[FREE IRAN Project] In The Spirit Of Cyrus The Great

[Guest]

[Guest]

Iraqi interests section head Nizar Hamdoon meets with Deputy Assistant Secretary of State James Placke on March 29, concerning Iran's attempts to get UN condemnation of Iraq over CW use.
Excerpt:
"3. UNSC draft resolution on cw: Hamdoon expressed strong Iraqi preference for statement by UNSC President to a resolution. Iraqi's beleive that resolution would be subject to many compromises and would cause "Baloo" about cw issue, while Presidential statement could be clearly drafted and could include CW as one of three or four elements. Iraq believed Presidential statement should include: 1) Mention of former UNSC resolutions on the war, including Res 540; strong call for progress toward ending war through ceasefire or negotiations; 3) reference to cw without mentioning any specific "country". On latter point, Hamdoon referred to report of UN mission to Iran as precedent in not mentioning Iraq. Hamdoun said statement should treat cw as "unqualified issue" and make general point of attempting to stop spread of C@ use. Iraq would not be held responsible for continuing war or specifically blamed. Hamdoun felt that this approach was not far from Present UNSC efforts."

See

http://www.gwu.edu/~nsarchiv/NSAEBB/NSAEBB82/iraq54.pdf

or see Document 54
http://www.gwu.edu/~nsarchiv/NSAEBB/NSAEBB82/

March 30-
"The Security Council had decided to issue the draft Dutch resolution on CW - as a statement by SC President.

IO/UNP informs us that this will be done at 10:30 a.m. today, without debate.

The statement, by the way contains all three elements Hamdoon wanted
Allen Overmyer NEA/RA"

http://www.gwu.edu/~nsarchiv/NSAEBB/NSAEBB82/iraq51.pdf
or see Document 51
http://www.gwu.edu/~nsarchiv/NSAEBB/NSAEBB82/

[American Visitor]

Guest,

I said which ever side had the US on it's side in the Iran Iraq war would have easily won. I didn't say anything about easily winning the Korean war, the situations were entirely different. North Korea was supported by China which has always been a major world power.

You're probably right regarding the sequence between the war and Reagan's inauguration. At the time I was not much concerned about the Iran Iraq war since neither country was our ally at the time and we had no reason to get involved.

If you want to know Jimmy Carter's attitude towards the war you would have to ask him or find documents from his administration about it. To me, when you give the green light to a project, that means someone else has plans and you indicate you will not do anything to stop them. I doubt Jimmy Carter was much different than other Americans when we heard of the war, it was between two countries who were our enemies and was not any of our concern. When a country targets my country as it's enemy, it is presumptive for the people of that country to expcet us to turn around and try to protect them or even side with them when attacked by a third party. The present government of Iran is our sworn enemy and we owe Iran nothing. The fact Iran received American made parts for their weapons during that time showed that people here didn't realize just how evil that regime was, otherwise we would have taken more steps to stop their transfer to Iran.

I believe we have already agreed the US did support Iraq to a limited extent when it appeared Iraq was going to lose and Iran was going to invade Iraq. I understand Khomeini wanted to depose Saddam and replace him with a leader of Khomeini's choosing, probably another Shiite cleric. The US didn't think that was in our interest then, and no subsequent events have given any indication that assessment was wrong. That we didn't give either side strong support is also well documented in the material we have seen.

The ones who started the war and continued it were Khomeini and Haussein. They had many reasons to do so, including the need to occupy the jobless young men who otherwise would have time to sit around and think about the fact they weren't free. One reason Iran is having trouble is that they have no war to occupy their citizens, that is one reason they are trying to stir up trouble with the US now. Terrorism is a nice diversion to direct anger and hatred away from the true cause of a counties miseries.

[Guest]

"The United States was the sole country to vote against a 1986 Security Council statement condemning Iraq's use of mustard gas against Iranian troops--an atrocity in which it now emerges the United States was directly implicated (as we shall see below)."

http://www.findarticles.com/cf_0/m1132/1_55/101290781/p8/article.jhtml?term=

This information is very interesting, in light of how the US government has recently postured in the UN over CW use.

Isn't it ridiculous to imagine that the US government does these things as a matter of principle?

[American Visitor]

Guest,

The article you posted sounded plausible at first, till you turn the page and find statements which clearly are incorrect. They said: "It is ironic to hear the United States today talk of Saddam Hussein's attacks on the Kurds in 1988. These attacks had their full support" This shows the article is not an unbiased source of information. I further checked and it appears it was produced by a Marxist leaning group. Although I didn't spend a great deal of time reading their material, it appears they hold conspiracy theories about how the US is interested in controlling Iraqi oil which is also bunk.

I'm not sure what the extent of our trade with Saddam was in the time period we are discussing. I believe Saddam did purchase chemicals which could be turned into mustard gas from various countries and I think an American company did sell him some stuff, but I don't know the extent of the trade. I understand mustard gas is quite easy to produce, so I'm not sure if Saddam needed much help.

[American Visitor]

I believe the following articles are probably correct regarding the Iraqi use of poisinous gas.

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

http://www.fas.org/nuke/guide/iraq/cw/program.htm

The Stockholm Report was dated 1984 so it is not subject to subsequent marxist revisionism. It contains the following statement:
The ICRC statement came two days after the US State Department had announced that "the US Government has concluded that the available evidence indicates that Iraq has used lethal chemical weapons". Iraq had denounced the Washington statement as "political hypocrisy", "full of lies", a fabrication by the CIA, and had suggested that the hospital patients examined by the ICRC had "sustained the effects of these substances in places other than the war front."
This seems to differ from the picture you are trying to establish that the US had full knowledge and supported Iraq's chemical programs.

[Guest]

[American Visitor]

Guest,

I actually put the second reference in as a general discussion of poison gas, not as a reference regarding our reaction to their use.

The evidence from your first site http://www.gwu.edu/~nsarchiv/NSAEBB/NSAEBB82/ indicates the US did indeed condemn Iraq's use of poisonous gas and took steps to prevent US companies from selling Iraq precurser chemicals. The same source also says we limited our sales of weapons to Iraq. Our loans to Iraq were limited compared to the support from other Gulf States. The facts in your source fits with my memory of the real events as they transpired.

The second source http://www.gwu.edu/~nsarchiv/NSAEBB/NSAEBB82/iraq50.pdf discusses the need for the UN to continue mediation to end the conflict. I can also agree with that.

The third source http://www.gwu.edu/~nsarchiv/NSAEBB/NSAEBB82/iraq54.pdf
also discussed the need for the war to end and emphasized the need to put pressure on Iran to end the war as well as condemn poison gas. It also mentions US bans on chemical precursers for poison gas.

The fourth source http://www.gwu.edu/~nsarchiv/NSAEBB/NSAEBB82/iraq51.pdf
also calls for a cease fire and an end to the war.

To me this information appears to support my own personal memory of the situation that Americans thought the war was destructive and a danger to the security of the whole region. Because Iran had broken one of the most well established tenants of international law by taking embassy personnel hostage, had labeled us as their primary enemy the "Great Satan," and because Iranians were constantly shouting "Death to America" we had no desire to see Iran destroy Iraq. On the other hand we couldn't support the use of chemical weapons by either side and openly condemned them. Considering the difficult position our leaders were in, I'd say they got things about right. I'm not sure how they could have done better.

[Guest]

Reagan, National Security Decision Directive (NSDD) 99, signed on July 12, 1983

http://www.gwu.edu/~nsarchiv/NSAEBB/NSAEBB82/iraq21.pdf

This document is stamped "secret" (probably not as a reminder that there are no conspiracies), and is so heavily censored, that there is not much left in it to read (probably not in honor of its ability to convice us that they were "getting it right").

[Guest]

"United State Department of State

Washington, D.C.

November 1, 1983

We have recently received additional information confirming Iraqi use of chemical weapons. We also know that Iraq has acquired a CW productions capability, primarily from Western firms, including possibly a U.S. foreign subsidy. In keeping with our policy of seeking to halt CW use wherever it occurs, we are considering the most effective means to halt Iraqi CW use, including, as a first step, a direct approach to Iraq. This would be consistent with the way we handled the initial CW use information from Southeast Asia and Afghanistan, i.e., private demarches to the Lao, Vietnamese and Soviets.

As you are aware, presently Iraq is at a disadvantage in its war of attrition with Iran. After a recent SIG meeting on the war, a discussion paper was sent to the White House for an NSC meeting (possibly Wednesday or Thursday this week), a section of which outlines a number of measures we might take to assist Iraq. At our suggestion, the issue of Iraqi CW use will be added to the agenda for this meeting.

If the NSC decides measures are to be undertaken to assist Iraq, our best present chance of influencing cessation of CW use may be in the context of informing Iraq of these measures.

It is important, however, that we approach Iraq very soon in order to maintain the credibility of U.S. policy on CW, as well as to reduce or halt what now appears to be Iraq's almost daily use of CW."

http://www.gwu.edu/~nsarchiv/NSAEBB/NSAEBB82/iraq24.pdf

Note two items:

1) The main concern about taking a position on CW use appears to involve maintaining credibility, rather than humanitarian concerns.

Neverthless, the argument that the US should use the prospect of US assistance as leverage to halt or limit Saddam's use of Chemical Weapons, apparently didn't make headway: As the Iraqi regime escalated CW use, it seems that US gov. support for Saddam actually increased.

2) The use of CW is mentioned in nearly "the same breath" as the need to assist Iraq.

This association is probably not accidental.[/i]

[American Visitor]

Guest,

It is my understanding that Saddam wanted to end the war 4 to 5 years before Khomeini did. The interests of Iraq and the United States to end the war were the same at that time. From that time forward, the sole responsibility for the many deaths which occurred were completely the responsibility of Khomeini and Iran. This was not ever our war since we did not consider either side our ally.

I really see no difficulty in the position papers you have posted. The US was clearly not supporting the use of CW. The fact that Saddam continued to use CW is not surprising since our influence over him was always limited.

So long as countries engage in warfare, there will be state secrets. This is used as an excuse to indulge in conspiracy theories. I have had extensive exposure to many conspiracy theories. For people who want to hate others, conspiracy theories are great because they can say and believe anything about those they hate and not have to support their allegations by facts. It is always curious how the one making the theory has managed to gain detailed inside information about this super secret organization or group and spread it widely without fear of retribution and yet no one else seems to be able to ever confirm the information. I believe conspiracy theories say more about the evil intent of the ones who make up the theories than they do about their targets. Before people commit atrocities against others they have to dehumanize their victims, and conspiracy theories are almost always part of this process.

[Guest]

Excerpts from text that was originally blocked out of an unclassified State Department document, dated Nov 21 1983.

http://www.gwu.edu/~nsarchiv/NSAEBB/NSAEBB82/iraq25.pdf

Blocked out sections are in bold:

Issue for Decision:

Whether to instruct USINT Baghdad to raise issue of Iraqi CW use and urge cessation.

Essential factors:

We have recently received additional information confirming Iraqi use of chemical weapons (CW). <b>We also know that Iraq has acquired a CW production capability from western firms, including possibly a U.S. foreign subsidiar.</b> (A cable detailing U.S. CW policy and available information on Iraqi use of CW is at Tab 2.) In keeping with our policy of seeking a halt to CW use wherever it occurs, we have been considering the most effective means to halt further Iraqi CW use including, as a first step, a direct approach to Iraq.

In October Iran accused Iraq of using CW and on November 8 it requested UNSYG to investigate. Iran also stated it would soon submit a report providing information and evidence on Iraqi CW use, but has not yet done so. We do not know whether or when this issue will develop further at the UN. It is important to make our approach to the Iraqis on this issue as early as possible, in order to deter Iraqi use of CW <b> as well as to avoid unpleasantly surprising Iraq through public positions we may have to take on this issue</b>.

If you approve the demarche to Iraq, we will submit further recommendations for your consideration on how to handle the issue in the UN if it arises there <b> as well as on whether we should raise with selected European governments the fact that national firms are selling to Iraq CW production related technology</b>

-Note: The blocked out text reveals that the US does not wish to punish Iraq for CW use, a position conveniently reversed well after the (desired) damage was already inflicted.

The State Department's Ideas here didn't seem to carry the day. Case in point: During Donald Rumsfeld's subsequent meeting with Saddam Hussein, chemical weapons were apparently not even brought up.

[Guest]

Note:

The parts of these documents that were blocked out were originally withheld by the US government.

It seems that researcher Joyce Battle had to go to the Supreme Court to obtain some of the documents, after Washington tried to censor them - which might suggest that the US government itself doesn't "see no difficulty in the position papers".

These worries don't appear to be completely justified; information arriving at the brain from the five senses, can still be censored.

[American Visitor]

Guest.

To me it appears the US was right on in this document. The first paragraph says, "In keeping with our policy of seeking a halt to CW use whenever it occurs, we have been considering the most effective means to halt further Iraqi CW use..." That set the tone for the whole message.

At the bottem of a later page a partially blocked out paragraph says, "the Soviets have equipped and trained the Iraqi forces to fight in a CW environment."

The final blocked out area reads, "Heretofore we have limited our efforts against the Iraqi CW program to close monitoring because of our strict neutrality in the Gulf war, the sensitivity of sources and the low probability of achieving desired results....nontheless, on the basis of open source reporting now available there may be steps we and others could take to deter further Iraqi use of prohibited CW."

There were many countries involved in the war, to me the US doesn't appear to be a major player.

[stefania]

Alaa, http://messopotamia.blogspot.com

Hi,

I see that the Arabic Media are concentrating now at trying to represent the outrages as typical and systematic practices by the American and Coalitions forces, there are interviews and feverish efforts to that end. These efforts need to be counteracted with great vigour.

No real proof, mostly just propaganda, though there have been some interviews of some ex-prisoners with all sorts of allegations (c.f. LBC, interview with Mohammed Al Zubaidi) - although LBC is one of the more moderate stations. How about countering by publishing some of the tons of evidence of Saddams abuses in Iraq, which the Arabs saw no reason to protest about for many years.


Zayed, http://healiniraq.blogspot.com, uses Irony..

Al-Jazeera and free speech
What is with this worldwide Zionist imperialist conspiracy against Al-Jazeera station? I fail to comprehend it. Is it because it dares to speak the 'truth'? You should know that the 'truth' hurts.

Is it because it dares to 'twist' the facts just a little bit in order to please and satisfy the raging Arab masses? You should know by now that Arabs are fond of rhetoric and of being cast in the role of victims.
Is it because of its highly successful coverage of the US war against Iraq? You should know that Al-Sahaf was right and that there was not one tank in Baghdad on April 9.

Is it because of its exclusive privileges to air videotapes and messages from every criminal and sick organisation in the Arab and Muslim world? You should be proud of Al-Jazeera's cosy relationship with terrorists.

Is it because it keeps complaining about the US occupation of Iraq while not mentioning a single word about US bases in Qatar (the very country it is broadcasting from) and other Arab countries? You should know that Arab regimes are always right.

Is it because of its self-describing motto which says 'Opinion, and the other opinion' which is never ever the case? Is it because it claims to be objective and unbiased when it clearly refers to thugs and criminals in Iraq as 'resistance fighters'?

Is it because it tends to describe Iraqis killed by US forces as Shahids, whereas those hundreds of Iraqis killed by suicide bombers and insurgents are just 'killed'? You should know that the life of a Muslim is cheap when it is taken by another Muslim as long as it is in the name of Allah.

Is it because it calls suicide bombings in Iraq and Israel as Shahada operations, whereas those in other Arab countries are acts of 'terrorism'? You should know that Al-Jazeera has employed renowned clerics who can issue instant fatwas to distinguish Jihad from terrorism.

Is it because it reports rumours and eye witness accounts as facts without bothering to offer proof or explanation afterwards? You should know that isn't necessary as long as it achieves the desired effect.

Is it because of the tendency of its anchors to quickly shut up every guest or participator in its programs who mentions or criticises an Arab leader, and to say "Please please, let's not mention names"? You should know that Arab leaders are flawless and beyond any reproach.

Please Mr. Imperialist Zionist, you should encourage our blossoming attempts of free speech not suppress them.

Omar, http://iraqthemodel.blogspot.com

About Abu Gharib.
Every time I see these pictures that show some American soldiers and officers abusing and humiliating Iraqi prisoners I feel very upset and disgusted. Many of you wanted to know how we feel about those crimes and the people responsible for them and my opinion is simply this: those soldiers must be brought to justice and punished.

There are tens of thousands of coalition soldiers in Iraq, and of course not all of them are pure angels; they’re tough warriors among whom we can find the good and the evil, and the evil are always less but unfortunately, they draw more attention just like a small black point on a white paper and this applies to any group of human beings anywhere on this planet. That’s why we should not generalize this to the whole coalition soldiers. I’m not trying to defend the coalition here; I just want to show my point of view in an objective way.

The way the Arabic media handled this incident reminds me of the way they handled the barbaric crime in Fallujah a month ago, they tried to show that all the people in Fallujah supported that crime which they called “resistance” and now they’re trying to make Iraqis believe that all the soldiers of the “occupation forces” are involved in this atrocity and that every single soldier in the coalition can’t wait to seize the chance to humiliate Iraqis.

The media seems to be always trying to exaggerate things and to describe any violent action from Iraqis (or Arabs) as “resistance” and any violent action from the coalition as “crimes of the occupiers” to make a good story that sells or that serves their masters' objectives. Anyway, this is not the subject I want to talk about today.
I want to tell you that I felt great relief when I saw and heard the highest-ranking officials in the coalition apologize to the Iraqi people for what a small group of their soldiers did and assuring us that there will be serious investigations to expose those who committed the atrocities and to punish them the way they deserve.

What happened was awful, that’s true but I feel comfortable with the good intentions of the coalition leaders and people who rejected the crimes against the detainees.
Let me tell you this, under the past regime Iraqis were the victims of worse atrocities (by the hands of Iraqis) everyday but no one could say a word about that, now, nothing can be hidden from the people and no one can get away with his crimes. For the first time, law is starting to govern our country and this will force anyone to think twice before he plans to harm someone or break the law in any way.

The crime was a step backwards but the way it’s being dealt with is-in my opinion-a step forwards on the way to strengthen the trust between the coalition and the Iraqis because this will help putting an end to many of the (conspiracy theory) supported ideas that many Iraqis have in their minds and this will tell Iraqis that the Americans are not hiding facts about their soldiers behavior here and once they feel that something wrong is happening they will move to correct it.
_________________
Referendum AFTER Regime Change

"I'm ready to die for you to be able to say your own opinions, even if i strongly disagree with you" (Voltaire)