to see to IRaq, France, China, Russia, and Germany flouted international law and CONTINUED to see to Iraq.
The same nations that told us it was immoral to fight Iraq were the same nations that bypassed the UN to trade oil for weapons.
Pretty immoral of them, huh?

SLM3

So, are you saying the US did help arm Iraq? Which story are you going to decide on? I find you keep changing your stance to suit whatever argument you come up with next.

What's it gonna be?

Also, I'm confused with your concept of morality. Is your standard of morality based on the status of UN sanctions upon the receiving state? American chemicals used to gas Kurds is ok because Iraq wasn't being sanctioned then? Then of course there's the fact that the US with its veto could make sure no sanctions were inflicted upon a US-client state., much as it did in 80's concerning Iraq's weapons.

Your arguments are narrow and therefore useless. Take a step back, look at the big picture, and then make your decisions.

Moral vs. immoral, it means nothing in this world of competing truths. It's interests vs. the willingness to pay for those interests, that is all. Welcome to realpolitik.


SLM3

silent_jay

what's wrong with iraqi's fighting foriegn invaders?

you do seem to jump all over the board. do you actually have a position on this, or like SLM3 said do you just change to suit your new point?

__________________
Absence makes the heart grow fonder

Endymon32

Nothing is wrong with fighiting American invaders if you are an al queda terrorists that wants to kill for allah and impose martial law. Or you are a baathist loyalits fighting to restore your priviledge postion on the back of the average joe.

I think the Northern Alliance fighting Soviet Military expansion is a lot different than whats going on in Iraq? dont you?

Do you have an opionion or do you just hate bush for no reason that makes sense and just want to slam him for all the good he is doing?

SLM3

Do you really, honestly, think Al Qaeda is killing for Allah? What is terrorism to you? What do you think is going on in Iraq?


SLM3

Endymon32

I dont know what al qeada members think personally, but accourding to their leader and his speaches, that is the official al queda doctrine.

Endymon32

Terrorism is targetting of non military targets by unsanctioned opperatives. Isnt that what it is to everyone?

rgr22j

I think some of you misinterpret Endymon32. I've taken the liberty of breaking up the discussion part of his post into smaller parts -- if one was speeding past the list, it would be easy to miss this section.

The point here as I see it is not that America did not arm Iraq; rather, our contributions are miniscule compared to the contributions of others. It does not, in any way, excuse the US. I believe Endymon32 means to make the point that most of Iraq's weapons are not of American origin, and while the statement "America armed Iraq" is partially true, it is like saying that the Augusta National Golf Club is diverse because it has a half-dozen minority members.

However, the first sentence of the post, "Let's end this lie that America armed Iraq," is misleading. Actually I find it somewhat humorously ironic, as it is as partially true as "America armed Iraq."

In his initial post, Endymon32 includes numbers for how much we sold Iraq; if one's story was "America never helped arm Iraq," it might be better to not include actual monetary amounts. It appears (to me, at least) that Endymon32's story has been rather consistent.

Endymon32's point is that the big picture is that the contributions of anti-liberation countries to Iraq's military far outweigh America's contributions. Likely, Iraq's military would not be much different without American equipment.

The narrow (and useless) argument is that America sold something, anything, to Iraq. Therefore, America armed Iraq.

-- Alvin

SLM3

Many of the statements refuting what Endymon32 said were based on the fact that his main source left much to be desired as well as the contradictory evidence produced by the 12,000 page WMD dossier report.



SLM3

Endymon32

Again, you are the only one saying that the SPRI is an ureliable source. Why is that? Do you have evidence that the SPRI is not accurate? Please post that proof.

SLM3

Your main source was the Desert Field Fact Book, created for a war game.


How do you then refute the evidence from the actual dossier report on all those weapons?


SLM3

rgr22j

His main source listed mainly conventional weapons. I can see, tangentially, perhaps, that, for example, something like artillery may also fall in the WMD dossier. However, the point remains that the majority of Iraq's armed forces were not American, thus it is deceptive to say that "America armed Iraq."

He listed three sources -- the details may be different, but all three corroborate the same basic story, that Iraq's military was overwhelmingly non-American. In particular the monetary amounts appear to come from the Stockholm International Peace Research Institute.

You two are firing over each other's heads -- SLM3, you believe that America was responsible for Iraq's WMD program, and Endymon32, you believe that America was not responsible for Iraq's military. Both of these you two believe fall under "weapons."

-- Alvin

SLM3

I understood he was referring to conventional weapons and such. This is why I mentioned Honeywell, Spectra Physics, Semetex, TI Coating, Unisys, Sperry Corp, just to name a few because they provided conventional weapons programs and military logisitcs as opposed to what we commonly refer to as WMD. There's many more who provided conventional weapons programs. I'm just confused as to why these facts as displayed in the 12,000 page dossier aren't reflected in the sources presented in this thread. To me, it seems suspect.

Also, I wonder if the SIPRI figures come from the truncated version of the dossier, which was released to non-permanent members on the security council. The German Press Agency DPA has revealed that this version, altered by the US, omits almost all of the US dealings with Iraq.

SLM3

Endymon32

Note you ignored the SPRI. Please provide the information that the dossier report says, so I can argue it. Unlike you, I dont argue information I dont have.

SLM3

I did?

SLM3

Endymon32

Yes it showed that France, China and Russia provided IRaq with 84% of his weapons, and The US NOTHING after Iraq was declared a rogue nation.

When it was legal to sell Iraq weapons, we sold them. When it was illegal, we stopped. Unlike other nations that said it was immoral to go to war with Saddam. But it was moral to violate the law and sell him weapons.

SLM3

I rarely get to quote myself:


It is my contention that your source does not accurately portray the history of Iraqi arms dealings with the US. You're allowed to disagree. Is that enough?

I did provide information on the dossier, as told by the German Press Agency DPA.

SLM3

SLM3

rgr22j

Very interesting. I've heard of this story before, but I haven't quite found anyone who has any information about it. I'm curious -- you say that the permanent members got to see the whole dossier -- one that includes China, France, and Russia, three of Endymon32's four horsemen.

Why didn't they complain at the time that the US was censoring damaging material? Or Kofi Annan? The "official" reason is that they removed data on building nuclear weapons, data considered unwise to share with non-nuclear powers. Your source at Deutsche Presse-Agentur doesn't have much information on the reaction from China, France, and Russia. One would think that they would jump on the opportunity to reveal the US as the major supplier of Iraq's WMD.

-- Alvin

SLM3

Well, as many have pointed out, no one is innocent here. France, Russia, and China played their hand trying to keep the war from happening, and now that it's all out in the open they're probably just as eager to keep things under wraps as the US.

Actually, from what I gather it was the US that lead the way towards the censorship but all the permanent members supported it as well.


SLM3

Endymon32

And you still failed to provide the dates. As I have said, the US stopped selling to Iraq after Iraq was put on the Rogue nations list. You are only saying over and over that we did sell, and again, no one will argue that. I have shown, and argued that once it was illegal to sell weapons to IRaq, three members of the UN security council continued to sell to Iraq. You have yet to prove that we violated this.
We did sell food and medicine to Iraq, for oil, as was allowed. The fact that Iraq choose to sell oil for weapons with three members of the security council of the UN, while his people starved can hardly be blamed on the sanctions.
Saddam choose weapons over food, he ate, while his people starved. And France, China, Germany and Russia are his cohorts in this.
So again SLM please provide the dates to your sales and you have a case.

SLM3

Ok, we're going in circles. You can't use US policies as a constant in the international system. Why do I care about a rogue nations list if the US is the only one that creates and uses it? According to that list, am I a horrible person if I go on my summer vacation to Cuba? What if Germany came up with an anti-occupation mean country list and put the US on it? I'm not going to be bound by your argument that other actors in the international system must abide by US policies and decisions.

Maybe I'm reading your link wrong, but after 1990, no state sold weapons to Iraq. Atleast not according to that SIPRI link.

When it was legal you did, when it was illegal you didn't? Illegal according to who? the US? You only refer to this US created rogue states list. Again, why should such a list have any bearing at all in the international system?

Stop trying to inject a sense of morality into this so you can somehow put the US up on a pedestal. The US, like any other state, is a fair-weathered friend to freedom and democracy. Being the hegemonic power it has taken on a greater role in that respect but has continued on with its realist policies.

Where was this morality during the Iran-Contra affair? Why are you picking and choosing?

SLM3

rgr22j

You'll have to forgive me, I'm still trying to figure this out. You're telling me to believe proof that refutes Endymon32's evidence in which neither you nor I have seen, in which the reporting agency (Deutsche Presse-Agentur) has apparently not shared with anyone, in which the reporting agency was in a virulently anti-liberation democratic country and thus would not be suppressed, in which the primary benefactor was the censor, in which the primary opponents had copies of the uncensored version and did not see fit to protest.

This proof contradicts Endymon32's fact book that merely listed numbers, makes, and models of Iraq's military forces, and a separate SIPRI report that tabulates the total amount of arms sales to Iraq from 1973-1991, which I was able to partially correlate with additional, publicly available data (see below).

You know, I'm absolutely willing to believe either of you two. I try hard to be open-minded. But in order for me to do that, I need more information, more than a flimsy conspiracy theory about a censored WMD report that was then further censored by the majority anti-liberation world press. It just doesn't add up.

-- Alvin

P.S. The SIPRI report was apparently performed on data available long before the censored dossier -- a second $5 million of weapons claim was also published in 1998 by Anthony Cordesman, long before the WMD dossier

rgr22j

I don't think that's what he's saying. What he's saying is that the overwhelming majority of arms sold to Iraq are non-American. If we assume that nobody (including the US, France, Germany, whatever) sold arms to Iraq after 1990, the point still remains that Iraq was not, in a realistic sense, armed by the United States.

The list is important because there is apparently a belief that the United States, and the United States alone, armed Iraq and that makes us culpable in supporting Saddam. Thus we cannot remove him from power because we were once his friend. Or something like that, it is not particularly good logic to begin with, especially considering anyone could plainly see on the television that the Iraqi equipment was clearly not American.

But with this list, we see that this is not the case. Therefore, with a few facts we can put the above notion to rest. However, I doubt it will convince one who wholly believes that logic. After all, it is impossible to reason a fool out of a notion that he did not reason himself into in the first place (Jonathan Swift).

-- Alvin