How the U.S. helped Saddam Hussein use chemical weapons against Iran

hamidreza

Active member
As the Obama administration mulls a military response to punish Syria for allegedly using poison gas to kill hundreds of people in a rebel stronghold, Foreign Policy reports that the U.S. didn't always play the role of the good guy when it came to the use of chemical weapons.
Near the end of Iraq's war with Iran 25 years ago, the U.S., using satellite imagery, warned Iraq that Iranian troops were moving to exploit a hole in its defenses, according to Foreign Policy, citing recently declassified Central Intelligence Agency documents and interviews with former intelligence officials. U.S. officials shared the information with Iraq even though they knew that Saddam Hussein's military was likely to respond by attacking with the lethal nerve agent sarin and other chemical weapons — and he did, killing thousands.
The documents show that then-CIA Director William J. Casey, a close friend of then-President Ronald Reagan, had been told about Saddam's push to make enough mustard gas to keep up with demand on the front lines. "If the Iraqis produce or acquire large new supplies of mustard agent, they almost certainly would use it against Iranian troops and towns near the border," the CIA said in one top secret document.
The new evidence suggests that the Reagan administration decided it was better to let Iraq continue with its attacks — and even point out potential targets — than let the war tip in favor of Iran's mullahs, who at the time were seen as the greater threat. The latest revelations "are tantamount to an official American admission of complicity in some of the most gruesome chemical weapons attacks ever launched," say Shane Harris and Matthew M. Aid at Foreign Policy.
The report fills in some important blanks about the U.S. role in the Iran-Iraq war, but Foreign Policy isn't the first to uncover evidence that Washington had a pretty good idea what Saddam's forces were up to. Here's Max Fisher at The Washington Post:
It's worth noting that academic studies, not to mention U.S. government documents released in 2003, had long ago revealed that the U.S. knew that Iraq was deploying chemical weapons against Iran and still provided Saddam Hussein with intelligence assistance. The CIA documents released this week add important new documentation to that, but the timing of their release — as the U.S. considers whether or how to respond to Syrian chemical weapons use — and their portrayal as revelatory has generated significant controversy in U.S. foreign policy circles. [Washington Post]
However, it does somewhat undercut the Obama administration's claim to higher ground. Conor Friedersorf at The Atlantic:
When humans find themselves greatly empowered, and able to act in secret, they often do morally monstrous things, sometimes with the best of intentions. Part of our job as citizens is to never trust our leaders with that sort of unchecked power, for their sake, for ours, and for the sake of the world. That's easy to see when looking back at the bad behavior of leadership a couple decades ago. But those men were no more or less moral than the people leading us today. [The Atlantic]


http://theweek.com/article/index/24...dam-hussein-use-chemical-weapons-against-iran
 
Yeah, the US has really created a sh!tshow for themselves from our absolutely horrid foriegn policy over the last 50 years...
 
Yeah, the US has really created a sh!tshow for themselves from our absolutely horrid foriegn policy over the last 50 years...

I think you can go back further than 50 years to be honest, the USA has employed "Gunboat Diplomacy" as its foreign policy since the opening of Japan in 1853 which it adopted from the Europeans however unlike the Europeans it has persisted with it.

There have been variations on it but in the end it always comes back to the Big Stick mantra and it has worked perfectly well when the economy was growing, the world had the USSR to fear and the cash was flowing in however it now starts to become a hindrance as the threats to the world have diminished.

The sad thing is that in the case of Syria we may actually have a case for intervention but because we have been fed the lies of WMD threats every time you guys want to start a war in the last 25 years we are now somewhat jaded on the terms used and as such it will be almost impossible to get any agreement on a course of action so this will be another one you and the British will have to fight and fund for the next 10 years assuming you have to put boots on the ground.
 
What lies? Saddam had them and used them. The question was "what happened to them?" Looks like the rumors of going to Syria were right.
 
What lies? Saddam had them and used them. The question was "what happened to them?" Looks like the rumors of going to Syria were right.


Looks like that's still not why we went in there in the first place.

Gosh Darn Saddam, boogie man with gosh darn WMDs.

Look, other nations have committed homicide against others and their own populations, gendercide as in China, and outright mass genocide all around the world in the last 150 years alone.

Where is Captain America?

Point is, Morals make the Sheeple feel good, it's easy to coral the populace by feeding them all this garbage about values when just like Iraq, it's plan as day. The American Government wants something out of Syria, in this case it's strategic positioning on the geopolitical chessboard. As well as opening avenues for the justification Washington seems to be foaming out the muzzle for a war with Iran. America wants STUFF. Lots of STUFF and vast open trade routes to get it to America to be fed to the 390 million bred mass consumer's who live here. To accomplish this the U.S. needs hundreds of check boxes filled to keep large quantities of goods being ran all up and down our interstates 24/7 to retailers all over the country. Mainly cheap fossil fuels 100% tethered to a world economy tethered again to the U.S. Dollar.

You run the world's reserve currency and institutions like the IMF, then hell you don't even need gunboats, just loan out a few billion to a country, jack up the derivatives to unpayable levels and you own the politics of said Country, or just over through the government. Financial colonialism 2.0.

You really think the Department of State really gives two rats' a$$es about dying babies at the hand of Assad?

No, but complacent MSNBC viewers who don't care to know any better are bought off by sobbing stories of Assad's evil atrocities. Both real and imagined. Last time I checked anyway, the citizens of one nation never declare war on the citizens of another, governments declare war on governments.

I disagree with our foreign policies and am ashamed of the treatment of our citizenry in terms of foreign policy descions. You may call me a terrorist now.
 
Last edited:
What lies? Saddam had them and used them. The question was "what happened to them?" Looks like the rumors of going to Syria were right.

And the answer is that Hussein got rid of them (more than likely prior to the first gulf war) yet it cost the lives of countless Iraqi civilians, thousands of American and Allied servicemen and the maiming of who knows how many civilians and servicemen and the on going destruction of a nation to prove something that that the weapons inspectors told you in 2000, 2001, 2002 and 2003.

As for Syrian chemical weapons sadly no they did not acquire them from Iraq they built their own as a counter to Israeli nuclear weapons with oddly enough European help.
 
The sad thing is that in the case of Syria we may actually have a case for intervention but because we have been fed the lies of WMD threats every time you guys want to start a war in the last 25 years we are now somewhat jaded on the terms used and as such it will be almost impossible to get any agreement on a course of action so this will be another one you and the British will have to fight and fund for the next 10 years assuming you have to put boots on the ground.

IMHO, we shouldn't do anything about Syria. We have enough on our hands at home and in Afghanistan to have military intervention in Syria. If they want to kill each other then let them go right ahead. I'm tired of seeing fellow soldiers go fight somebody else's war and come home wounded in some way or in a box.
 
IMHO, we shouldn't do anything about Syria. We have enough on our hands at home and in Afghanistan to have military intervention in Syria. If they want to kill each other then let them go right ahead. I'm tired of seeing fellow soldiers go fight somebody else's war and come home wounded in some way or in a box.

But it is a damned if you do and damned if you don't scenario.

You cant rattle the sabre and champion certain values and then do nothing to aid those trying to implement them but then you cant just go wading in to a mess in the hopes that your presence is going to solve the problem because it wont.

The problem in Syria is similar but greater to the problem in Libya you have a brutal dictator that sorely needs a bullet and eventually the people have risen up against him however over time that uprising has been hijacked by some very radical groups who in the end would be no better than the guy they are fighting to replace.
In my opinion the time to have intervened in Syria was at the beginning when it very much was the people verses a dictator now I think it is too late, the big loser in this is always going to be the poor bugger in the middle who doesn't really want either side.

In many respects I think the only way out of this one would be to do a deal with Assad assist him in sorting out the mess after which he goes into exile somewhere with his millions, he has to go but at the moment he is the closest thing to an organised administration in the country which isn't saying much.
 
Last edited:
We are damned if we do damned if we don't and it will be us footing the bill both in lives and in money.

Here's the facts...the US military is exhausted from 12 years of combat. The US is on the brink of economic collapse. The US people are absolutely sick of the ineptitude of their government yet are seemingly helpless to change it. How in the hell would we go into Syria?

MontyB may be onto something. Help Assad, then send him into exile. Of course that will never happen...
 
IMHO, we shouldn't do anything about Syria. We have enough on our hands at home and in Afghanistan to have military intervention in Syria. If they want to kill each other then let them go right ahead. I'm tired of seeing fellow soldiers go fight somebody else's war and come home wounded in some way or in a box.


You and me both.

What ever happened to having our military DEFENDING OUR nation?

Not running economical colonialist policies all around the world to increase our at home share prices.

Every country we ally ourselves with we economically tether to our currency, or military aide. It's more business than morals with every example of an alliance with the U.S.

Even examples of strategic alliances due to a country's location in a particular region like with this case in Syria.
 
Last edited:
We are damned if we do damned if we don't and it will be us footing the bill both in lives and in money.

Here's the facts...the US military is exhausted from 12 years of combat. The US is on the brink of economic collapse. The US people are absolutely sick of the ineptitude of their government yet are seemingly helpless to change it. How in the hell would we go into Syria?

MontyB may be onto something. Help Assad, then send him into exile. Of course that will never happen...

Yep this one is all yours as even the British parliament have declined to get involved.

http://www.nytimes.com/2013/08/30/us/politics/obama-syria.html?hp&_r=0
 
Yep this one is all yours as even the British parliament have declined to get involved.

http://www.nytimes.com/2013/08/30/us/politics/obama-syria.html?hp&_r=0


Who can blame them at this point? Also I am curious as to what type of monetary manipulation the U.S. is aiming to do here whether like in Libya with a U.S. style central bank tethered to U.S. Currency or allowing U.S. Corporations and banks to forgo "economic development" in the post war climate.

Right now either Washington wants to draw Syria into American orbit or really is that adamant on war with Iran.
 
Iran, not Syria, is the West's real target


Before the stupidest Western war in the history of the modern world begins – I am, of course, referring to the attack on Syria that we all yet have to swallow – it might be as well to say that the cruise missiles which we confidently expect to sweep onto one of mankind’s oldest cities have absolutely nothing to do with Syria.
They are intended to harm Iran. They are intended to strike at the Islamic republic now that it has a new and vibrant president – as opposed to the crackpot Mahmoud Ahmadinejad – and when it just might be a little more stable.
Iran is Israel’s enemy. Iran is therefore, naturally, America’s enemy. So fire the missiles at Iran’s only Arab ally.
There is nothing pleasant about the regime in Damascus. Nor do these comments let the regime off the hook when it comes to mass gassing. But I am old enough to remember that when Iraq – then America’s ally – used gas against the Kurds of Hallabjah in 1988, we did not assault Baghdad. Indeed, that attack would have to wait until 2003, when Saddam no longer had any gas or any of the other weapons we had nightmares over.
And I also happen to remember that the CIA put it about in 1988 that Iran was responsible for the Hallabjah gassings, a palpable lie that focused on America’s enemy whom Saddam was then fighting on our behalf. And thousands – not hundreds – died in Hallabjah. But there you go. Different days, different standards.
And I suppose it’s worth noting that when Israel killed up to 17,000 men, women and children in Lebanon in 1982, in an invasion supposedly provoked by the attempted PLO murder of the Israeli ambassador in London – it was Saddam’s mate Abu Nidal who arranged the killing, not the PLO, but that doesn’t matter now – America merely called for both sides to exercise “restraint”. And when, a few months before that invasion, Hafez al-Assad – father of Bashar – sent his brother up to Hama to wipe out thousands of Muslim Brotherhood rebels, nobody muttered a word of condemnation. “Hama Rules” is how my old mate Tom Friedman cynically styled this bloodbath.
Anyway, there’s a different Brotherhood around these days – and Obama couldn’t even bring himself to say “boo” when their elected president got deposed.
But hold on. Didn’t Iraq – when it was “our” ally against Iran – also use gas on the Iranian army? It did. I saw the Ypres-like wounded of this foul attack by Saddam – US officers, I should add, toured the battlefield later and reported back to Washington – and we didn’t care a tinker’s curse about it. Thousands of Iranian soldiers in the 1980-88 war were poisoned to death by this vile weapon.
I travelled back to Tehran overnight on a train of military wounded and actually smelled the stuff, opening the windows in the corridors to release the stench of the gas. These young men had wounds upon wounds – quite literally. They had horrible sores wherein floated even more painful sores that were close to indescribable. Yet when the soldiers were sent to Western hospitals for treatment, we journos called these wounded – after evidence from the UN infinitely more convincing than what we’re likely to get from outside Damascus – “alleged” gas victims.
So what in heaven’s name are we doing? After countless thousands have died in Syria’s awesome tragedy, suddenly – now, after months and years of prevarication – we are getting upset about a few hundred deaths. Terrible. Unconscionable. Yes, that is true. But we should have been traumatised into action by this war in 2011. And 2012. But why now?
I suspect I know the reason. I think that Bashar al-Assad’s ruthless army might just be winning against the rebels whom we secretly arm. With the assistance of the Lebanese Hezbollah – Iran’s ally in Lebanon – the Damascus regime broke the rebels in Qusayr and may be in the process of breaking them north of Homs. Iran is ever more deeply involved in protecting the Syrian government. Thus a victory for Bashar is a victory for Iran. And Iranian victories cannot be tolerated by the West.
And while we’re on the subject of war, what happened to those magnificent Palestinian-Israeli negotiations that John Kerry was boasting about? While we express our anguish at the hideous gassings in Syria, the land of Palestine continues to be gobbled up. Israel’s Likudist policy – to negotiate for peace until there is no Palestine left – continues apace, which is why King Abdullah of Jordan’s nightmare (a much more potent one than the “weapons of mass destruction” we dreamed up in 2003) grows larger: that “Palestine” will be in Jordan, not in Palestine.
But if we are to believe the nonsense coming out of Washington, London, Paris and the rest of the “civilised” world, it’s only a matter of time before our swift and avenging sword smiteth the Damascenes. To observe the leadership of the rest of the Arab world applauding this destruction is perhaps the most painful historical experience for the region to endure. And the most shameful. Save for the fact that we will be attacking Shia Muslims and their allies to the handclapping of Sunni Muslims. And that’s what civil war is made of.
http://www.independent.co.uk/voices/comment/iran-not-syria-is-the-wests-real-target-8789506.html

They supported Iraq to attack Iran by chemical weapons then they destroyed Iraq chemical weapons by UN inspectors and finally they attacked Iraq for their chemical weapons ( as an excuse ) which had been destroyed before. isn't really it a joke? Somebody should do something. Oh I remember Angelina July who was visiting a Syrians refugees camp in Turkey. and maybe this is the salt of their food!
 
Last edited:
It's just one of many false flags that the US has been using to get its way over the years. The US Government and the Federal Banks don't care about what's morally right or wrong just as long as it benefits them.
 
What else is new?

Even if a lot of people are against "big government" and generally prefer an idea of living free as individuals free from the long arms of the "man", I still believe people think the government can do no wrong. Simply because they need to, in order to get by. It can be a lot to face for some people, that the people who rule over you do not actually care about you.
 
I'd say we should do like the Europeans do, sell both sides all the WMD to mutually destroy each other. Keep our troops out of there and watch em kill each other on TV. Kinda like watching a **** fight. Why should we keep people from killing each other if thats been their nature forever? Let me see, the shiites hate the sunis, they both hate everybody else, jews christians, infidels, bet they really hate native Americans and all that drumming and dancing around the camp fire stuff.
 
Back
Top