Democrats & Liberals: Archives

Woody,
It’s the strangest thing, watchting this country literally close its eyes when faced with information we all know is true. I’ve specifically mentioned ‘cognitive dissonance’ in reference to the enormous number of people the US military has killed in Iraq.

I’ve posed versions of the same question, “can you justify the killing of over 10,000 innocent civilians in Iraq?” and almost without exception the question is evaded. Supporters of the invasion & occupation of Iraq simply can’t address the fact that the US has slaughtered civilians in Iraq because it doesn’t fit into the propaganda they’ve swallowed.

The responses from the supporters of the invasion & occupation to this question are predictable. To his credit, one person… one… faced the question honestly. Others have attacked me for asking, thrown out statements and questions about other issues, anything to avoid addressing the great evil the US has committed in Iraq, anything to avoid answering the question.

Agreement in the US that Saddam Hussein was evil is almost unanimous.

No one bothers to contemplate how many Iraqi soldiers the US has killed- somewhere between 125,000 to 1,050,000 troops- it’s a number of human beings so large, we really can’t even picture it. But hey, soldiers die. If nothing else, doesn’t it seem naive to assume that the mothers & fathers & children of those dead Iraqi soldiers would welcome us into their country?

‘Cognitive dissonance.’ Most people know what I’ve said is true, but they just can’t process it, they don’t want to think about it.

When Sunnis kill Shias with car bombs, with explosions, that’s evil. Their motivations don’t matter. It’s simply evil.

When the US military drops 500 lb bombs in cities, detonates cruise missiles in cities, fires artillery barrages into cities, knowing civilian casualties will surely occur, that’s ok?

Over 10,000 innocent Iraqi men, women, & children dead at our hands.

Wonder who they would have voted for?

“When Sunnis kill Shias with car bombs, with explosions, that’s evil. Their motivations don’t matter. It’s simply evil.”

That is the exact opposite of true, and the flaw in this argument is exactly why this response missed the entire point. The reason that the terrorists attacking our troops and Iraqis are evil is because they are TRYING to kill humans to achieve evil ends (note BOTH aspects of their evil- evil intent to kill innocent people, and evil ends). The ends were perfectly summed up today by al-Zarqawi (whom i also quoted on another thread here):

“We have declared a bitter war against democracy and all those who seek to enact it…Democracy is also based on the right to choose your religion…against the rule of God.”

They kill to establish this principle, and to return Iraq to enslavement. As far as I know, our soldiers do not aim to kill innocent civilians- even though such civilians do die. In every justified war, innocent people have died as a result of military action (even by action on the side that was in the right).

Many people in America (and many people in Iraq as well), beleive this is a justified war, so of course we do not put ourselves with the moral equivalence as the terrorists quoted above. Now of course many Americans and Iraqis think our war was unjustified (and come up with silly justifications like “this was all for oil”), and in that case, it is clear that what we are doing is wrong (although even most of those people wouldtn contend that we are killing civilians on purposes, like the terrorists are).

I agree with Misha

Motivations do matter. It is too easy to just equate all suffering. It is not. As attractive as it might be to advocate pacifism, that only hands power to the most ruthless. We have a case study of that very thing in Iraq today. The most vicious terrorists are trying to shed enough blood to make civilized people recoil and give the game to them. It is, unfortunately, a time honored and effective technique.

Pacifists technically keep their hands clean, but more people die because of their actions in the long run.

Phx8

Those estimates must be out of line. I don’t think there were a million people in the Iraq army, so I can’t believe that 1,050,000 were killed, especially because the most of the troops ran off as fast as they could.

Misha,
The means does not justify the ends. Agreed?

I’m sure you & I would agree al-Zarqawi is evil. Do you believe he thinks he is evil? Do you believe a person knowingly does evil, in order to knowingly accomplish an evil end? (Time to dust off the Plato!).

You’re right, our military does not intentionally target civilians, but the fact is those civilians are just as dead, and their deaths are predictable as a result of our actions.

I’m not a pacifist, Misha. I believe self-defense is justified. I also believe in the moral obligation to prevent such things as genocide.

However, I object to our initiating violence, and initiating war. In the case of Iraq, the US invaded without provocation, and now occupies the country, relying upon violence to counter the violence. An enormous number of people are dead, some at their hands, some at our hands. Given what many believe the US stands for, it is unacceptable.

Cognitive dissonance- let me call it by a different name: conscience. Being no perfect human being myself, there will be occasions on which I say something that is more rhetoric than truth. Ick. Doesn’t feel right. I don’t mind sticking it to an opponent, or supporting my candidate to the hilt, but I much prefer to avoid pangs of conscience in doing so.

To have supported Bush on any grounds would have done that to me. Had he done the good job I expected of him (that I would have expected of anybody), I could have supported him without much queasiness on my part.

I have a good memory for patterns. On a recent aptitude test, I was asked to remember a list of words spoken to me and repeat as many of them as I could recall. I did horribly. But when the words were repeated back in the context of other words, I distinguish the words that I’d been given almost perfectly from those I hadn’t.

It can be annoying to me. I don’t often remember exact words, but I often remember when people have said something in the press. I recall meanings and impressions pretty well. And I recall what Bush’s administration was insisting on in the main, leading up to the war. Yes, they mentioned what a bad person Saddam was, and how the Iraqis need to be liberated. But what they said to the nation still grieving from 9/11, still fearful of the next attack, was that Iraq had WMDs, and Saddam Hussein had a relationship with al-Qaeda. The next smoking gun could be a mushroom cloud. I could remember Fox reporting WMD finds several times, and the rest of the networks holding on the story. Fox’s journalistic decisions were not the ones vindicated.

In one source after another, I found evidence that Bush’s people had knowingly selected poor evidence for it’s convenience to their case. In it’s day to day doings, it became clear to me that the administration was more worried about it’s reputation than its situation, more worried about Bush’s re-election than resolving issues and correcting errors.

Anybody But Bush? Why of course. But with Kerry, it seemed, the more I learned, the less cognitive dissonance I had about him. Big controversies over what he did would blow over with good facts. Even people who hated his guts or opposed him politically came to his defense regarding the medals and whatnot. Kerry seemed to be a fellow who could get things done.

I would not have voted for Kerry, if I did not think him qualified for the Job. Democrats, being the minority party, always had the option of staying home. Kerry was the kind of man who could show up at the first debate prepared and composed, where Bush had to ramp up.

Kerry seemed capable where Bush did not. For me, that more than anything decided things. A leader can always be brought back to heel if he gets out of line with the public will, but skill or lack of the same comes with the candidate. I’d rather get the whole package with a candidate than get somebody who has to be upgraded with advisors on most issues that matter.

Phx8-

1. Agreed, the ends do not justify the means. If our soldiers were purposefully killing innocent civilians, even justified ends wouldnt be good enough for save them from moral condemnation.

2. luckily there are principles upon which we can decide whether al-Zarqawi is evil or not. I am sure hitler didnt think he was evil either- but again, we had principles upon which we could explain WHY he is evil, and why he is wrong in his belief that he is not. So it doesnt bother me that al-Zarqawi doesnt think he is evil- because, he is.

3. I do not think you can draw such a bright line between preventing genocide and preventing tyrrany. For example, say in a country one political party decided to kill off another- if there is no ethnic component- that might not be genocide, but that is still just as wrong in my view. I think whenever there is a grave wrong going on (As there were in Iraq), there is a justification for action (Although not a requirement). Once we have the justificaiton, we must take into account factors like the likelihood of our success, the human costs, the economic costs, the strategic long-term implications ect. When the Iraq war was first proposed, i thought the weight of the evidence suggested that it was the right thing to do. Whether I was correct or not is still not decided…

As attractive as it might be to advocate pacifism, that only hands power to the most ruthless.

I would not advocate complete pacifism, but with this current war we have almost reached the point that war is the default option. If the president (at least a conservative Republican president) wants to go to war, the people who are against a war have the burden of proving that he is wrong. (“The absence of evidence isn’t the evidence of absence.”) I think that diplomacy and vigilant engagement is almost always a better option than starting a war.

Even if you believe that the ends justify the means, and I think sometimes they do, you have to do a reality check to see whether you achieved your goals. If Iraq ends up in a protracted civil war, then the invasion will prove to have been a tragic mistake. Even if our leaders had the best of intentions (and there is pretty solid evidence that the war was at least partly about oil), that doesn’t excuse a bad outcome. “I meant well” just doesn’t cut it when you are talking about people’s lives.

Jack,
The casualty estimate includes Iraqi soldiers killed in the First Gulf War. The original estimate by the US was that one million Iraqi soldiers died. Saddam Hussein insists that estimate is true to this day. During the Clinton administration, the estimate was lowered to 250,000. Shortly before the US invaded Iraq, the estimate was lowered again to 100,000 kia in the First Gulf War.

I’ve seen estimates for Iraqi combat deaths in the recent invasion of 25,000 - 50,000.

“Pacifists technically keep their hands clean, but more people die because of their actions in the long run.”

Have to disagree there, Jack. There are examples of pacifism failing, such as World War II… well, it’s more complex than that… Anyway, there are also examples of successes; for example, the overthrow of British colonialism in India, the rule of Asoka, and others. It’s a tradition noticeably lacking in Middle Eastern culture. A Palestinian advocate of non-violent resistance could have lead to peace in that area decades ago.

Misha,
“Agreed, the ends do not justify the means.” Thanks for the tactful correction! So, we make judgments based upon the means, or acts of a person. We have no difficulty recognizing al-Zarqawi’s acts as evil.

I find the ‘intention’ behind the violence… how can I say this?… a troubling way of justifying a violent act. An explosion which is intentionally detonated, and kills innocent civilians, has the same result whether the ends, or intentions, were good or not.

“I do not think you can draw such a bright line between preventing genocide and preventing tyrrany.”
Agreed, it will never be that easy. Generally speaking, countries should respect international borders and international law. It is incumbent upon us to act in order to prevent slaughters such as occurred in Rwanda, yet that is an example of violating borders.

I do appreciate examining the issues brought up in this thread on ‘cognitive dissonance.’ The Bush administration went to get trouble to incite war fever, and has been rather quiet about the evils war creates. Coffins of dead servicemen are flown in under cover of darkness… ok, enough along those lines…

We haven’t even begun to address the issue of cluster bombs. I’m suprised the US does not support outlawing them.

If we agree that Saddam Hussien is evil then why did the US SUPPORT Saddam Hussien AFTER he gassed his own people? THAT is the question that Misha will avoid. The UN Resolution condemning the use of Chemical Weapons on the Kurds was VETOED BY THE UNITED STATES!!! Now try to explain that!!!

It occurs to me that Iraq will not be settled by cluster bombs, or cruise missiles, or artillery barrages, or leveling cities, or killing insurgents, or for that matter killing al-Zarqawi. It will be settled when Iraqis embrace peace and the rule of law. Elections are the right way to go. The blood and violence are pointless. When Iraqis are ruling Iraq, the US military and the foreign jihadists will no longer be welcome. At that point they may or may not view the US kindly. One thousand Buddhist monks could do more than 150,000 soldiers to bring this to fruition.

Aldous- why would I avoid that question? I wasnt even in the United States when that happend! The U.S. did it for strategic reasons during the cold war, from what I can tell, and it was a major mistake (you see, not everything is black and white- you can support some actions of your country’s foreign policy but not others!)

Just because a previous administration may have done somethign wrong, does that make Saddam any less or more evil? Of course not. I am not sure what your argument is trying to prove, but it surely does nto address a single point I raised on this thread.

Aldous

Honest question, I am not being rhetorical. What UN resolution are you talking about? A veto is a pretty big thing. I don’t remember it nor do I remember hearing about it and I can’t find it. Do you have a reference? I would like to read the text.

Phx8

Pacifism works only against civilized people who believe in the rule of law and humanity and have some sense of justice. It worked against the British in India and the U.S. during the civil rights movements for that reason. The Imperial Japanese would have literally crucified Gandhi; the Nazis would have gassed him; the Soviets would have made him disappear and the Communist Chinese would have starved him to death on some rural commune. The Jihadis would set off a car bomb near his protests and blamed the imperialists.

The two kinds of people who cause the most death and destruction are those who see war as an early option and those who refuse to consider it at all.

Jack,
“The two kinds of people who cause the most death and destruction are those who see war as an early option and those who refuse to consider it at all.”

Those who choose war cause the death and destruction. Period.

However, your point is taken. Self-defense is justifiable, and there is a moral obligation to intervene in order to prevent violence. The War in Afghanistan is justifiable, in my opinion, because it meets those criteria. The Taliban government willingly allowed Al-Qaida to train, and sheltered OBL and that organization. Given 9/11, and the likelihood of additional attacks, the US had to go in. Iraq never met those criteria. It was an early option, a war of choice.

Idealism follows, I know. If the US, or a restructured UN deployed true peacekeepers/witnesses, with the full moral authority and military force of the world behind them… but I’m digressing…

Phx8

Restructured UN - as you say. The UN has many problems, but the underlying one is that most of its members are non-democratic states that don’t represent their people.

In the case of a conflict, there is always someone who doesn’t want to see it end. Beyond that, conflict resolution requires military force. The UN can sometimes (certainly not always) help to keep the peace, but it has never been able to establish one. And the only time that I can recall that the UN actually faced down a determined dictator was the first Gulf War, where the U.S. and its allies did all the heavy lifting and pushed through a UN resolution to do what they wanted to do anyway. You recall, we couldn’t get a UN resolution to use force in Kosovo and prospects for Darfur, Zimbabwe etc are slim.

Jack and Misha:

It also says the United States SUPPLIED Iraq with Chemical Weapons. Freedom Spreading indeed!!!

http://www.iranchamber.com/history/articles/arming_iraq.php

Arming Iraq: A Chronology of U.S. Involvement
By: John King, March 2003

What follows is an accurate chronology of United States involvement in the arming of Iraq during the Iraq-Iran war 1980-88. It is a powerful indictment of the president Bush administration attempt to sell war as a component of his war on terrorism. It reveals US ambitions in Iraq to be just another chapter in the attempt to regain a foothold in the Mideast following the fall of the Shah of Iran.

rming 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]

Donald Rumsfeld -Reagan’s Envoy- provided Iraq with
chemical & biological weapons
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.

Aldous, i find it ironic that you made a statement that I would not address a particular charge you made. I addressed it fully, and then asked you to respond how this is relevant to the morality of the Iraq regime- you failed to even try to respond to that. The reason is obvious- there is no response. The MOST your post proves is that the United States was wrong in supporting Iraq in the past.

Bush has announced a doctrine contratry to those types of actions. Instead of praising Bush for doing this and saying “well, good thing we decided to no longer support Saddam” you use America’s passed support for Saddam to somehow invalidate any opposition in the future. That argument is completely illogical. That is like saying that once we allign ourselves with any particular nation for any purpose, we are not allowed to come to our senses, or change our minds to point out the evil in their ways. Under that logic, we would also not have been allowed to oppose Stalin after WWII.

Anyway, while you continue to pick figths about waht the Reagan administration did or did not do in the context of the cold war (i am not saying you are right or wrong), we have serious issues of an entire region being so oppressed, brainwashed and beaten down that many of them are workign activitely toward our death. A response that it is our actions that have caused this hate is a non-starter, as they are driven by the propoganda fed to them by their governments and by Al Jazera, rather than the actual policies of our nation. I believe the only serious way to solve this problem, and to end unjustified subjegation of that entire part of the world is to find ways (not always through force) to move that area toward democracy- as we did with many nations during the cold war, to great success.

Misha:

My Post shows a pattern of behavior that proves the hypocrisy of American Foriegn Policy. George Bush Jr. made a speech about “Freedom” and “Liberty” being spread throughout the world. So, when are you going to do that for Pakistan, Egypt, Zimbabwe, Saudi Arabia, etc? Bush is a hypocrite. That Speech is only for those countries who are not US Allies like North Korea and Syria but any ally is immune to “Regime Change”. Then as now, it does not matter that Saddam Hussien used Chemical Weapons. What matters was that Saddam went against US Interests THEN he became a monster!!! If Pervez Musharaff quietly executed 1 thousand civilians, do you really think Bush will care?

Truth is, this is not a matter of who wants other people to be free, but rather of two other questions.

1)Will military means be productive or counterproductive in attaining the goal.

2)Do we have the wherewithal to get the job done right?

Wanting people to be free is different than actually achieving it. The intention of using military force to free people does not necessarily add up to the acheiving of that goal pro forma. It is right to demand the greatest of care, and the most thorough planning, for any military operation with such a goal in mind is at risk from the start.

I have only a question for all sides debating on this thread, (well, perhaps several questions).

How many here think the “history channel” is a mouth piece for the “right wing” ?

Did anyone here watch the segment/special they had called “The road to Bagdad” ?
(don’t quote me on exact title of the show)

I watched it several times on different dates 6-12 months ago.

I’m talking THIS war, not the last one.

It showed that the only real resistence our troups faced/slowed them down, was aprox half way to Bagdad, not reg. army, not Republican guard, they said it was terriorist training camps.
It showed the “black pajama crowd”, they didn’t run and hide, they didn’t change their cloths and drop their weapons, they fought and slowed our troups for awhile.

Am I insane, or did nobody else watch that?

It seemed to prove that terriorists were training in Iraq long before we went in.

I only point that lil issue out because it seems people say none were there before we invaded.
Just a small point in a large debate.

Aldous

Not trying to be pedantic, but a veto is a much more important and on the record. I can’t find confirmation of most of what is written there.

I did find these things.

SIPRI, a veteran Swedish disarmament group, compiles data on arms sales. Despite information published during the 1980s about where Iraq was getting its weapons from, the myth that Iraq was armed by the United States continues to survive. In fact, the major arms supplier for Iraq was the Soviet Union. And Iraq still owes the Russians over five billion dollars for arms delivered and not paid for. France and China are owed lesser amounts. Below are best estimates of the dollar amount of weapons sold to Iraq between 1973 and 1990.

Soviet Union- Over 25 billion dollars
France and China - at least five billion dollars each.
Czechoslovakia and Poland - about two billion dollars each
Brazil, Egypt and Romania - between $500 million and one billion dollars each.
Denmark- Over $200 million.
Libya and the United States, less than a quarter of a million dollars

This is the article so you can check yourself. It is a Swedish, not an American source.

That is an interesting question. If the U.S. supplied the arms as you content, why does Iraq owe so much to Russia and France and almost nothing to the U.S.? And why did the Iraqi army have almost no U.S. equipment? Big arms sales leave some trail.

Jack

Thanks for the link. It seems to give arm sales, and the most we ever sold Saddam was $125K worth in 1988. It doesn’t cover, however, cost-free transfers from government to government and it doesn’t cover direct monetary aid. Do you know any references for those figures? That might be a more complete picture. As you know, US doesn’t legally sell any chemical or biological weapons, and Saddam allegedly cooked these up in his own plants, so it would be the combination of direct aid and looking the other way that would constitute support for his WMD.

Mental Wimp

I don’t follow these things myself, but a friend who does tells me that according to the U.S. exported about 1.5 billion to Iraq during the Saddam period. Some of this was could be dual use (trucks, chemicals etc). This is what people grip about, but most trade would include many such items. We made no cost free transfers and we don’t sell chemical or biological weapons, period, so there are no references.

The fact is that Saddam didn’t need these things from the U.S., given his other suppliers. Mustard and chlorine gas can be made with World War I technology using off the shelf materials. It is precisely this ease of technical manufacture that makes it dangerous when a rouge states have the desire to make them.

My friend says that the references are available from Congressional hearings from the early 1990s.

During the Iraq-Iran war, we allowed other Arab states to share U.S. intelligence with Saddam. This helped him target Iranian forces and probably ensured that the war ended in a draw instead of an Iranian victory. This was not a bad outcome. There were no good choices available.

In summary, the U.S. does not have clean hands. But the idea that the U.S. created Saddam or that he was an important U.S. ally is an absurd exaggeration. You don’t have to believe anything I write. You just have to follow the money. Iraq owed billions to the Russians, French, Chinese and even Poles and Brazilians. He owed the U.S. almost nothing. His arsenal also did not include U.S. weapons. Only the most extreme conspiracy theory can stipulate that you can arm someone without giving him any arms.