Saddam's On the Clock
POSTED BY: Geezer
UPDATED: Monday, January 5, 2026 22:02
VIEWED: 13324
PAGE 10 of 16
Quote:Not really, the fallout might drift over the the channel and who wants radioactive frenchman dust falling out of the sky into their morning Tea?
Originally posted by AURaptor:
C'mon, even you'd like it if we did that !
Besides, Paris is a pretty city if you can catch it without any of those French people in it.
Quote:In Law an Accessory would be a party who helps comit a crime, but does not actually take part in the act itself.
Does it matter ? I'd say it matters more what he DID with them. But that's just me.
For instance an accessory to Murder may be the party that supplied the principle (perpetrator) with the weapons used to kill the victim.
More insane ramblings by the people who brought you beeeer milkshakes!
No one can see their reflection in running water. It is only in still water that we can see.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by SignyM:Quote:Oh yes, let's see... where DID Saddam get those "crop spraying" choppers from again....? I
Yes. For all those who favor gassing of Kurdish villages filled with women and children.
According to GlobalSecurity.org, all of Iraq's attack choppers in 1990 were Russian, French, or French/German. http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/world/iraq/ground-equipment.htm
Most of their transport choppers were Russian, with some French and US as well.
All of their fixed-wing bomber, fighter, and attack aircraft in 1990 were Russian. http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/world/iraq/air-force-equipment.
htm
"Keep the Shiny side up"
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
1983
* A SD report concluded that Iraq continued to support groups on the SD’s terrorist list.[5]
* Iraq reportedly began using chemical weapons (CW) against Iranian troops in 1982, and significantly increased CW use in 1983. Reagan’s Secretary of State, George Shultz, said that reports of Iraq using CWs on Iranian military personnel "drifted in" at the year’s end.[6] A declassified CIA report, probably written in late 1987, notes Iraq's use of mustard gas in August 1983, giving further credence to the suggestion that the SD and/or National Security Council (NSC) was well aware of Iraq's use of CW at this time.[7]
* Analysts recognized that "civilian" helicopters can be weaponized in a matter of hours and selling a civilian kit can be a way of giving military aid under the guise of civilian assistance.[8] Shortly after removing Iraq from the terrorism sponsorship list, the Reagan administration approved the sale of 60 Hughes helicopters.[9] Later, and despite some objections from the National Security Council (NSC), the Secretaries of Commerce and State (George Baldridge and George Shultz) lobbied the NSC advisor into agreeing to the sale to Iraq of 10 Bell helicopters,[10] officially for crop spraying. See "1988" for note on Iraq using U.S. Helicopters to spray Kurds with chemical weapons.
* Later in the year the Reagan Administration secretly began to allow Jordan, Saudi Arabia, Kuwait and Egypt to transfer to Iraq U.S. howitzers, helicopters, bombs and other weapons.[11] Reagan personally asked Italy’s Prime Minister Guilio Andreotti to channel arms to Iraq.[12]
www.casi.org.uk/info/usdocs/usiraq80s90s.html
To put this inperspective, the Iraninas were frequent targets of Iraqi WMD attacks (w/ USA intel assistance) and the Kurdish gas attack of Halajabah occurred at near the end of the Iran-Iraq war, with USA reluctanct to lay blame squarely on Iraq for many years after the attack.
---------------------------------
Reality sucks. Especially when it contradicts our cherished ideas.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by SignyM:
To put this inperspective, the Iraninas were frequent targets of Iraqi WMD attacks (w/ USA intel assistance) and the Kurdish gas attack of Halajabah occurred at near the end of the Iran-Iraq war, with USA reluctanct to lay blame squarely on Iraq for many years after the attack.
Interesting. An eyewitness account of the Halajaba attack indicates that it was Mig-23 fighter-bombers using bombs, not helicopters spraying gas. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Halabja_poison_gas_attack
Per the CIA, the only aircraft used in testing spraying biological toxins (no chemical agents were mentioned) were Russian Mi-2 helicopters and French Mirage F1 jets. https://www.cia.gov/cia/reports/iraq_wmd/Iraq_Oct_2002.htm#05 In fact, all the references I can find relating to spray delivery relate to biological toxins, not chemical weapons.
Do you have any documented cases of American-built helicopters being used to spray chemical weapons on Kurds? In a quick google I've found a few "...reports indicate..." statements with no reference to said report, and some "...could have been used..." that are conjectural, but show no specific instances. I expect that if there is such specific documentation, you'll probably have it, since this seems to be one of your areas of interest.
"Keep the Shiny side up"
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by Geezer:
Interesting. An eyewitness account of the Halajaba attack indicates that it was Mig-23 fighter-bombers using bombs, not helicopters spraying gas. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Halabja_poison_gas_attack
Interesting cite you got there, Geez. Let's check it out, shall we?
From Wiki, right at the beginning of the piece:
The neutrality and factual accuracy of this article are disputed.
Then, we get this gem, from why the entry is protested, which cuts right to the heart of the problem many have with our gung-ho pursuit of Saddam:
The massacre of Habalja did not raise protests by the international community in March 1988. At the time, it was admitted that the civilians had been killed "collaterally" due to an error in handling the combat gas. Two years later, when the Iran-Iraq War was finished and the Western powers stopped supporting Saddam Hussein, the massacre of Halabja was attributed to the Iraqis.
Fascinating. We didn't have a problem with what he did till he wasn't "our guy," then we did. And notice that it wasn't a massacre, it was collateral damage, until we needed excuses for why he was a bad guy.
Part of the problem is that these Iran rensposibility claims were originally put about by the US at the time, as it was then a major supporter of Saddam's government.
Then this one, about how he got the gas he used at Halabja:
The U.S. did supply CW precursors to Iraq on two occasions. The first shipment of DMMP from Al-Haddad was almost certainly used to make nerve gas in Iraq. However, this was by no means an expression of U.S. policy. Al-Haddad was almost certainly an Iraqi front company. After the DMMP shipment, another shipment of chemicals from Al-Haddad to Iraq was stopped at JFK. That shipment may have been potassium fluoride, a low value, quite common chemical. Other reports indicate that the JFK shipment was phosphorous fluoride, a very useful nerve gas precursor. Internet sources differ on this point and it is possible to find single articles that contains both claims.
In 1988, a Baltimore company, Alcolac supplied thioglycol to Iraq. While thioglycol has many legitimate uses, it is likely that Iraq used this precursor to manufacture mustard gas
And this one from the linked wiki itself, not the disputes:
According to Iraq's report to the UN, the know-how and material for developing chemical weapons were obtained from firms in such countries as: the United States, West Germany, the United Kingdom, France and China.
So, while it looks like American choppers weren't used, it does look like American chemical weapons were used. It also looks like the CIA and the US's positions were radically altered on a whim when the political winds changed.
To me, even though you may have successfully refuted the helicopter claim, the link you cited did more harm to your case than good.
------------------------------------------
"A revolution without dancing is no revolution at all." - V
Anyone wanting to continue a discussion off board is welcome to email me - check bio for details.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by SevenPercent:
So, while it looks like American choppers weren't used, it does look like American chemical weapons were used. It also looks like the CIA and the US's positions were radically altered on a whim when the political winds changed.
To me, even though you may have successfully refuted the helicopter claim, the link you cited did more harm to your case than good.
The U.S. Along with several other countries, sold Iraq chemicals which could have been used to produce chemical weapons, not chemical weapons themselves, per the wikipedia article and other sources.
From Wikipedia:
Quote:
According Iraq's report to the UN, the know-how and material for developing chemical weapons were obtained from firms in such countries as: the United States, West Germany, the United Kingdom, France and China.[1] By far, the largest suppliers of precursors for chemical weapons production were in Singapore (4,515 tons), the Netherlands (4,261 tons), Egypt (2,400 tons), India (2,343 tons), and West Germany (1,027 tons). One Indian company, Exomet Plastics (now part of EPC Industrie) sent 2,292 tons of precursor chemicals to Iraq. The Kim Al-Khaleej firm, located in Singapore and affiliated to United Arab Emirates, supplied more than 4,500 tons of VX, sarin, and mustard gas precursors and production equipment to Iraq.
Any concrete evidence that the chemicals sold by US firms were actually used in production of mustard gas or nerve agents used at Halajaba, or just more "...could have been..." with no verification?
Any outrage against Singapore, the Netherlands, Egypt, India, UAE, Germany, the UK, France, and China?
Edit:
Quote:
From Wiki, right at the beginning of the piece:
The neutrality and factual accuracy of this article are disputed.
O.K. Find me an unbiased source that gives a differing account of the Halajaba attacks.
"Keep the Shiny side up"
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by Geezer:
Any outrage against Singapore, the Netherlands, Egypt, India, UAE, Germany, the UK, France, and China?
Certainly. I have outrage at any form of weapons brokering, regardless which country it comes from. But the minute you and some of the other right-of-center folks hear US, you think that's the only place we're levelling criticism against. You want everyone else to be the bad guy but us, and anytime someone suggests that we were the bad guy that they are anti-US traitors. If Iraq used Russian or French jets to attack, then they are complicit. If they used US chemicals, we are. We're also guilty of calling mass murder "collateral damage" when it suits us - is that right? Why is it a crime at one time and not another? It shouldn't be - we should be better than that.
Quote:
O.K. Find me an unbiased source that gives a differing account of the Halajaba attacks.
Why should I? I've made no claims other than that we may have been complicit in providing said weapons and were certainly complicit in a coverup, both of which are verified in the refutation portion of an article link you provided. You on the other hand, provided a source that, from the very first line, is not considered neutral or factually accurate.
Basically, you backed up your claim with an article that says "don't believe this article, it's bunk."
Provide your own research, Dreamtrove, I'm not going to do it for you.
------------------------------------------
"A revolution without dancing is no revolution at all." - V
Anyone wanting to continue a discussion off board is welcome to email me - check bio for details.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
How about differently biased?
http://www.house.gov/delahunt/halabja.shtml
In September of 2003, Secretary of State Powell visited the town of Halabja in northern Iraq, where some 5,000 Kurdish Iraqis were murdered by Saddam Hussein’s chemical weapons in 1988.
Secretary Powell was in Halabja to honor the victims of the massacre. But he then asserted that the attack proved Saddam possessed weapons of mass destruction – suggesting that their use in 1988 justified the invasion and occupation of Iraq.
The slaughter in Halabja was indisputably a crime against humanity. It should have prompted the US to convene an international war crimes tribunal and isolate Iraq until Saddam and his cronies were brought to justice for their savagery.
But in 1988 the US did nothing of the sort. In fact, it squelched attempts to punish the Iraqi regime. Because when Saddam poisoned Halabja, he was America’s ally against Iran.
Donald Rumsfeld was President Reagan’s special envoy to the Middle East, and played a vital role in courting Saddam. Even before Rumsfeld’s first visit to Baghdad in 1983, the Reagan Administration removed Iraq from the list of terrorist states and began providing intelligence for Saddam’s use in the Iran-Iraq war. Rumsfeld’s missions were followed by the restoration of diplomatic ties and a dramatic expansion of the relationship.
The Reagan Administration gave Iraq billions of dollars in loan guarantees and agricultural credits; approved the sale of technology useful for weapons of mass destruction; winked when other countries supplied US military equipment; and later went as far as sharing highly sensitive satellite intelligence. And although the Reagan Administration knew Iraq was waging chemical warfare against Iran, the US prevented the United Nations from singling out Iraq for using these forbidden weapons.
This alliance sheds a whole new light on the US response to Saddam’s murder of thousands of men, women, and children with sarin, tabun, VX and mustard gas. After the assault on Halabja, the Senate tried to impose trade sanctions and restrictions on technology transfers to Iraq, but according to the non-partisan Congressional Research Service, “…the bill died in the House under Administration pressure ...
The record is hauntingly clear: the Reagan and Bush Administrations did not just look the other way after Halabja. They aggressively undermined the Congressional response to Saddam’s atrocities and actively supported his tyranny, right up to the day his tanks crossed into Kuwait.
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:Of course. However, since the USA is my country... and yours too.... any outrage about what OUR country did?
Any outrage against Singapore, the Netherlands, Egypt, India, UAE, Germany, the UK, France, and China?
---------------------------------
Reality sucks. Especially when it contradicts our cherished ideas.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by SignyM:Quote:Of course. However, since the USA is my country... and yours too.... any outrage about what OUR country did?
Any outrage against Singapore, the Netherlands, Egypt, India, UAE, Germany, the UK, France, and China?
So. Have we pretty much established that Iraq didn't use U.S. sourced helicopters to spray U.S. sourced Mustard gas/nerve agent on Halajaba, or are you just ignoring that issue because you have no evidence to support your previous claims? If the U.S. wasn't involved in the Halajaba attack, is Saddam back on the hook for it, or is there someone else you want to blame?
I'd also still like to see some evidence that U.S. sourced chemicals were actually used to create Iraqi chemical or biological weapons, especially those used against the Kurds, instead of just supposition.
So this leaves us with the issue of the U.S. not asking the UN to charge Iraq with war crimes for the Halajaba attacks. I wish we had. I wish anyone had. No one did. Why is it the sole responsibility of the U.S. when none of the other 180+- UN nations would bring it up? Absent a UN resolution should we have acted alone against Iraq in 1988?
"Keep the Shiny side up"
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME