http://www.boston.com/news/world/articles/2004/01/10/evidence_cited_of_russian_arms_in_iraq?mode=PF Evidence cited of Russian arms in Iraq By Paul Richter and Kim Murphy, Los Angeles Times, 1/10/2004 WASHINGTON -- US officials have found evidence corroborating White House allegations that Russian companies sold Saddam Hussein high-tech military equipment that threatened US forces during the invasion of Iraq last March, a senior State Department official said yesterday. The official said the United States has found proof that Russian companies exported night-vision goggles and radar-jamming equipment to Iraq, the official said. The evidence includes the equipment itself and proof that it was used during the war, according to the official. Such exports would violate the terms of United Nations sanctions against Iraq. "We have corroborated some of that evidence," the official told a group of reporters. While insisting that the matter is "now in the past," he said that the Bush administration "never received entirely satisfactory explanations" of its charges, and that the issue "is still a sensitive one in the relationship." "It's an issue that, shall we say, did not do much for strengthening trust," the official added. The issue burst into public view last March 24, just days after the war began, when President Bush called Russia's president, Vladimir Putin, to voice his concern about the goggles, jamming equipment, and advanced antitank missiles. The White House said at the time that it had "credible evidence" that the equipment came from Russian companies. The goggles and jammers were of special concern to the United States because US forces, seeking to wage war over great distances with low casualties, rely on night-vision devices and high-tech missile and aircraft guidance systems. The goggles use heat sensors to enable infantrymen to continue operations even in the dead of night; the jammers block signals from satellites that guide cruise missiles and "smart" bombs. Putin staunchly denied the charges. But the allegation added friction to a relationship that was already under strain at the time because of Russia's vocal opposition to the US-led invasion. Yevgeny V. Khorishko, press secretary for the Russian Embassy in Washington, said yesterday that though the allegations were first raised before the war, "we have never received real proof from the American side that Russian firms were involved in the delivery of this equipment." The State Department official declined to elaborate on what the proof is. Khorishko noted that the United States and Russia are now involved in broad talks aimed at developing new ways to halt the spread of weapons around the world. He said he could not comment, under the terms of those talks, on whether they addressed US concerns about the night-vision and jamming equipment. In raising the issue last year, US officials contended that although the hardware was allegedly sold by private companies, the Russian government could have taken steps to oversee and interdict the traffic. They maintained at the time that the gear had been sold relatively recently, and with an understanding that it could be used in such a war. High-tech military equipment is a top export for Russia. Though the country's military budget has shrunk dramatically, its military industry exports about $5 billion annually in tanks, planes, small arms, and other equipment, which end up -- directly or through transshipment -- in dozens of countries. During the war, US military sources gave differing accounts on how much the Russian-made equipment affected US forces. Some military officials were quoted as blaming jamming gear for sending missiles off course and into Iran and Saudi Arabia, and as contending that Russian made Kornet antitank missiles destroyed at least two American M-1 A-1 tanks, the first time such tanks had been destroyed in battle. But other officials contended they had little effect during the rapid sweep to Baghdad. Some Russian arms industry executives and military analysts asserted that the charges about the jamming equipment were made only to explain away the inaccuracy of the US-made "smart bombs."
I remember watching one of the SITCOM briefings and the Gen. said something about that. He started laughing and said that it was ironic since we used a GPS (?) missile to destroy the site with the jamming equipment. I wonder if their talking about one of the tanks that was destroyed with some mystery weapon. Someone posted an article about it a while back.
How much hardware do private US companies provide to other countries that's not in oversite of the US government? Anyone? Not trying to start a fight Max. It's an honest quetion.
I think I get "Gee, I told you so." Russians, Germans and Frenchies are not our friends. Would a true friend sell weapons to an enemy to be used to kill your troops in contravention of UN decrees (as toothless as they are)? I didn't think so. And what does anything we do have to do with this? Not a damned thing. We need to be asking the Russkies some serious questions in a hurry.
Nobody would know for sure. If we're talking about antitank missiles and other arms and munitions, it would be illegal for companies to sell them overseas without Government approval. So, if it was happening, the company that was doing it wouldn't want it known that they were doing it.
But we're not talking about "antitank missiles and other arms and munitions", we're talking about night-vision goggles and radar-jamming equipment. But yeah mrpaige, I see your point. Would the administration or news tell us if they found US made equipment in Iraq?
Nobody would know for sure. If we're talking about antitank missiles and other arms and munitions, it would be illegal for companies to sell them overseas without Government approval. So, if it was happening, the company that was doing it wouldn't want it known that they were doing it. But then, there's also the issue of selling vs. re-selling. If some Russian company sold this stuff to France, who then resold it to Iraq, then its really a French problem and Russia would have done nothing wrong. (just as an example)
I would say if this is our yard stick, we are the world's greatest backer of authoritarian governments, bar none, as we are arms supplier to the world.
But the trick is we don't sell to countries slapped with a UN embargo, now do we? We do not. Do we sell arms to countries that are fighting against our friends? Of course not. During the Falklands War, we cut off the supply of spare parts to the Argentines, who operated a lot of American equipment because they fought against the Brits. And besides, countries are going to buy weapons anyway, be it from the Russkies or the weasely Frogs. So why not keep those jobs here? I have no problem with selling our weapons to other countries. Because if we don't, someone else will.
Do we sell arms to countries that are fighting against our friends? Of course not. Sure we do. We sold weapons to Germany during WW2 before we got involved, even though Britain and France were our friends. We also sold weapons to Iran in the 1980s when Iraq was our friend.
Regarding the French and Germans, at least they are spilling blood in Afghanistan, they are far from perfect, but better than the Russians. Regarding the Russians,Putin has been playing Georgie like a violin for 3 years now. After one of Putins visits to Crawford, Bush made some comment about how he "looked in to Putin's eyes and knew that he was a man he could trust" or something like that . Apparently, the Russian media and the Russian public found this statement uproariously funny, as Putin's most renowned (and resourceful) quality, even among ex-KGB agents, is his ability to remain impassive and unreadable to everybody he deals with.
We did not sell arms to Germany. Why would Germany, with an outstanding arms industry, buy weapons from us? They wouldn't. And as for Iraq, we were not friends with them during the 1980's. We may have given them some intel, but that was it.
Right.... Arming Iraq and the Path to War A crisis always has a history, and the current crisis with Iraq is no exception. Below are some relevant dates. September,1980. Iraq invades Iran. The beginning of the Iraq-Iran war. (8) February, 1982. Despite objections from congress, President Reagan removes Iraq from its list of known terrorist countries. (1) December, 1982. Hughes Aircraft ships 60 Defender helicopters to Iraq. (9) 1982-1988. Defense Intelligence Agency provides detailed information for Iraq on Iranian deployments, tactical planning for battles, plans for air strikes and bomb damage assessments. (4) November, 1983. A National Security Directive states that the U.S would do "whatever was necessary and legal" to prevent Iraq from losing its war with Iran. (1) (15) November, 1983. Banca Nazionale del Lavoro of Italy and its Branch in Atlanta begin to funnel $5 billion in unreported loans to Iraq. Iraq, with the blessing and official approval of the US government, purchased computer controlled machine tools, computers, scientific instruments, special alloy steel and aluminum, chemicals, and other industrial goods for Iraq's missile, chemical, biological and nuclear weapons programs. (14) October, 1983. The Reagan Administration begins secretly allowing Jordan, Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, and Egypt to transfer United States weapons, including Howitzers, Huey helicopters, and bombs to Iraq. These shipments violated the Arms Export Control Act. (16) November 1983. George Schultz, the Secretary of State, is given intelligence reports showing that Iraqi troops are daily using chemical weapons against the Iranians. (1) December 20, 1983 Donald Rumsfeld , then a civilian and now Defense Secretary, meets with Saddam Hussein to assure him of US friendship and materials support. (1) (15) July, 1984. CIA begins giving Iraq intelligence necessary to calibrate its mustard gas attacks on Iranian troops. (19) January 14, 1984. State Department memo acknowledges United States shipment of "dual-use" export hardware and technology. Dual use items are civilian items such as heavy trucks, armored ambulances and communications gear as well as industrial technology that can have a military application. (2) March, 1986. The United States with Great Britain block all Security Council resolutions condemning Iraq's use of chemical weapons, and on March 21 the US becomes the only country refusing to sign a Security Council statement condemning Iraq's use of these weapons. (10) May, 1986. The US Department of Commerce licenses 70 biological exports to Iraq between May of 1985 and 1989, including at least 21 batches of lethal strains of anthrax. (3) May, 1986. US Department of Commerce approves shipment of weapons grade botulin poison to Iraq. (7) March, 1987. President Reagan bows to the findings of the Tower Commission admitting the sale of arms to Iran in exchange for hostages. Oliver North uses the profits from the sale to fund an illegal war in Nicaragua. (17) Late 1987. The Iraqi Air Force begins using chemical agents against Kurdish resistance forces in northern Iraq. (1) February, 1988. Saddam Hussein begins the "Anfal" campaign against the Kurds of northern Iraq. The Iraq regime used chemical weapons against the Kurds killing over 100,000 civilians and destroying over 1,200 Kurdish villages. (8) April, 1988. US Department of Commerce approves shipment of chemicals used in manufacture of mustard gas. (7) August, 1988. Four major battles were fought from April to August 1988, in which the Iraqis massively and effectively used chemical weapons to defeat the Iranians. Nerve gas and blister agents such as mustard gas are used. By this time the US Defense Intelligence Agency is heavily involved with Saddam Hussein in battle plan assistance, intelligence gathering and post battle debriefing. In the last major battle with of the war, 65,000 Iranians are killed, many with poison gas. Use of chemical weapons in war is in violation of the Geneva accords of 1925. (6) (13) August, 1988. Iraq and Iran declare a cease fire. (8) August, 1988. Five days after the cease fire Saddam Hussein sends his planes and helicopters to northern Iraq to begin massive chemical attacks against the Kurds. (8) September, 1988. US Department of Commerce approves shipment of weapons grade anthrax and botulinum to Iraq. (7) September 1988. Richard Murphy, Assistant Secretary of State: "The US-Iraqi relationship is... important to our long-term political and economic objectives." (15) December, 1988. Dow chemical sells $1.5 million in pesticides to Iraq despite knowledge that these would be used in chemical weapons. (1) July 25, 1990. US Ambassador to Baghdad meets with Hussein to assure him that President Bush "wanted better and deeper relations". Many believe this visit was a trap set for Hussein. A month later Hussein invaded Kuwait thinking the US would not respond. (12) August, 1990 Iraq invades Kuwait. The precursor to the Gulf War. (8) July, 1991 The Financial Times of London reveals that a Florida chemical company had produced and shipped cyanide to Iraq during the 80's using a special CIA courier. Cyanide was used extensively against the Iranians. (11) August, 1991. Christopher Droguol of Atlanta's branch of Banca Nazionale del Lavoro is arrested for his role in supplying loans to Iraq for the purchase of military supplies. He is charged with 347 counts of felony. Droguol is found guilty, but US officials plead innocent of any knowledge of his crime. (14) June, 1992. Ted Kopple of ABC Nightline reports: "It is becoming increasingly clear that George Bush Sr., operating largely behind the scenes throughout the 1980's, initiated and supported much of the financing, intelligence, and military help that built Saddam's Iraq into [an aggressive power]." (5) July, 1992. "The Bush administration deliberately, not inadvertently, helped to arm Iraq by allowing U.S. technology to be shipped to Iraqi military and to Iraqi defense factories... Throughout the course of the Bush administration, U.S. and foreign firms were granted export licenses to ship U.S. technology directly to Iraqi weapons facilities despite ample evidence showing that these factories were producing weapons." Representative Henry Gonzalez, Texas, testimony before the House. (18) February, 1994. Senator Riegle from Michigan, chairman of the Senate Banking Committee, testifies before the senate revealing large US shipments of dual-use biological and chemical agents to Iraq that may have been used against US troops in the Gulf War and probably was the cause of the illness known as Gulf War Syndrome. (7) August, 2002. "The use of gas [during the Iran-Iraq war] on the battle field by the Iraqis was not a matter of deep strategic concern... We were desperate to make sure that Iraq did not lose". Colonel Walter Lang, former senior US Defense Intelligence officer tells the New York Times. (4) This chronology of the United States' sordid involvement in the arming of Iraq can be summarized in this way: The United States used methods both legal and illegal to help build Saddam's army into the most powerful army in the Mideast outside of Israel. The US supplied chemical and biological agents and technology to Iraq when it knew Iraq was using chemical weapons against the Iranians. The US supplied the materials and technology for these weapons of mass destruction to Iraq at a time when it was know that Saddam was using this technology to kill his Kurdish citizens. The United States supplied intelligence and battle planning information to Iraq when those battle plans included the use of cyanide, mustard gas and nerve agents. The United States blocked UN censure of Iraq's use of chemical weapons. The United States did not act alone in this effort. The Soviet Union was the largest weapons supplier, but England, France and Germany were also involved in the shipment of arms and technology. So what do these events have to do with the current conflict? Just this: If we do go to war with Iraq, it is important to know why. War will not really be about terrorism. Twenty years ago the United States threw its support behind Saddam Hussein in a geopolitical bid for enhanced access to oil. The trajectory given him by our support lead directly to the Gulf War and to the current crises. War, after all, will be about a history of misdeeds and miscalculations. And war will not be about morality. War will be about cynicism, deceit and a thirst for oil that knows no boundaries. John King Long Prairie, MN 1. Washingtonpost.com. December 30, 2002 2. Jonathan Broder. Nuclear times, Winter 1990-91 3. Kurt Nimno. AlterNet. September 23, 2002 4. Newyorktimes.com. August 29, 2002 5. ABC Nightline. June9, 1992 6. Counter Punch, October 10, 2002 7. Riegle Report: Dual Use Exports. Senate Committee on Banking. May 25, 1994 8. Timeline: A walk Through Iraq's History. U.S. Department of State 9. Doing Business: The Arming of Iraq. Daniel Robichear 10. Glen Rangwala. Labor Left Briefing, 16 September, 2002 11. Financial Times of London. July 3, 1991 12. Elson E. Boles. Counter Punch. October 10, 2002 13. Iran-Iraq War, 1980-1988. Iranchamber.com 14. Columbia Journalism Review. March/April 1993. Iraqgate 15. Times Online. December 31, 2002. How U.S. Helped Iraq Build Deadly Arsenal 16. Bush's Secret Mission. The New Yorker Magazine. November 2, 1992 17. Grolier Multimedia Encyclopedia: Iran-Contra Affair 18. Congressional Record. July 27, 1992. Representative Henry B. Gonzalez 19. Bob Woodward. CIA Aiding Iraq in Gulf War. Washington Post. 15 December, 1986 20. WWW.gendercide.com http://www.gendercide.com . Case Study: The Anfal Campaign U.S. DOCUMENTS SHOW EMBRACE OF SADDAM HUSSEIN IN EARLY 1980s DESPITE CHEMICAL WEAPONS, EXTERNAL AGGRESSION, HUMAN RIGHTS ABUSES Fear of Iraq Collapse in Iran-Iraq War Motivated Reagan Administration Support; U.S. Goals Were Access to Oil, Projection of Power, and Protection of Allies; Rumsfeld Failed to Raise Chemical Weapons Issue in Personal Meeting with Saddam Washington, D.C., 25 February 2003 - The National Security Archive at George Washington University today published on the Web a series of declassified U.S. documents detailing the U.S. embrace of Saddam Hussein in the early 1980's, including the renewal of diplomatic relations that had been suspended since 1967. The documents show that during this period of renewed U.S. support for Saddam, he had invaded his neighbor (Iran), had long-range nuclear aspirations that would "probably" include "an eventual nuclear weapon capability," harbored known terrorists in Baghdad, abused the human rights of his citizens, and possessed and used chemical weapons on Iranians and his own people. The U.S. response was to renew ties, to provide intelligence and aid to ensure Iraq would not be defeated by Iran, and to send a high-level presidential envoy named Donald Rumsfeld to shake hands with Saddam (20 December 1983). The declassified documents posted today include the briefing materials and diplomatic reporting on two Rumsfeld trips to Baghdad, reports on Iraqi chemical weapons use concurrent with the Reagan administration's decision to support Iraq, and decision directives signed by President Reagan that reveal the specific U.S. priorities for the region: preserving access to oil, expanding U.S. ability to project military power in the region, and protecting local allies from internal and external threats. The documents include: A U.S. cable recording the December 20, 1983 conversation between Donald Rumsfeld and Saddam Hussein. Although Rumsfeld said during a September 21, 2002 CNN interview, "In that visit, I cautioned him about the use of chemical weapons, as a matter of fact, and discussed a host of other things," the document indicates there was no mention of chemical weapons. Rumsfeld did raise the issue in his subsequent meeting with Iraqi official Tariq Aziz. National Security Decision Directive (NSDD) 114 of November 26, 1983, "U.S. Policy toward the Iran-Iraq War," delineating U.S. priorities: the ability to project military force in the Persian Gulf and to protect oil supplies, without reference to chemical weapons or human rights concerns. National Security Decision Directive (NSDD) 139 of April 5, 1984, "Measures to Improve U.S. Posture and Readiness to Respond to Developments in the Iran-Iraq War," focusing again on increased access for U.S. military forces in the Persian Gulf and enhanced intelligence-gathering capabilities. The directive calls for "unambiguous" condemnation of chemical weapons use, without naming Iraq, but places "equal stress" on protecting Iraq from Iran's "ruthless and inhumane tactics." The directive orders preparation of "a plan of action designed to avert an Iraqi collapse." U.S. and Iraqi consultations about Iran's 1984 draft resolution seeking United Nations Security Council condemnation of Iraq's chemical weapons use. Iraq conveyed several requests to the U.S. about the resolution, including its preference for a lower-level response and one that did not name any country in connection with chemical warfare; the final result complied with Iraq's requests. The 1984 public U.S. condemnation of chemical weapons use in the Iran-Iraq war, which said, referring to the Ayatollah Khomeini's refusal to agree to end hostilities until Saddam Hussein was ejected from power, "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."
Your welcome, BS, any time. If you like, here's the link to the archive of the various declassified government documents referred to above: http://www.gwu.edu/~nsarchiv/NSAEBB/NSAEBB82/
Whatever, you arrogant ass. Trucks, pesticides, a few centrifuges (it's funny, you libs screamed that a few centrifuges meant nothing to the Iraqi WMD program, but when they are used to hammer Republicans, they are definite WMD equipment) and that's it. Plus some intel does not a friendship make.
Arrogant ass-CLOWN, bamaslammer; I think I've earned that much respect from the likes of you. Does this a friendship make? http://www.gwu.edu/~nsarchiv/NSAEBB/NSAEBB82/shakinghands_high.wmv Seriously, how f-cking hard is it for you to just admit that you were wrong? I've been wrong about all kinds of things in my life; For example, I thought that Carmelo Anthony was going to be a bust, I thought that Chris Bosh was going to be another version of Eddie Griffin, there was this chick named Stacy once who was totally in to me and I brushed her off for no apparent reason, I shouldn't have gone straight to law school after college, the list goes on and on and on.... It's really not that difficult.
There were NO SUCH animals. No howitzers. No Hueys, no Hughes 500 helos. We supplied no conventional weapons to Iraq. Anything that was supplied was done so without our approval. An arms deal for Hughes 500 helos was attempted by an arms dealer, Sarkis Soghanalian, but now he is under indictment for it. link link I don't see any Hueys or Hughes 500 helos in that list. Why are we bringing up the minor amounts of equipment we supplied the Iraqis during the Iran/Iraq war, where we practiced the "enemy of my enemy is a friend of mine?" The Russians supplied weapons to the Iraqis despite our embargo, in contravention of the UN mandates you liberals love so much and they were used against our troops. So why are you trying to deflect that criticism?
