I need help

[Mistress Quickly]

is this true? And how can I find out if it is? I've tried some googling, but can't seem to find anything else.
It is from a reichwing website, but keeps getting thrown in my face.

[ET Awful]

1. Simply point out that the rerport does NOT . . .

include precursors to chemical weapons, nor does it include biological agents (both of which were sold to Iraq with the full approval of both the Reagan and GHW Bush administrations). It also leaves out other dual-use equipment. Another thing conspicuosly missing is logistic support to help Saddam pinpoint Iranian troop positions so he could target them with chemical weapons more readily.

[Mistress Quickly]

5. Good points, thanks.

I'll try googling for some of that info.

[struggle4progress]

2. What's their source? They're making the claim. eom

[Mistress Quickly]

7. Its at the bottom of the table:

SIPRI (Stockholm International Peace Research Institute)

http://projects.sipri.se/armstrade/atirq_data.html

Of course, it could be spin (huh, imagine that!)

[struggle4progress]

13. Sorry. Missed that.

SIPRIs been around for a long time. It's been quite a while since I looked at any of their stuff, but if I remember correctly SIPRI isn't exactly leftist and is generally regarded as credible. The SIPRI data reported here is financial. The SIPRI data in the table indicate that essentially nobody supplied Iraq after 1990, so (as far as the SIPRI data can be trusted) the UN embargo was working, and of course the USSR collapsed around that time, so it's not clear what the USSR data means for us today, even if it's accurate.

SIPRI itself indicates that older yearbooks should not be quoted, since historical data is subject to revision as new info becomes available. Since there is likely to be a huge black-budget component to US arms transfers (and this has been a special problem since the Reagan years), accurate US data will be unavailable until there the data is declassified, which probably won't happen for at least 30 more years.

A selection of declassified Iraq material is available at
http://www.gwu.edu/~nsarchiv/special/iraq/index.htm

[redqueen]

3. But but but

I thought the war wasn't about oil!

[XNASA]

4. I just googled 'Iraq weapons trading'.....

And got lots of great links.

Here's one:

http://www.worldmessenger.20m.com/weapons.html

How 'bout this one?

http://web.amnesty.org/pages/ttt4-article_7-eng

[Mistress Quickly]

6. Thanks

Especially that second one. Britain isn't even on the one I posted, but apparently sold quite a bit of pre-cursors to Iraq according to that link.

[never cry wolf]

8. Actually, I don't see the point?

I looked up the SIPRI and they are legit and offer alot of info on worldwide armamnets, but I couldn't find this graph.

I just don't see what their point is. Iraq had to buy arms from someone. At the start of this time period we were supplying the shah with US manufactured arms so it's only natural the sadaam would turn to the other major arms manufacturers. Once you start, you need to continue for the most part with the same suppliers for spare parts, upgrades, etc.

What point are they trying to get across? Because he didn't buy from us exclusively it shows he was a threat to us?

[Mistress Quickly]

11. Their point was

that the countries who opposed us on the UNSC did so because of their oil interests (not this chart) and such things as their arms trading with Iraq.

The chart was put together with the info from th SIPRI site.

This is the origin for the chart:
http://www.thedissidentfrogman.com/dacha/index.html

Told ya it was reichwing, but the info is legitimate from the SIPRI site, but like I said, it is apparent they just spun it to fit their views.

[never cry wolf]

15. Point out to them that

those same countires actually participated in GWI as well as the sanctions.

Besides, how would you react if an invading superpower was intent on making null and void existing legitimate contracts for oil infrastructure and oil trade. If Russia had a beef with Saudi Arabia and wanted to invade it (and restructure thier oil industry in the process) would we help them?

These guys are actually arguing that is WAS a war for oil (as we all knew by the RW denied.) A war for oil that we started.

[WilliamPitt]

9. Where's the graph that shows who gave battlefield intel to Iraq?

[NMDemDist2]

10. a careful read here may help

The arms trade data base was the most difficult one to establish. The published trade statistics of the main exporters were useless: typically arms exports were buried in some category such as miscellaneous metal manufactures. Trade statistics from the importing side were of no help–although they were all examined. A note on the examination of the official statistics of Bahrain reads: ‘The only possible items of military use separately categorised in Bahrain’s import figures are horses and donkeys; unfortunately it is not possible to separate out those used for military purposes’.

The only other route was to build up a register of identified transactions from other sources. This required a search through a wide range of journals–particularly those which could be regarded as the trade journals of the major arms producers. This method proved to be more productive than the SIPRI arms trade research team expected in establishing a register of the trade in major weapon systems–planes, tanks, ships and missiles. (It soon became clear that there was no hope of constructing any reasonable picture of the trade in small arms.) This system, of using unofficial sources of this kind, required a good deal of ‘reliability assessment’: the general rule followed was that there had to be at least two, and preferably three, independent reports (although it was not easy to be certain that reports were in fact independent). Detective work was needed. For example, a report appears that North Korea is exporting a particular type of tank to Iran. Does North Korea produce these tanks itself, under licence? Perhaps China is exporting these tanks, via North Korea, so as to conceal its involvement? A second report, in another journal, seems independent, in that the numbers given are different. This was the kind of assessment of data required.
http://about.sipri.se/history/History_yearbook.html

[Mistress Quickly]

12. Thanks

for finding that and pointing it out.

Du'ers are quick and smart.

[moondust]

14. Tanks from the USSR and chem/bio agents from the USA.

Size and quantity can be deceiving. Remember that during much of this period Saddam was "our boy".