Discover the best of the web!
Learn more about Digg by taking the tour.
How Ronald Reagan armed Saddam Hussein
counterpunch.org — By 1982, Iraq was removed from the list of terrorist sponsoring nations. By 1984, America was actively sharing military intelligence with Saddam's army. This aid included arming Iraq with potent weapons, providing satellite imagery of Iranian troops deployments and tactical planning for battles, assisting with air strikes,
yellowcakewalk- 138 diggs
- digg it
- caferrell, on 05/12/2008, -8/+25The USA, through the work of our now Secretary of Defense in his capacity as deputy director of the CIA coordinated with the Chilean arms manufacturer Carlos Cardoen to sell fuel air bombs, cluster bombs and 155 MM howitzers with state of the art ammunition to Saddam.
In fact the government went so far as to have the CIA pay Cardoen millions to build a munitions plant in Iraq which he did.
" For months now, we've been producing and broadcasting a series of reports setting forth how Iraq, during much of the 1980's and into the '90s, was able acquire sophisticated U.S. technology, intelligence material, ingredients for chemical weapons, indeed, entire weapon-producing plants, with the knowledge, acquiescence and sometimes even the assistance of the U.S. Government. Sometimes, I should add, in violation of U.S. law. With one notable exception, we continue to stand by everything we have reported to you, but that exception has to do with a man who is facing confirmation hearings that begin next Monday. Robert Gates is the man nominated to become the next director of Central Intelligence, and simple fairness requires that we address again and in a prominent fashion, at the beginning of this broadcast, a charge that we made against Mr. Gates back in July, namely, that he was deeply involved as deputy director of the CIA in a major covert operation that funneled weapons and technology to Iraq.
The day after that broadcast, we reported that the Senate source who had told us about the covert CIA operation had called to tell me that he was mistaken, that no such operation had been authorized.
We left standing, however, the allegation that Mr. Gates had personally met with the Chilean arms dealer, Carlos Cardoen, who was one of the biggest shippers of arms to Iraq in the world, and that Gates was intimately involved in the transfer of arms and technology to Iraq. As we told you at the time, the White House denied the charge; they denied it categorically: "Mr. Gates never met with Carlos Cardoen."
From http://www.jonathanpollard.org/1991/091391.htm
see also http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?file=/ch ...
http://es.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carlos_Cardoen- yellowcakewalk, on 05/12/2008, -7/+8Your store of knowledge never ceases to amaze, amigo.
- MarkusGarvey, on 05/12/2008, -6/+4rAmen....
- yellowcakewalk, on 05/12/2008, -7/+8Your store of knowledge never ceases to amaze, amigo.
- geddon, on 05/12/2008, -8/+24The United States of America: Arming Future Terrorists for the Wars of Tomorrow!
- aajjcckk, on 05/12/2008, -2/+4Yes. Really. It's all part of the grand plan. Until something wipes these ***** off the face of the earth. And by that I mean the fascists in the US government and military industrial complex not any alleged "terrorists" in other countries.
- 666dorado, on 05/12/2008, -5/+11sad thing is they're gonna probably have to put another 'saddam' in there to get this thing under control, but maybe that was the plan all along.
- AnokK, on 05/12/2008, -3/+4Yeah, us.
- zephyear, on 05/12/2008, -8/+26war on drugs, rise of the neocons, tripling our debt, and this
was there anything reagen did that wasn't terrible?- bosssmiley, on 05/12/2008, -6/+3"Bedtime for Bonzo" was ok.
coat > door > cab - Kizilbash, on 05/12/2008, -4/+12Don't forget arming, funding and training Osama bin Laden. Iran-Contra. Lebanon fiasco.
- JimmySpaza, on 05/12/2008, -13/+7The war on drugs was being fought long before Reagan took office. And it's REAGAN, not "reagen". Learn to spell, liberal.
There was no such thing as neocons back in the 80s. From your stupid comment, it is obvious you are less than 30 years old...otherwise you would have known such a thing.
Who controlled Congress in the 80s? Congress dictates how much gets spent and where. Come on, liberal...who controlled Congress for the vast majority of the 80s?
You can say it...D...E...M...O...C...R...A...T...S.
Zephyear...FAIL!- caferrell, on 05/12/2008, -2/+9Jimmy, does your post mean that you now oppose the neocons?
- JimmySpaza, on 05/13/2008, -1/+6Yes! I have always opposed all politicians who trash the Constitution and personal liberties to achieve their objectives.
This includes neocons who talk about small, limited government but then expand government and push America further into debt.
...and I don't think that I ever did support neocons and their policies in general. Maybe one or two neocon politicians here and there when they got it right...but, in general, nope.- caferrell, on 05/13/2008, -1/+4Good deal Jimmy. Welcome aboard, now you just need to ditch the foreign interventionist thing and you will be a real conservative
- JimmySpaza, on 05/14/2008, -0/+3@ caferell
I don't like intervening into the affairs of foreign nations...and would only do so to directly protect America and her VERY CLOSE allies.
I don't like nation-building. I don't like open-ended war guarantees and commitments.
In short, I'd leave everyone alone unless they screw with us...then I'd wipe them off the map permanently.
The exception? Maybe if an oppressive government is murdering millions of people or persecuting them very badly...then I'd step in and take over the country, freeing the people. Maybe.
- JimmySpaza, on 05/13/2008, -1/+6Yes! I have always opposed all politicians who trash the Constitution and personal liberties to achieve their objectives.
- swrostmore, on 05/12/2008, -2/+9"There was no such thing as neocons back in the 80s" What an ignorant statement - the term neoconservative was coined in 1973. Norman Podheretz, considered the founding father of neoconservativism, popularized the movement in 1979.
- JimmySpaza, on 05/13/2008, -3/+6Nothing really exists in the political realm until it comes to power. And neocons didn't really come to power until the 90s.
Space flight was talked about back in the late 1800s...but didn't really exist until after World War II. Same deal...in my opinion.- caferrell, on 05/13/2008, -0/+4I agree Jimmy, there are many schools of thought that never progress beyond academe. So, until a theoretical political system leaves the halls of the intellectuals and enters into the mainstream it is not a movement.
The neocons had little or no influence on policy until the Clinton administration. - ZZeke, on 05/15/2008, -0/+1isn't HW Bush a neocon?
- caferrell, on 05/13/2008, -0/+4I agree Jimmy, there are many schools of thought that never progress beyond academe. So, until a theoretical political system leaves the halls of the intellectuals and enters into the mainstream it is not a movement.
- JimmySpaza, on 05/13/2008, -3/+6Nothing really exists in the political realm until it comes to power. And neocons didn't really come to power until the 90s.
- BlackBob, on 05/12/2008, -2/+2Calm down.
- caferrell, on 05/12/2008, -2/+9Jimmy, does your post mean that you now oppose the neocons?
- blast_flame, on 05/12/2008, -2/+7Pre-election speeches. He made great quotes. Too bad he never followed any of them.
- lostlyrics, on 05/15/2008, -0/+1Jay Leno makes great quotes too.
But remember what happened during the authors' strike :P
(e.g. reagan: "jimmy carter promised every family TWO cars.
they DO have them now. both from japan, both without fuel.")
while in real ronald was too untalented even to hold a chimp. :D
- lostlyrics, on 05/15/2008, -0/+1Jay Leno makes great quotes too.
- yellowcakewalk, on 05/12/2008, -3/+10He invaded the nutmeg capital of the world, Grenada, so that it wouldn't wipe America off the map. And don't forget the Iran-Contra Scandal, the Savings and Loan pillage, and the genocidal repression in Nicaragua and El Salvador.
- caferrell, on 05/13/2008, -0/+3I thought it was allspice, nutmeg comes from Indonesia.
Nutmeg might have been a valid reason for war, but allspice isn't worth it
- caferrell, on 05/13/2008, -0/+3I thought it was allspice, nutmeg comes from Indonesia.
- geogeer, on 05/12/2008, -6/+6Ummmm, I dunno... maybe bringing down Communist Russia? That must be unimportant.
- MisterFreeze, on 05/12/2008, -1/+6What was Reagan's strategy again? Oh that's right. Wait for communism to fail on its own.
- lostlyrics, on 05/15/2008, -0/+1regrettably not. he prolongued their existence by his blatantly blunt ignorance.
- zephyear, on 05/13/2008, -1/+5he didn't cause the collapse of the soviet union
Mikhail Gorbachev did, with Perestroik and Glasnost- lostlyrics, on 05/15/2008, -0/+1yeppers. despite being sabotated by bush (featuring the cheap b-movie star reagan
- herbert walker earned enough with zapata to get a better one. but his choice nicely
reflects the average american's intelligence in his view - not so high you know) and by
rumsfeld - yeah that dirtfinger fiddled mess in mid-east under gerald ford already (vomit)
- lostlyrics, on 05/15/2008, -0/+1yeppers. despite being sabotated by bush (featuring the cheap b-movie star reagan
- MisterFreeze, on 05/12/2008, -1/+6What was Reagan's strategy again? Oh that's right. Wait for communism to fail on its own.
- bosssmiley, on 05/12/2008, -6/+3"Bedtime for Bonzo" was ok.
- AlwaysAwake, on 05/12/2008, -7/+3Birds of a feather flock together. Notice anything about the lack of much company on the branches of the tree we're perched on now ? Perhaps many people and nations actually remember how we have behaved in the past, and flown away for good to another tree, where they are assembling now to do what ......??????????
- KyleRayner, on 05/12/2008, -5/+20What kind of doublespeak are you guys talking? We have always been at war with Iraq.
[/1984]- RanIntoTheDevil, on 05/12/2008, -1/+4The ministry of truth commends you.
- fancypantscz, on 05/12/2008, -6/+12The truth of the Regan administration is very important context for understnading what is happening today and its impact on the future. I think it is important that we don't turn this into a political blame game. Both Democrats and Republicans are selling massive amounts of sophisticated weapons to the Saudis and Israelis. People now may say this is counterbalancing Iran's rise and will ultimately maintain Middle Eastern stability. But if you look back and understand what has been going on in the region since WWII you might come to a different conclusion: war begets war, violence begets violence and more weapons always lead to further escalation.
Can I get a non-interventionist foreign policy please? I honestly don't think our reputation or economy or military can stand much more 'war on terror'.- Kizilbash, on 05/12/2008, -5/+6Reagan was arming Iraq AND Iran. Now THERE's a way to counterbalance...
- yellowcakewalk, on 05/12/2008, -7/+11Here's more about Saddam's chemical weapons, courtesy of, yes you guessed it:
http://digg.com/world_news/How_Reagan_Armed_Saddam ...
FTA "Even William Safire, the right-wing, war-mongering NYT columnist, on December 7, 1992, felt compelled to write that, "Iraqgate is uniquely horrendous: a scandal about the systematic abuse of power by misguided leaders of three democratic nations [the US, Britain and Italy] to secretly finance the arms buildup of a dictator".- lostlyrics, on 05/15/2008, -0/+1don't forget jaques chirac (at that time 'under' mitterand yet trying to sell mirage jets)
and the german riesenhuber eager to promote german nuclear plants - all wishiwashis
while the russians and chinese hoped for every drop oil spilled accidently toward them.
(soviets yet too busy cultivate their version of american ayatollah-phobia in afghanistan
china yet powerless with no influence there - they defeated the vietnamese invaders still)
- lostlyrics, on 05/15/2008, -0/+1don't forget jaques chirac (at that time 'under' mitterand yet trying to sell mirage jets)
- BohicaTwentyTwo, on 05/12/2008, -3/+7FTA: The Reagan administration allowed the Iraqis to buy a wide variety of "dual use" equipment and materials from American suppliers. The shopping list included a computerized database for Saddam's security police, helicopters to transport Iraqi officials, television cameras for video surveillance applications, chemical-analysis equipment for the Iraqi Atomic Energy Commission (IAEC), and numerous shipments of "bacteria/fungi/protozoa" to the IAEC. The bacteria cultures were used to make biological weapons, including anthrax.
So no weapons, huh. They got databases, video cameras, unarmed helicopters and some agricultural related bacterial cultures but no weapons. - AnokK, on 05/12/2008, -5/+4I actually wrote a whole piece about how we ended up in this mess, from Iraq coups to chemical and biological weapons, to preparing to go into Iraq in 2002. If anyone, cares, that is. Maybe I'll digg it myself! http://identitycheck-anok.blogspot.com/2008/02/mak ...
- Winston84, on 05/12/2008, -4/+8This is so inaccurate, Ronald Reagan didn't even know what film he was in !
His VeePee GHW Bush on the other hand ... After the son of one of GHW's business-contacts
tried to play "the lone nutcase" and assassinate Reagan guess who was really running the show ?
- hamobu, on 05/13/2008, -0/+2Bush sr. was actually OK president. When Soviet union collapsed, he was determined to ge gracious about it and to not make one side feel as if they lost.
- JimmySpaza, on 05/12/2008, -13/+9That's the way every president, both Republican and Democrat, has done business since after World War II.
I don't see you liberals whining about Kennedy's foray into Southeast Asia or Carter's bungling of Middle East relations.
I bet you leftwingers never said a word about Clinton's sending weapons all over the planet in an effort to effect policy behind the scenes.
You simply cannot stand the fact that Reagan is still so popular...and you Dems suck.- kemp34, on 05/12/2008, -2/+12For about 100 years, the U.S. has been pretty hyperactive in terms of foreign policy. It's a two-party problem. Blind partisanship does nothing to help the cause.
- JimmySpaza, on 05/13/2008, -0/+4Agreed. Principles should trump party affiliation every time.
- Arcesius, on 05/13/2008, -1/+1Wow, Jimmy. I can't believe I'm wholeheartedly agreeing with you.
- JimmySpaza, on 05/13/2008, -0/+4Agreed. Principles should trump party affiliation every time.
- yellowcakewalk, on 05/12/2008, -4/+8Spaz, you fail, and epically at that. We constantly harp on the criminality of USA foreign policy, from the Kennedy liberals, to Carter's weapons proliferation, to Clinton's genocide in East Timor and Iraq. The most unkind cut of all, was to call us Dems. You need to read some Chomsky and educate yourself, here's a great link from my friend Chomskyan:
http://www.youtube.com/chomskyan- JimmySpaza, on 05/13/2008, -2/+2Maybe YOU complain about ALL foreign policy evils regardless of the party of the President...but the majority of Democratic supporters do not. And many of those supporters are in Diggland here. THOSE are the liberals I was talking about.
If you point out the failures of ALL foreign policies regardless of political party, then I have respect for you...and might even agree with you.
But you and I both know that many (most?) politically active Digg users only complain when their party of choice is not in power, even when their president of choice does the same thing.
- JimmySpaza, on 05/13/2008, -2/+2Maybe YOU complain about ALL foreign policy evils regardless of the party of the President...but the majority of Democratic supporters do not. And many of those supporters are in Diggland here. THOSE are the liberals I was talking about.
- yellowcakewalk, on 05/12/2008, -4/+7P.S. regarding "You Dems can't stand that Reagan was so popular!".
Listen, douche bags, Mussolini was "popular".
Rasputin was "popular".
Napoleon was "popular".
Barry Manilow was "popular".
They were all abominations.- JimmySpaza, on 05/13/2008, -0/+3What?!? We were having a nice discussion about politics and foreign policy...and you had to go bring Barry Manilow into it. How DARE you?!? :-)
- ZZeke, on 05/15/2008, -1/+1Adolf Hitler is still popular, too - just turn on the history or military channels....
- kemp34, on 05/12/2008, -2/+12For about 100 years, the U.S. has been pretty hyperactive in terms of foreign policy. It's a two-party problem. Blind partisanship does nothing to help the cause.
- Homerr, on 05/12/2008, -3/+6Reagan took the military industrial complex to a new level.
- flossdaily, on 05/12/2008, -3/+10#1) Iran-Contra Affair
#2) Israel knocked out Iraq's nuclear facilities- that's why Saddam didn't have nukes.
#3) Iran-Contra Affair - look it up. Really, young people. High Treason in the Reagan administration.- yellowcakewalk, on 05/12/2008, -3/+4#4) Terrorist war against Nicaragua ( see Contras )
#5) Pillaged the Savings and Loans, left taxpayers to pay for it
#6) Traded arms to Iran for hostages
#7) Genocide against El Salvador ( supported the Arena terrorists )
- yellowcakewalk, on 05/12/2008, -3/+4#4) Terrorist war against Nicaragua ( see Contras )
- motters, on 05/12/2008, -2/+5In the late 1980s the UK tried to sell a massive "supergun" to Iraq - see http://news.bbc.co.uk/onthisday/hi/dates/stories/a ...
- Feralvision, on 05/13/2008, -1/+2http://www.gwu.edu/~nsarchiv/NSAEBB/NSAEBB82/iraq5 ...
- hamobu, on 05/13/2008, -2/+5US did not just arm Iraq. US actually armed both sides to maximize casualties and prolong suffering.
- moulin1, on 05/15/2008, -1/+1Not directly. Israel was feeding weapons to Iran (and the Contras too). All originating in the US.
Digg is coming to a city (and computer) near you! Check out all the details on our 
© Digg Inc. 2008 —
Content posted by