Arms entered Iraq through Syrian Firm

[RussSchultz]

From 1985, if not earlier, through 1989, a veritable witch's brew of biological materials were exported to Iraq by private American suppliers pursuant to application and licensing by the U.S. Department of Commerce.

Ah yes. Specimens were purchased from research houses that were licensed to sell biological specimens for scientific research to universities and companies abroad.

That is clear and convincing evidence that the US government was in cahoots with Saddam's regime to develop weapons of mass destruction. They apparently were also in cahoots with every microbiological university attempting to research common pathogens affecting livestock.

 

[Legion]

Every bit as conclusive Russ as Australia's clear involvement in the bombing of pearl harbor by providing the Japanese steel for aircraft carriers....

Here is a list of most of the recipients:

Iraq Atomic Energy Commission, Ministry of Trade, State Company for Drug Industries, Ministry of Higher Education, and Middle and Near East Region A.

 

[cthellis42]

I also think one of them built an iraqi nuclear reactor but doin't quote me on that.

Yes, the French were rather pissed at the Israeli's for quite some time for blowing that up.

Meanwhile, a much bigger list. But hey, no worries, I'm sure it was all going to university research.

 

[Legion]

I also think one of them built an iraqi nuclear reactor but doin't quote me on that.

Yes, the French were rather pissed at the Israeli's for quite some time for blowing that up.

Meanwhile, a much bigger list[url]. But hey, no worries, I'm sure it was all going to university research.

I highly doubt its a larger list infact as this is exactly the same author of the peice presented by Alphawolf spining exactly the same bs. Infact the list he provides is a simple repeat of the list he quoted from the committe report, a report he selectively quotes to misrepresent its assertions and intentions.

How could anyone aruge though with some one who provides such excellant support for his arguments:

When Iraq engaged in chemical and biological warfare in the 1980s, barely a peep of moral outrage could be heard from Washington, as it kept supplying Saddam with the materials he needed to build weapons.

And what did we hear from France, Japan, Zimbabwe, Nigeria, etc? They all must be silently approving Iraq's use of bio/chem weapons.

The report noted further that U.S. exports to Iraq included the precursors to chemical-warfare agents, plans for chemical and biological warfare production facilities, and chemical-warhead filling equipment.

Where in the article is this mentioned? The only statement i can find which suggests chemicals were imported was this:

The Iraqi Al Fallujah gas warfare complex was believed to be capable of producing up to 1,000 tons per month of Sarin, as well as the nerve agent VX[2] In addition, with the assistance of foreign firms, Iraq developed the capability to experiment with hydrogen cyanide, cyanogen chloride, and lewisite.[3] By the start of the Gulf War, Iraqi forces had developed chemical delivery capabilities for rifle grenades, 81mm mortars, 152mm, 130mm, and 122mm artillery rounds; bombs; 90mm air-to-ground

Where does it mention American firms sold him anything with intent?

Noam Chomsky suggests that this strategy is a way for America to keep control of its oil supply:

Needless to say his assessment of the matter was flawed.

The exports continued to at least November 28, 1989, despite evidence that Iraq was engaging in chemical and biological warfare against Iranians and Kurds since as early as 1984.

Apparently the author over looked these statements while writing his essay:

In November 1993, a nine-member U.N. inspection team arrived to take samples from the area of the alleged chemical attack. The results of the inspection were inconclusive.

It is also suspected that Iraq may have used biological agents (mycotoxins) during the 1984 attack on Majnoon Island, during the Iran-Iraq War, and in 1988 against the Kurds (cholera and typhus). However, no medical verification of Iraqi use of biological warfare agents yet exists.

Oddly enough his statements seem much more confident then his later rendition of the same statement:

These exports continued to at least November 28, 1989 despite the fact that Iraq had been reported to be engaging in chemical warfare and possibly biological warfare against Iranians, Kurds, and Shiites since the early 80s.

Notice that the he states possibly biological warfare. Possibly? A rather weak statement in light of one of his previous quotes stating the UNSCOM report concluded US samples were used to created biological weapons. Infact i'd say its rather inline with the general air of misrepresentation apparent throughout the article.

How can anyone follow his line of reasoning when he uses the oil control myth as a basis for his line of thinking? He provides no evidence of intention to provide Iraq with chemical agents for use in chemical weapons. He expects invididuals simply to jump to the "right conclusions." Assuming, of course, there would be no other reason for which to provide any country with said biological and chemical agents.

At the risk of sounding like I'm blowing my own horn, I must point out that I wrote a story on this very subject in 1998, which was published in several "alternative" magazines, distributed widely on the Internet to this day, and won a Project Censored award in 1999. As far as I know, the American mainstream media has never covered this story, and if the Times article is any guide, the censorship will continue.

Perhaps they won't report on it because its bs lacking any solid evidence? No wonder he has to turn to the indymedia to propagate this. conspiracy nuttery at best.

 

[RussSchultz]

Once again, you provide a list of PRIVATE COMPANIES that sold DUAL USE products to Iraq.

Where's the link between the US government providing chemical weapons to Saddam?

This article comes closer to supporting your stance by stating the US relaxed trade barriers with Iraq, but in the end fails to support your argument that the US government did anything wrong when it comes out and states that these products are/were readily available around the world from most western markets and it was by that rational that having US companies sell the products do no more harm than having another party do it, as it was going to get done anyways.

Personally, I think its dispicable that companies knew/suspected what was up, but did it anyways, but there are legitimate uses for all of those biological strains (agricultural research), chemicals (thiodiglycol--for use in dyes and inks; ethelyne--used in pesticides, antifreeze, making plastics, you name it!)

 

[Legion]

Russ, so you were the bastard that sold my ex roomates the Chlorine and Bleach from which they created Mustard Gas practically killing them! You should be held accountable for attempted murder! Down with CLorox!!!


Many chemicals are "dual use" chemicals. What is this loon trying to imply. For christ sake one ingredient to Ricin nerve gas are kidney beans....

Russ is it just me or does he not pick out the rather "easy" chemical issues to attack? thiodiglycol as an agent in mustard gas? Come on! Normal house hold ingredients can be used to create mustard gas. He never tackles the harder issues IE what chemicals we supposedly sent to aid int he production of VX nerve gas. I don't even know the chemical make of it let alone common ingredience. I am sure as hell he doesn't either hense the reason he never brings it up though VX never gas was found quite readily in Saddam's weapons archieves.

 

[AlphaWolf]

Russ, so you were the bastard that sold my ex roomates the Chlorine and Bleach from which they created Mustard Gas practically killing them! You should be held accountable for attempted murder! Down with CLorox!!!

If your ex-roomate was a military dictator/known murder who was at war with one of your biggest enemies at the time, you might consider the implications of providing the means.

Or you might just bury your head in the sand and profiteer.

 

[Legion]

If your ex-roomate was a military dictator/known murder who was at war with one of your biggest enemies at the time, you might consider the implications of providing the means.

So we should cut off all medical and chemical supplies to his country because of said "dual use" all the while depriving the community of needed resources?

Or you might just bury your head in the sand and profiteer.

Or on the opposing side of the spectrum invent elaborate government conspiracies....

 

[pax]

The innoffensive end products that are made with those dual use products could easily be sold ready made by the west. The fact is we couldnt sell him the 'other' kinds of products but we could help him make them.

Any one thinking that these sales were innocent is lying to themselves.

 

[Legion]

The innoffensive end products that are made with those dual use products could easily be sold ready made by the west.

And it could have been broken down for its necessary compounds. This would be more than likely far more expensive then selling to countries the componets need to make the "innoffensive" end product.

We still haven't a clue as to the quantity of these chemicals sent to Iraq or for that matter what countries he acquired the other necessary chemicals to create his long list of chemical weapons. As of thos moment i have only seen rather weak arguments in support of providing saddam with chemicals to produce mustard gas. From what chemicals we sent him did he produce Serin and VX nerve gas? The senate report suggests various foreign entities provided the chemicals.

The fact is we couldnt sell him the 'other' kinds of products but we could help him make them.

What "other" kinds of products could companies sell "him"? "He" didn't purchase these directly they were purchased by seemingly harmless Iraqi minitries and educational/medical facilities over a period of 4 years. Clearly the conspiracy mongers have over looked the facts Saddam had serin among other nerve gasses since the 70s. I have yet to see the actual quantity of these chemicals provided which were purchased, another matter that makes me wholly suspiscious of the conspiracy mongering.

Pax you are asserting post hoc suggestions. How would "we" at the time help "him" to produce the final products when we have no responsibility to look over the production of chemicals "he" purchases? "He" more than likely would have refused as would hundreds of over recipient countries. WHo are "we" to over looked what other countries are doing with what they purchase? The fact that "he" wasn't directly involved in the purchasing of the chemicals was another deciding factor in the sales.

Any one thinking that these sales were innocent is lying to themselves.

Why should we assume this based on such little evidence pax? Even the Senate Committy report which based its conclusions on UNSCOM filings never once suggested government collusion. There simply isn't any evidence there. The chemicals these iraqi firms purchased were chemicals widely used in various necessary products (ie pesticides). The fact the that UN weapons inspectors couldn't come up with any evidence the vast majority of biological samples were used in creation of weapons is most revealing. Infact all that was found reenforced the argument that the Iraqi biological research teams had been advancing similiar pathogens since the 1970s (ie Anthrax).

I understand the desire to try and make this into a conspiracy rant but honestly, there is so little here to work with. Just look at the list of biological sample recipients i posted sometime ago. Should anyone have assumed they were some how tied to an Iraqi government weapons producer?

It is doubtful we'd have to help the Iraqi research teams to advance. Since the 1970s the iraqi firms were the most sophisticated bio engineering firms in all the middle east.

Can you provide anything of substance to support you belief these sales weren't "innocent"?

 

[junkheap]

Once again, you provide a list of PRIVATE COMPANIES that sold DUAL USE products to Iraq.

Where's the link between the US government providing chemical weapons to Saddam?

My GOD, you have to be kidding me.

Here is a link i found while searching off of cnn.com for god sakes. It took me 1 minute. I put in chemical weapons and US for my search. I can probably find at least 10 more if you want. More proof???I though this was common knowledge! I just need to you if you guys are actuall being serious with that questioning.

http://www.counterpunch.org/blum0820.html

another one

http://www.greenleft.org.au/back/2002/506/506p12.htm

another one

http://www.belleville.com/mld/newsdemocrat/5674107.htm

this one doesnt really detail it but still

http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn/A52241-2002Dec29?language=printer

 

[pax]

Simply because Legion Saddam's past genocidal behavior and the UN condemnation of such should have put us on the proper footting to not simply give this guy and his country anything he wishes to buy. Especially dual use products that led to his bio chem program that then ended up costing lives on both sides as he finally was deemed had to be disarmed.

If he refuses the end products from such dual elements then its his loss.

There should have been an embargo as soon as he declared war on Iran and was seen to mas murder his own people.

 

[Legion]

Simply because Legion Saddam's past genocidal behavior and the UN condemnation of such should have put us on the proper footting to not simply give this guy and his country anything he wishes to buy.

Pax many chemicals (including the final products) can be classified as duel use. The argument we should have simply cut access to duel use chemicals is ridiculous. he could simply have taken the final products reduced them to the necessary components and used them then. I can hardly see the reasoning in cutting off all medical and public necessities simply to escape the possibility political groups will later on distort the transactions of necessary chemical components. This again comes as a post hoc generalization. We didn't know until the UNSCOM findings came in that some of our chemicals could possibly have been used to produce Nerve gas. The Senate Committy was very vague on this more than likely do to the fact so many chemicals can be used to created mustard and Serin gas rendering the vast majority of what we provided Iraq with as completely unnecessary for their creation. ALso it is never discussed how much in terms of quantity was sent to iraq vs the final products.

Especially dual use products that led to his bio chem program that then ended up costing lives on both sides as he finally was deemed had to be disarmed.

Pax you are falling into the same scheme of misrepresentation and exaggeration as did Alpha's author, Blum. Impling the terminology of "duel use" some how equates these chemicals aren't "dangerous" falls flat on its face in light of how common place they are in the world market. Come now, most chemicals you purchase for cleaning your house can be considered duel use and could be used to create Mustard gas quite easily.

If he refuses the end products from such dual elements then its his loss.

He couldn't have refused it has he was not directly the buyer of the products. Secondly it would be more than likely his populas who would suffer as many of these chemicals are used for necessities as cleaning water.

There should have been an embargo as soon as he declared war on Iran and was seen to mas murder his own people.

There could have been but the fact there wasn't isn't a validation of a vast weapons conspiracy Pax. If we had cut off those chemicals it could have been far worse for the Iraqi people.

Stating these transactions took place during a period of 4 years itself is mirepresentative of the purchases. These were not continuos flowing transactions but rather purchases of lump sums it seems from numerous varying corporations world wide.

 

[Fred]

Junkheap, its rather a sad state of affairs when you can't even question the articles you provide. All three links are from rather dubious sources, and amusingly enough, none provide any evidence whatsoever of chemical weapon shipments other than guilt by association.

The exception being, this one individual's crusade (which all three articles quote as their sole source).

"According to William Blum, writing in the August 1998 issue of the Progressive, Sam Gejdenson, chairperson of a Congressional subcommittee investigating US exports to Iraq, disclosed that from 1985 until 1990 “the US government approved 771 licenses [only 39 were rejected] for the export to Iraq of $1.5 billion worth of biological agents and high-tech equipment with military application … "

Now, no corraborating or followup info is provided, nor details of which licence in particular is an obvious case of a single purpose agent. Etc etc

To be perfectly honest, the whole thing logically requires an extraordinary amount of razor sharp evidence (extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof), not to mention there is a lack of motive.

For what reason would the US government help Iraq, essentially gas civilians? There is little military point to chemical WMD (troops have access to gas masks, radar, advanced warning, medication etc etc). It would have been far easier, more logical militarily, and less politically risky to simply provide Iraq with additional high tech explosive arms.

 

[pax]

Im not sure we can make the statement that end products can be reduced again... certainly not in all cases tho we would need a chemist to clear that up. I dont think we can argue that the US helped the iraqi regime in the 80's. Certainly did all it could tho congress did step in a bit. But of course no one would want chlorine banned as it is used for cleaning water... but then again it WAS banned after 91...

Good enough for us but not the hundreds of thousands who were murdered while the us blocked un resolutions to condemn the mass murders...

 

[Legion]

Im not sure we can make the statement that end products can be reduced again...

Yes we can. You don't seem to undersand how easy it is to make mustard gas or other nerve gasses (very effective ones) Pax. Just grab a bucket poor in some common household bleach and any other chemical containing chlorine. That should be enough to produce Chlorine gas, a highly toxic nerve gas.

certainly not in all cases tho we would need a chemist to clear that up.

Check it out youself. Its not anywhere as hard as you think to produce deadly chemicals such as Mustard and Serin gas.

I dont think we can argue that the US helped the iraqi regime in the 80's.

Pax come now. Correlation does not equal causation. If this is your basis for believing the US government sold Iraq chemicals for the purpose of creating weapons then i'd suggest you find something with more substance to it. Plenty of nations have helped the Iraqi regime should we assume all of them have bene apart of some elaborate weapons conspiracy?

Certainly did all it could tho congress did step in a bit. But of course no one would want chlorine banned as it is used for cleaning water... but then again it WAS banned after 91...

was it banned for valid reasoning i would be a major question. if handled properly it should be harmless.

Good enough for us but not the hundreds of thousands who were murdered while the us blocked un resolutions to condemn the mass murders...

How exactly did the US block resolutions to condemn mass murders pax?

 

[Fred]

I just want someone to be specific, and list the approved of chemical agent that they feel is most evidently used for WMD, such that its dual use was irrelevant enough not to send it over.

If you want my personal opinion, sure, maybe some of our chemicals we sent them were used inappropriately. Would that have stopped them getting it from somewhere else? Its no secret that making most WMD is easier than going out to buy the Anarchists cookbook.
Would it have been justified, to halt shipments where the dual use is something potentially necessary yet humane? (eg chlorine for cleaning water). In the end, its really only the most severe WMD like Anthrax and VX that can be reliably screened.

Again, it should be very obvious the US was outraged by the chemical usage. We wanted to halt Irans march (which happened), and sometimes you have to get into bed with unsavory people in order for goals to be achieved. Hell, most leftish foreign policy is based on this principle, see for instance Clinton's trips to China, and the cozyness with N Korea.

 

[Legion]

I just want someone to be specific, and list the approved of chemical agent that they feel is most evidently used for WMD, such that its dual use was irrelevant enough not to send it over.

Here is the problem i ran into. Blum states the Senate Committy reports conclude certain chemicals were being used to produce chemical weapons. The Report does not conclude any set list of chemicals were used from US corporations. Blum completely misrepresents what the report says.

If you want my personal opinion, sure, maybe some of our chemicals we sent them were used inappropriately.

Another big problem i am having. How much of these chemicals did we send him? How much final product did he have? Were the transactions inline with usual purchases of these chemicals for a country of Iraq size or chemical consumption?

Would that have stopped them getting it from somewhere else?

Hell no. the Senate report does conclude foreign agnecies provided iraq with many of the chemicals he needed in some form or another.

Its no secret that making most WMD is easier than going out to buy the Anarchists cookbook.

No shit, the conspiracy mongering depends on the ignorance of the readers and the misrepresenation of "duel use" chemicals.

Would it have been justified, to halt shipments where the dual use is something potentially necessary yet humane? (eg chlorine for cleaning water). In the end, its really only the most severe WMD like Anthrax and VX that can be reliably screened.

Iraq already had been conducting mass research on Anthrax in the 70s. Obviously they had a lot of it. They'd need a lot more than a few samples to create a biological arsenal in a 4 year period. This is probably why little or no evidence is provided by UNSCOM/UN inspectors that bio weapons were ever used by Saddam.

 

[pax]

Seriously you dont find the hypocrisy of the fact there was severe restrictions on these dual use chemical post 91 GF? Suddenly he was threat to us and not just iran or the kurds or other minorities in his own country...

Suddenly those chems can be used in criminal mass murder fashipon but before business held sway as long as he only killed kurds or iranians? Of course this isnt a us admin criticism per se. The fact the us and the entire west was moot in the face of the mass murders shows our hypocrisy. And to be derided by muslims in the face of it is more than just understandable.

 

[Legion]

Seriously you dont find the hypocrisy of the fact there was severe restrictions on these dual use chemical post 91 GF?

What i do find is a consistant struggle from certain people on this web forum to progress the chem arms myth despite the bulk of evidence against their position looms over their heads all the while they are incapable of providing motive or intent.

No pax I see no hyprocisy. You are assuming that because chlorine was "banned" in 91 that there was any wrong doing on part of the US government or for that matter evidence of a mass weapons conspiracy. The banning of these chemicals may have come as a kneejerk reaction to the use of them in chem weapons. This is not to different from the banning of Assault Rifles in the US though the civilian Assualt Rifle is hardly different from any other rifle.

Suddenly he was threat to us and not just iran or the kurds or other minorities in his own country...

If you speak on behalf of the whole UN i can understand you the point you are trying to make.

I don't see that "suddenly" he became a threat at all.

Suddenly those chems can be used in criminal mass murder fashipon but before business held sway as long as he only killed kurds or iranians?

Pax please stop the post hoc generalizations. Again these same chemicals have been apart of the world markte for a long time. They are very important in the production of necessary drugs, pesticides, etc. We had no idea until about '94 that any chemicals sent to him were being used to produce chemical weapons. infact, this was around the time in which UN inspectors investigated the happenings in 88 and 84. They concluded chemical weapons were most likely used.

The fact the us and the entire west was moot in the face of the mass murders shows our hypocrisy. And to be derided by muslims in the face of it is more than just understandable.

So were the east, and Europe Pax.

I can't follow your logic Pax. There just isn't hypocrisy present here.

The only thing i see is hypocritical would be such statements coming from France when they had running negotiations to help rebuild the Osirak "research" reactor. The only reason the French didn't help them build a second reactor was do to the fact key facilities were destroyed by coalition bombers in '91. If you want to talk about poor choices on behalf of western governments lets start here.

Whether or not you see the actions of the US government as hypocritical is truly irrelevant to the matter of providing chemicals for use in weapons. Its is moot and has little to do with the conversation.