Arms entered Iraq through Syrian Firm

[Legion]

Just skimming. One quick note that I found that isn't true. Legion, in 1985-1989, it was well known that Iraq had an extensive array of chemical weapons and a very advanced weapons program.

Can you provide evidence that this assertion is anything but heresay?

What do you think they lobbed at Iran during the Iran/Iraq war? Chili Powder?

Natoma, many residue tests wren't even completed until the mid 90s. Even the Senate Committy report mentioned heresay as to chemical weapons and biological weapons being used by the Iraqis in Hallabja. However, the committy mentioned UNSCOM confirmation of Serin gas didn't come until more than ten years after. Even today there hasn't been confirmation of any biological weapons used by Saddam.

 

[Natoma]

http://projects.sipri.se/cbw/research/factsheet-1984.html

One of the chemical-warfare instances reported by Iran, at Hoor-ul-Huzwaizeh on 13 March 1984, has since been conclusively verified by an international team of specialists dispatched to Iran by the United Nations Secretary General. The evidence adduced in the report by the UN team lends substantial credence to Iranian allegations of Iraqi chemical warfare on at least six other occasions during the period from 26 February to 17 March.

For starters. This was quite a simple google. "Iraq Iran War Chemical Weapon"

Tons of links. This was just the one at the top of the list. Have fun. Frankly I thought this was a well known fact. Guess not.

 

[Legion]

One of the chemical-warfare instances reported by Iran, at Hoor-ul-Huzwaizeh on 13 March 1984, has since been conclusively verified by an international team of specialists dispatched to Iran by the United Nations Secretary General. The evidence adduced in the report by the UN team lends substantial credence to Iranian allegations of Iraqi chemical warfare on at least six other occasions during the period from 26 February to 17 March.

Natoma perhaps you ought to try another link.

Does you link provide the date in which this matter was conclusively verfied?

Your link does provide interesting information

The UN report provides only negative evidence of the origin of the mustard gas sample. The absence in the sample analysed in Sweden and Switzerland of polysulphides and of more than a trace of sulphur indicates that it is not of past US-government manufacture, for all US mustard was made by the Levinstein process from ethylene and mixed sulphur chlorides. That process is also said to have been the one used by the USSR. From similar reasoning, British-made mustard, too, can probably be ruled out, even though substantial stocks were once held at British depots in the Middle East. For more positive evidence other sources of information must be used. Over the years since the mid-1960s quite a lot of information has been published purporting to describe Iraqi chemical weapons, but much of it is contradictory and all of it is of a reliability which SIPRI is in no position to judge. A major caveat must be entered: chemical warfare is such an emotive subject that it lends itself very readily to campaigns of disinformation and black propaganda, campaigns which the politics both of the Gulf War and of the current chemical-weapons negotiations have unquestionably stimulated to no small degree..

I still feel it is safe to say it wasn't common knowledge. There was just much conspiracy mongering.

After some brief googling for information on Hoor-ul-Huzwaizeh I have come to the conclusion the vast majority of the links are copying and pasting from some original source as the wording is in making cases identical.

 

[Natoma]

:?

Top of the page:

SIPRI FACT SHEET
Chemical Weapons I
May 1984
Authors: Julian Perry Robinson and Jozef Goldblat

How much more conclusive evidence do you need?

 

[Legion]

How much more conclusive evidence do you need?

Over the years since the mid-1960s quite a lot of information has been published purporting to describe Iraqi chemical weapons, but much of it is contradictory and all of it is of a reliability which SIPRI is in no position to judge.

:? After this quote from your source i'd say a considerable bit more.

The UN report provides only negative evidence of the origin of the mustard gas sample. The absence in the sample analysed in Sweden and Switzerland of polysulphides and of more than a trace of sulphur indicates that it is not of past US-government manufacture, for all US mustard was made by the Levinstein process from ethylene and mixed sulphur chlorides. That process is also said to have been the one used by the USSR. From similar reasoning, British-made mustard, too, can probably be ruled out, even though substantial stocks were once held at British depots in the Middle East.

It seems even the author of this article suggests a more internal explanation of the origins of these nerve gasses.

Common knowledge? Nah. Popular conspiracy theory, most likely.

 

[Natoma]

Legion, it said evidence since the 1960s has been contradictory. They can't speak about the claims from the 1960s to the early 1980s. The whole point of this document was regarding claims from the 1984 Iraqi attack on Iran. Jesus.

Stockholm International Peace Research Institute

SIPRI FACT SHEET
Chemical Weapons I
May 1984
Authors: Julian Perry Robinson and Jozef Goldblat

...............

Allegations of the use of chemical weapons have been frequent during the Iraq-Iran War. One of the instances reported by Iran has been conclusively verified by an international team dispatched to Iran by the UN Secretary-General.

................

One of the chemical-warfare instances reported by Iran, at Hoor-ul-Huzwaizeh on 13 March 1984, has since been conclusively verified by an international team of specialists dispatched to Iran by the United Nations Secretary General. The evidence adduced in the report by the UN team lends substantial credence to Iranian allegations of Iraqi chemical warfare on at least six other occasions during the period from 26 February to 17 March

Again, what more evidence do you need??? You sure know how to cherry pick out of context........ :?

 

[Natoma]

THE POISON GASES IDENTIFIED BY THE UN TEAM

Mustard gas

From an unexploded bomb found at an Iraqi-attack site, the UN team drew a sample which its analysts in Sweden and Switzerland later found to be high-quality mustard gas.

Tabun

The second poison gas identified by the UN team was the nerve-gas tabun. This was found in a sample which the team was assured by Iranian authorities had been drawn by an Iranian soldier from a dud bomb. The bomb was said to have had the same appearance as the one from which the UN team had drawn mustard gas.

Iranian authorities told the UN team that about 400 people had been affected by chemical weapons during the attack from which the tabun sample was said to have originated. The attack purportedly happened on 17 March, while the UN team was in Tehran, and was said to have been delivered by four Iraqi aircraft. Forty of the casualties were in a field hospital which the UN team was taken to visit the following day. The signs and symptoms in the six cases which the UN team had time to examine were quite different from those associated with the mustard-gas sample. The UN team concluded from them that the patients had been exposed to an anticholinesterase agent.

That quote you provided:

The UN report provides only negative evidence of the origin of the mustard gas sample. The absence in the sample analysed in Sweden and Switzerland of polysulphides and of more than a trace of sulphur indicates that it is not of past US-government manufacture, for all US mustard was made by the Levinstein process from ethylene and mixed sulphur chlorides. That process is also said to have been the one used by the USSR. From similar reasoning, British-made mustard, too, can probably be ruled out, even though substantial stocks were once held at British depots in the Middle East.

is saying that they don't know where the chemicals were manufactured, whether in the States or in some European country. That would be the same as someone finding a biological agent and trying to deduce based on its genetic fingerprint which country created the strain. Of course that would have no bearing on who ended up using it, as evidenced by this part of the document:

Official Iranian commentaries, too, have pointed to the USSR as a supplier of the Iraqi weapons. These sources have also accused Brazil, France and, most conspicuously, Britain of supplying the weapons. No basis for any of these Iranian accusations has been disclosed.

 

[Legion]

Legion, it said evidence since the 1960s has been contradictory. They can't speak about the claims from the 1960s to the early 1980s. The whole point of this document was regarding claims from the 1984 Iraqi attack on Iran. Jesus.

here is the exact quote:

It hardly paints what was printed after '60 as viable information.

The UN report provides only negative evidence of the origin of the mustard gas sample. The absence in the sample analysed in Sweden and Switzerland of polysulphides and of more than a trace of sulphur indicates that it is not of past US-government manufacture, for all US mustard was made by the Levinstein process from ethylene and mixed sulphur chlorides. That process is also said to have been the one used by the USSR. From similar reasoning, British-made mustard, too, can probably be ruled out, even though substantial stocks were once held at British depots in the Middle East. For more positive evidence other sources of information must be used. Over the years since the mid-1960s quite a lot of information has been published purporting to describe Iraqi chemical weapons, but much of it is contradictory and all of it is of a reliability which SIPRI is in no position to judge.

Jesus is right Natoma. Confirmation mustard gas was used in Iran by Saddam (a mustard gas of completely unkown origins mind you) is hardly evidence supporting the post 60s speculation mongering or for that matter Saddam's chem weapon manufacturing was common knowledge. It is clearly not the author's intention to try and support the rambelings either as he tries to seperate his work from that of previous authors.

Again, what more evidence do you need??? You sure know how to cherry pick out of context........ :?

You provide me information stating chemicals were confirmed to have been used before the Senate Committy Meeting suggested Serin gas was used however you have yet to provide evidence Saddam's chem weapons manufacturing was common knowledge.

Natoma it is safe to say most western countries at the time had chem weapons. Infact, if memory serves me, it became illegal by international law around 72 to use such weapons in combat. it may have been commonly speculated that Saddam had certain chem weapons. The article goes as far to mention the british had left stock piles of them in the middle east during its occupation. However, having and producing them are two different matters.

Tear gas: In August 1982, US officials were quoted in the press as being "confident" that the Iraqis did not possess any "deadly chemical weapons", only tear gas.

This is another quote from the article, a statment made likely addressing the issues of speculation presented by the press. If all Iraq's chem weapons arsenals and their origins were commonly known, why would the US gov deny knowing anything about them?

Of course its other's supposition the US government was apart of some vast weapons conspiracy....

 

[Natoma]

Legion, it said evidence since the 1960s has been contradictory. They can't speak about the claims from the 1960s to the early 1980s. The whole point of this document was regarding claims from the 1984 Iraqi attack on Iran. Jesus.

here is the exact quote:

It hardly paints what was printed after '60 as viable information.

I'm now convinced you're arguing just to argue. What did I say? That the article said that the evidence since the 1960s has been contradictory. I agree with you.

However, the point of this article was to discuss the 1984 attack on Iran, which was confirmed by UN Inspectors. They found Mustard Gas and Tabun! The agency that wrote this document is the Stockholm International Peace Research Institute.

Jesus is right Natoma. Confirmation mustard gas was used in Iran by Saddam (a mustard gas of completely unkown origins mind you) is hardly evidence supporting the post 60s speculation mongering or for that matter Saddam's chem weapon manufacturing was common knowledge. It is clearly not the author's intention to try and support the rambelings either as he tries to seperate his work from that of previous authors.

Why in the world are you discussing that with me? I'm not talking about evidence post 1960s, pre-1984. I'm talking about 1984. Let me bold it and super size the font.

1984!

Again, what more evidence do you need??? You sure know how to cherry pick out of context........ :?

You provide me information stating chemicals were confirmed to have been used before the Senate Committy Meeting suggested Serin gas was used however you have yet to provide evidence Saddam's chem weapons manufacturing was common knowledge.

Natoma it is safe to say most western countries at the time had chem weapons. Infact, if memory serves me, it became illegal by international law around 72 to use such weapons in combat. it may have been commonly speculated that Saddam had certain chem weapons. The article goes as far to mention the british had left stock piles of them in the middle east during its occupation. However, having and producing them are two different matters.

Uhm, what did the article say? The UN verified the use of chemical weapons mortars in Iran during the Iran/Iraq war. They just couldn't tell which country manufactured the chemical weapons, but the shells themselves were fired from Iraq. :?

Tear gas: In August 1982, US officials were quoted in the press as being "confident" that the Iraqis did not possess any "deadly chemical weapons", only tear gas.

This is another quote from the article, a statment made likely addressing the issues of speculation presented by the press. If all Iraq's chem weapons arsenals and their origins were commonly known, why would the US gov deny knowing anything about them?

Of course its other's supposition the US government was apart of some vast weapons conspiracy....

Oh right, as if a US administration has never denied anything it knew to be true? Come on.

 

[Legion]

is saying that they don't know where the chemicals were manufactured, whether in the States or in some European country. That would be the same as someone finding a biological agent and trying to deduce based on its genetic fingerprint which country created the strain. Of course that would have no bearing on who ended up using it, as evidenced by this part of the document:

What it does suggest is that chemical components were missing from the variations of the Nerve gasses to identify them as being produced by various western nations. This neither confirms nor supports the theory western nations provided chem weapons or dual use chemicals with the intention of creating chem weapons.

Here again the author is quoted iterating information obviously not of common knowledge:

Increasingly persuasive evidence is now emerging in published sources that, whether Iraq has or has not been receiving chemical weapons from abroad, it has been acquiring a development and production capability for them of its own.

If anything it was at this time speculations to the nature of Iraq's capacities to create mustard gas began to appear in the media. These speculations surrounded the appearance of newer and more up-to-date chemical manufacturing plants appearing in Iraq.

 

[Natoma]

is saying that they don't know where the chemicals were manufactured, whether in the States or in some European country. That would be the same as someone finding a biological agent and trying to deduce based on its genetic fingerprint which country created the strain. Of course that would have no bearing on who ended up using it, as evidenced by this part of the document:

What it does suggest is that chemical components were missing from the variations of the Nerve gasses to identify them as being produced by various western nations. This neither confirms nor supports the theory western nations provided chem weapons or dual use chemicals with the intention of creating chem weapons.

You're manufacturing arguments. I haven't said a word about other countries definitively manufacturing the chemical weapons for Iraq. I just said Iraq used chemical weapons before that 1985-1989 period you gave pax. And that is definitively true. Iraq did use chemical weapons before 1985.

Here again the author is quoted iterating information obviously not of common knowledge:

Increasingly persuasive evidence is now emerging in published sources that, whether Iraq has or has not been receiving chemical weapons from abroad, it has been acquiring a development and production capability for them of its own.

If anything it was at this time speculations to the nature of Iraq's capacities to create mustard gas began to appear in the media. These speculations surrounded the appearance of newer and more up-to-date chemical manufacturing plants appearing in Iraq.

Read what I've written since I got back into this thread and come again. You're completely manufacturing things.

 

[Legion]

I'm now convinced you're arguing just to argue. What did I say? That the article said that the evidence since the 1960s has been contradictory. I agree with you.

Oh my, and yet you say Saddam's chem weapons manufacturing was common knowledge?

However, the point of this article was to discuss the 1984 attack on Iran, which was confirmed by UN Inspectors. They found Mustard Gas and Tabun! The agency that wrote this document is the Stockholm International Peace Research Institute.

All and all that is very interesting Natoma. Unfortunately it doesn't support your position that Iraq's chem weapons manufacturing was common knowledge.

Why in the world are you discussing that with me? I'm not talking about evidence post 1960s, pre-1984. I'm talking about 1984. Let me bold it and super size the font.

Natoma, evidence of what? Do you know what you are providing evidence for?

Another quote:

Increasingly persuasive evidence is now emerging in published sources that, whether Iraq has or has not been receiving chemical weapons from abroad, it has been acquiring a development and production capability for them of its own. An official Iranian commentry dates the beginning of this effort back to 1976, claiming that information to that effect had been provided to Iran by West German intelligence officials. Unidentified US intelligence sources have been quoted as saying that Iraq began making mustard gas in the early 1970s. Such sources have been quoted as believing that Iraq is now attempting to produce sarin nerve gas. Associated with this belief is the assessment, it was reported in the US press at the end of March, that, while Iraq has already been using nerve gas in the Gulf war, this has been on an experimental scale using stocks accumulated during the development programme; supplies of nerve gas from large-scale production facilities were expected--the reporting continued--to be available within a matter of months, even weeks. Further, the press has reported US government sources as having identified three, possibly five, chemical-agent production sites in Iraq. The locations that have been specified in the press are Samawa, Ramadi, Samarra and Akashat. The last of these has, however, been toured by foreign correspondents, including a British journalist who has reported finding only contra-indicative evidence of a nerve gas plant being there.

The author is reviewing possibilities not reflecting on common knowledge as you can see. It ought to be rather obvious in his wording.

Another quote:

Postscript

The origin of the chemical weapons used in the Gulf War is a matter which warrants more attention than space in this Fact Sheet permits--it has an immediate bearing on the negotiations in Geneva for a Chemical Weapons Convention: a treaty which, among other things, must be designed so as to place effective constraints on the proliferation of the weapons.

Even here he doesn't start with the assumption Saddam produced these chemicals.

A rather interesting quote:

Export controls

On 30 March, the US government announced the imposition of 'foreign policy controls' on the export to the Gulf-War belligerents of five chemicals that could be used in the production of mustard and nerve gases. US officials told the press that this had been done in response to an unexpected volume of recent orders from Iraq for those chemicals. They also said that Japan, FR Germany and other unspecified European countries had been exporting the chemicals to Iraq. The British government took action similar to that of Washington on 12 April, adding three more chemicals to the control list (see table). Since then, other European governments have also announced embargoes of varying scope, and on 15 May the Foreign Ministers of the European Community agreed in principle on a common and complementary policy. There are Western press reports of suspicions in Western diplomatic circles in the Middle East that the USSR is shipping intermediates to Iraq through Jordan.

It seems that despite allegations western governments did nothing to prevent Saddam from acquiring dual use chemicals impositions were innacted.

Here we have suspicions that Iraq may have been acquiring chemicals indirectly from other Middle Eastern nations.

Uhm, what did the article say? The UN verified the use of chemical weapons mortars in Iran during the Iran/Iraq war. They just couldn't tell which country manufactured the chemical weapons, but the shells themselves were fired from Iraq. :?

:? Yes i am well aware the article said Iraq used chemical weapons. So have other nations throughout their history. The matter at hand is who produced them? The author may have his speculations but he presents his article assuming very little. Considering he takes very little to be axiom i would believe these matters to have insufficient evidence to be considered common knowledge.

Oh right, as if a US administration has never denied anything it knew to be true? Come on.

Yes indeed Natoma. They denied Area 51 existed, thusly all those alien autopsies must have been actual footage

 

[Natoma]

Just skimming. One quick note that I found that isn't true. Legion, in 1985-1989, it was well known that Iraq had an extensive array of chemical weapons and a very advanced weapons program.

You show me where I said Iraq had the capability to manufacture their own chemical weapons. A program can exist without manufacturing. I never made any bones about Iraq manufacturing their own weapons. That cuts off about 90% of what you've been saying.

The other 10% was with regard to knowledge of Iraq's program and chemical weapons in the 1985-1989 period. That was already established by UN inspections in 1984. You don't think UN members wouldn't know about that information?

Read!!

 

[Legion]

You're manufacturing arguments. I haven't said a word about other countries definitively manufacturing the chemical weapons for Iraq.

This has been suggested not only in this but in others. I'd imagine many readers have come across it now and then. When i posted this i wasn't directly refering to your argument.

I just said Iraq used chemical weapons before that 1985-1989 period you gave pax.

I don't believe i gave 1985 - 1989 specifically as a period in which the chemicals were used. They were the years inwhich the alledged transactions of chemicals have taken place.

And that is definitively true. Iraq did use chemical weapons before 1985.

I believe some where earlier in this thread i was speaking of an occurance which happened as early as 81. I don't know why i would have denied chemical weapons were used before 85.....Perhaps you are misunderstanding me.

What i have mainly been refering to wrt to pax is in around '94 the senate committy concluded Iraq had used chemicals. Before then, it appeared to be nothing more than speculation. Thusly i'd disagree with the matter being speculation.

Read what I've written since I got back into this thread and come again. You're completely manufacturing things.

No, i think you are misunderstanding things.

 

[Natoma]

Secondly Iraq's chem research was not well known during the years in which the alledged transactions took place (85-89).

That is undoubtedly incorrect, as evidenced by the fact that the UN knew about Iraq's use of chemical weapons at least as early as 1984.

 

[pax]

Isnt it kind of irrelevant to the point that Iraq using wmds, whether imported or not, in 84 is sufficient for international concertation? Id like to pull some israeli declarations on iraq's wmd programs even previous to 84 and I wouldnt be surprised that some date to 80-81 when it complained against osirak. Im sure mossad was well aware as was the media of Iraq's longstanding work on wmds... Something that probably came to light strongly in the media at the time when Saddam took power as he was a rabid anti semite. My earliest memories are of the iran iraq war and halabja in 86 tho...

But god knows where on the web such would exist that far back. I cant pull jerusalem post articles older than a few weeks without paying.

http://www.fas.org/man/dod-101/ops/war/iran-iraq.htm


"Beginning in 1984, Baghdad's military goal changed from controlling Iranian territory to denying Tehran any major gain inside Iraq. Furthermore, Iraq tried to force Iran to the negotiating table by various means. First, President Saddam Hussein sought to increase the war's manpower and economic cost to Iran. For this purpose, Iraq purchased new weapons, mainly from the Soviet Union and France. Iraq also completed the construction of what came to be known as "killing zones" (which consisted primarily of artificially flooded areas near Basra) to stop Iranian units. In addition, according to Jane's Defence Weekly and other sources, Baghdad used chemical weapons against Iranian troop concentrations and launched attacks on many economic centers."

Yeah Janes defence weekly that left wing nut job...

"Despite repeated Iraqi denials, between May 1981 and March 1984, Iran charged Iraq with forty uses of chemical weapons. "

 

[Legion]

You show me where I said Iraq had the capability to manufacture their own chemical weapons. A program can exist without manufacturing. I never made any bones about Iraq manufacturing their own weapons. That cuts off about 90% of what you've been saying.

here again is what you said:

Just skimming. One quick note that I found that isn't true. Legion, in 1985-1989, it was well known that Iraq had an extensive array of chemical weapons and a very advanced weapons program.

What do you think they lobbed at Iran during the Iran/Iraq war? Chili Powder?

Infact its rather clear after reading the article you presented that through 1985-89 it wasn't infact "very well known" that Saddam had an "extensive array of chemical weapons". Infact the article really only mentions Mustard gas in his possession in '84... I suppose all it took was 4 year right? Sounds to me if anything speculation and rumor mongering suggested this but I digress... :?

I believe i may have assumed by program you also implied manufacturing. A rather reasonably assumption as this has been what Pax has been asserting.

The other 10% was with regard to knowledge of Iraq's program and chemical weapons in the 1985-1989 period. That was already established by UN inspections in 1984.

Now you are inventing things.

You don't think UN members wouldn't know about that information?

Read!!

I believe your statement wrt to these matters being common knowledge was left deliberately vague such that you could apply it whom ever you pleased as an escape.

Was it common knoweldge to some people some where? Propably. Was it common knowledge to civilians in the west? More than likely not.

 

[Natoma]

You show me where I said Iraq had the capability to manufacture their own chemical weapons. A program can exist without manufacturing. I never made any bones about Iraq manufacturing their own weapons. That cuts off about 90% of what you've been saying.

here again is what you said:

Just skimming. One quick note that I found that isn't true. Legion, in 1985-1989, it was well known that Iraq had an extensive array of chemical weapons and a very advanced weapons program.

What do you think they lobbed at Iran during the Iran/Iraq war? Chili Powder?

Infact its rather clear after reading the article you presented that through 1985-89 it wasn't infact "very well known" that Saddam had an "extensive array of chemical weapons". Infact the article really only mentions Mustard gas in his possession in '84... I suppose all it took was 4 year right? Sounds to me if anything speculation and rumor mongering suggested this but I digress... :?

Wrong. Mustard Gas and Tabun were known and verified, with suspected Tear Gas, Choking Gas, Arsenic based chemicals, Mycotoxins, and Germ warfare agents.

I believe i may have assumed by program you also implied manufacturing. A rather reasonably assumption as this has been what Pax has been asserting.

Not a reasonable assumption at all. I mentioned nothing regarding manufacturing. If I meant manufacturing I would have stated manufacturing.

The other 10% was with regard to knowledge of Iraq's program and chemical weapons in the 1985-1989 period. That was already established by UN inspections in 1984.

Now you are inventing things.

huh.... Did or did not UN inspections confirm Iraqi use of chemical weapons in 1984?? God....

You don't think UN members wouldn't know about that information?

Read!!

I believe your statement wrt to these matters being common knowledge was left deliberately vague such that you could apply it whom ever you pleased as an escape.

Was it common knoweldge to some people some where? Propably. Was it common knowledge to civilians in the west? More than likely not.

Who cares what civilians know. This is about our governments and intelligence agencies and what they know. Keep assuming and making "believe" statements.

 

[Legion]

Isnt it kind of irrelevant to the point that Iraq using wmds, whether imported or not, in 84 is sufficient for international concertation?

Pax, honestly, your power to extropolate don't impress me. Again, as always, having chemical weapons and using them doesn't imply you've produced them. If you have learned anything from these last few post i'd how it would have been that.

I would also like to point out a quote from Natoma's article to you.

Export controls

On 30 March, the US government announced the imposition of 'foreign policy controls' on the export to the Gulf-War belligerents of five chemicals that could be used in the production of mustard and nerve gases. US officials told the press that this had been done in response to an unexpected volume of recent orders from Iraq for those chemicals. They also said that Japan, FR Germany and other unspecified European countries had been exporting the chemicals to Iraq. The British government took action similar to that of Washington on 12 April, adding three more chemicals to the control list (see table). Since then, other European governments have also announced embargoes of varying scope, and on 15 May the Foreign Ministers of the European Community agreed in principle on a common and complementary policy. There are Western press reports of suspicions in Western diplomatic circles in the Middle East that the USSR is shipping intermediates to Iraq through Jordan.

This article was written in 1984.

"Despite repeated Iraqi denials, between May 1981 and March 1984, Iran charged Iraq with forty uses of chemical weapons. "

it is your position all of the allegations were true leaving nothing to propaganda? Would other nations recognize this?

 

[pax]

You sound like that judge in Texas that refused to free a man whose dna was tested and it wasnt his semen in the woman that was raped killed for which he was condemend to life in prison. The judge gave the argument "doesnt mean he didnt do it" even tho it was the only evidence at the time to convict him...

Whether Iraq made or imported the wmds it should have produced international condemnation and blockade but it largely didnt. The reaganites were peep on the matter...

In fact importation should have been even more a serious issue for international concertation. As it would have showcased serious probs with proliferation.

Meaning today we are likely in deeper shit than ever regarding that.