CIA Files Prove U.S. Helped Saddam as He Gassed Iran

[revelarts]

CIA Files Prove America Helped Saddam as He Gassed Iran
The U.S. knew Hussein was launching some of the worst chemical attacks in history -- and still gave him a hand.


The U.S. government may be considering military action in response to chemical strikes near Damascus. But a generation ago, America's military and intelligence communities knew about and did nothing to stop a series of nerve gas attacks far more devastating than anything Syria has seen, Foreign Policy has learned.

In 1988, during the waning days of Iraq's war with Iran, the United States learned through satellite imagery that Iran was about to gain a major strategic advantage by exploiting a hole in Iraqi defenses. U.S. intelligence officials conveyed the location of the Iranian troops to Iraq, fully aware that Hussein's military would attack with chemical weapons, including sarin, a lethal nerve agent.

The intelligence included imagery and maps about Iranian troop movements, as well as the locations of Iranian logistics facilities and details about Iranian air defenses. The Iraqis used mustard gas and sarin prior to four major offensives in early 1988 that relied on U.S. satellite imagery, maps, and other intelligence. These attacks helped to tilt the war in Iraq's favor and bring Iran to the negotiating table, and they ensured that the Reagan administration's long-standing policy of securing an Iraqi victory would succeed. But they were also the last in a series of chemical strikes stretching back several years that the Reagan administration knew about and didn't disclose.

U.S. officials have long denied acquiescing to Iraqi chemical attacks, insisting that Hussein's government never announced he was going to use the weapons. But retired Air Force Col. Rick Francona, who was a military attaché in Baghdad during the 1988 strikes, paints a different picture.
Don't Miss
Read the Secret CIA Files

"The Iraqis never told us that they intended to use nerve gas. They didn't have to. We already knew," he told Foreign Policy.

According to recently declassified CIA documents and interviews with former intelligence officials like Francona, the U.S. had firm evidence of Iraqi chemical attacks beginning in 1983. At the time, Iran was publicly alleging that illegal chemical attacks were carried out on its forces, and was building a case to present to the United Nations. But it lacked the evidence implicating Iraq, much of which was contained in top secret reports and memoranda sent to the most senior intelligence officials in the U.S. government. The CIA declined to comment for this story.

In contrast to today's wrenching debate over whether the United States should intervene to stop alleged chemical weapons attacks by the Syrian government, the United States applied a cold calculus three decades ago to Hussein's widespread use of chemical weapons against his enemies and his own people. The Reagan administration decided that it was better to let the attacks continue if they might turn the tide of the war. And even if they were discovered, the CIA wagered that international outrage and condemnation would be muted.

In the documents, the CIA said that Iran might not discover persuasive evidence of the weapons' use -- even though the agency possessed it. Also, the agency noted that the Soviet Union had previously used chemical agents in Afghanistan and suffered few repercussions....
read more at
http://www.foreignpolicy.com/articles/2013/08/25/secret_cia_files_prove_america_helped_saddam_as_he _gassed_iran


So we are outraged... OUTRAGED when someone we DON"T want to win uses Gas.
At that point it's a true War crime against humanity that must not be allowed. AND WMDS in the hand of an ENEMY:eek:!!!
Buuut if it's against a worse enemy well... you have to be pragmatic about these things...
enemy of my enemy is not really a war criminal. Say no mooore, wink wink, mums the word aye!?

Political Games on the chemical weapons issue. Selective enforcement. Work the public up into a war frenzy if an M.E. country still MAYBE HAS the weapons but don't play nice anymore. But keep silent and overlook it's use if it suit our publicly unspoken purposes.

What's the real agenda today folks? Is this a republic anymore at all?

[revelarts]

http://www.libertystickers.com/static/images/Join-the-CIA.gif

[Gaffer]

In answer to your last question, no it's not. This is the USSA, the obamanation. The govt is in charge. Both houses have sold out, the courts are a joke. What part of all that looks like a republic.

[Marcus Aurelius]

Okay, lets see if I have this...

Democrats are evil.

Republicans are evil.

Government is evil.


Does that about cover it?

[revelarts]

Okay, lets see if I have this...

Democrats are evil.

Republicans are evil.

Government is evil.


Does that about cover it?
Marcus are you saying that only the republicans are GOOD?

but no i think your close

Democrats have done evil.
Republicans have done evil.
The people have chosen teams and allowed themselves to be blinded their teams sins.
Some Government employees and leaders have become so used to it that they do more and more evil but the mask of good is slipping.

[logroller]

CIA Files Prove America Helped Saddam as He Gassed Iran
The U.S. knew Hussein was launching some of the worst chemical attacks in history -- and still gave him a hand.



So we are outraged... OUTRAGED when someone we DON"T want to win uses Gas.
At that point it's a true War crime against humanity that must not be allowed. AND WMDS in the hand of an ENEMY:eek:!!!
Buuut if it's against a worse enemy well... you have to be pragmatic about these things...
enemy of my enemy is not really a war criminal. Say no mooore, wink wink, mums the word aye!?

Political Games on the chemical weapons issue. Selective enforcement. Work the public up into a war frenzy if an M.E. country still MAYBE HAS the weapons but don't play nice anymore. But keep silent and overlook it's use if it suit our publicly unspoken purposes.

What's the real agenda today folks? Is this a republic anymore at all?

It's not selective enforcement when there wasn't a chemical weapons treaty in force until 1993. Syria still hasn't signed fwiw. Whereas Iraq has, they had not when he gased the kurds in 1988 nor, as per the OP, in the course of war with Iran-- that's why Saddam was charged with violence against civilians as a violation of the Geneva convention and not chemical weapons use per se. That he was capable and willing to use chemical weapons was an aggravating circumstance to his failure to comply with un resolutions, including forestalling compliance Chemical Weapons Agreement, that were binding conditions of the 1991 cease-fire ending of the Gulf War.

As for Syria, it seems the same rule could be applied: that unless civilians are specifically targeted and aren't just collateral casualties, its difficult to prove that any violation of international law has occurred. Hence why all the hoopla over timing of the investigation-- its too easy for either side to corrupt the scene by planting/ hiding evidence. Shoot, near as I can tell all theres proof of in Syria are symptoms, not chemical traces; and I know that many such symptoms can result from a variety of chemicals, not necessarily the result of weaponization. Its a civil war, after all, and its very likely that there are combatants amongst civilians, even using civilians as cover or other acts of subterfuge to paint the other guy as BAD. In the end its just too difficult to say one or another. Chemical weapons are BAD, but its a difficult case to prove that Assad's broke any law or treaty. Bottom-line, Obama put his foot in his mouth on the red-line comment and now he's in a an untenable position.

[Tyr-Ziu Saxnot]

In answer to your last question, no it's not. This is the USSA, the obamanation. The govt is in charge. Both houses have sold out, the courts are a joke. What part of all that looks like a republic. We kept it a Republic right up until Obama took the reins. -Tyr

http://personalliberty.com/2010/06/18/a-republic-if-you-can-keep-it/ "A Republic—If You Can Keep It"June 18, 2010 by Chip Wood (http://personalliberty.com/author/chipwoodpl/)

http://plimages.blob.core.windows.net/article-images/vote_button_image.jpg
At first I couldn’t believe my eyes.
In fact, I had to look away and blink a couple of times before reading the email again. But it still said the same thing: “Benjamin Franklin said, ‘We have given you a democratic-republic… if you can keep it.”
No, he didn’t!
I had to face the fact: A Straight Talk reader had fallen victim to 100 years of liberal brainwashing. What he said was such a gross perversion of the truth—and the difference is so incredibly important to preserving what liberties we have left—I hope you’ll indulge me in a brief history lesson this week.
If you remember much from your high school history classes about the founding of this country, you know there was a great deal of controversy about what type of government the newly independent states should create.
The first effort, the Articles of Confederation, was generally regarded as a failure. But what should replace them? Each state sent a group of representatives to meet in Philadelphia and hammer out a new agreement. The deliberations of the Constitutional Convention in 1787 were held in strict secrecy. Consequently, anxious citizens gathered outside Independence Hall when the proceedings ended, eager to learn what had been produced behind those closed doors.
As the delegates left the building, a Mrs. Powel of Philadelphia asked Benjamin Franklin, “Well, Doctor, what have we got?”
With no hesitation, Franklin replied, “A republic, if you can keep it.” Not a democracy, not a democratic republic. But “a republic, if you can keep it.”
Over the past four decades I have recounted this story several hundred times. For many years I traveled the country giving speeches about the threats to this Republic. I always enjoyed the opportunity to talk to high school students when I could wrangle an invitation. When I did, I loved to tell them about the differences between a republic and a democracy.
“A lynch mob is democracy in action,” I would say. “While if you believe someone is innocent until proven guilty, that they deserve their day in court and that a jury of their peers should decide their fate, then you believe in a nation of laws, not just the whims of a mob.”
Another line I used a lot was, “Democracy is five wolves and a sheep voting on what to have for lunch. If you were the sheep, which would you rather live in—a republic or a democracy?”
I told them about the importance of “binding men down with the chains of a Constitution.” That this was the only sure way to protect their freedom. And that anyone who wanted to change this republic into a democracy was an enemy of liberty.
A century or two earlier there would have been no need to give such a talk—and no interest if one did. Back in the 18th and 19th centuries, every American who could read and write (and probably most of those who couldn’t), knew we were a republic. The campaign to brainwash us into believing we were a democracy didn’t begin until 100 years ago. Today, if you take a poll of high school or college students, the overwhelming majority will tell you that we are a democracy.
Please don’t dismiss this as a mere quarrel over semantics. Understanding the difference between the two systems of government is absolutely vital. I am not exaggerating when I tell you that our very liberties depend on getting more Americans to realize the importance of this seemingly arcane dispute.
Our Founding Fathers Feared And Hated Democracy
Most high school students who heard me say such a thing were surprised and shocked. They had been taught that the United States was, and had always been, a democracy. That “majority rule” was the fairest of all possible forms of government.
Who was this guy to tell them they’d been lied to?
So I quoted what some of our founding fathers had to say. I asked if they had heard of The Federalist Papers—the collection of articles written during the debate over ratifying the new constitution.
In Federalist No. 10, James Madison, often referred to as “the father of the Constitution,” had this to say:
“…democracies have ever been spectacles of turbulence and contention; have ever been found incompatible with personal security or the rights of property; and have in general been as short in their lives as they are violent in their deaths.”
Alexander Hamilton concurred. In a speech he gave in June 1788, urging ratification of the Constitution, he thundered:
“The ancient democracies in which the people themselves deliberated never possessed one good feature of government. Their very character was tyranny; their figure deformity.”
Fisher Ames, a member of Congress during the eight years that George Washington was president, wrote an essay called “the Mire of Democracy.” In it, he said that the framers of the Constitution “intended our government should be a republic, which differs more widely from a democracy than a democracy from despotism.”
Yes, our founding fathers were well aware of the differences between a republic and a democracy. They revered the former; but as I said above, they hated and feared the latter.
In view of the founders’ ardent convictions, it is no surprise that you cannot find the word “democracy” anywhere in the Declaration of Independence or the Constitution of the U.S. Indeed, the Constitution not only proclaimed that our Federal government should be a republic; it went further and mandated that “The United States shall guarantee to every State in this Union a republican form of government.”

[Truth Detector]

CIA Files Prove America Helped Saddam as He Gassed Iran
The U.S. knew Hussein was launching some of the worst chemical attacks in history -- and still gave him a hand.



So we are outraged... OUTRAGED when someone we DON"T want to win uses Gas.
At that point it's a true War crime against humanity that must not be allowed. AND WMDS in the hand of an ENEMY:eek:!!!
Buuut if it's against a worse enemy well... you have to be pragmatic about these things...
enemy of my enemy is not really a war criminal. Say no mooore, wink wink, mums the word aye!?

Political Games on the chemical weapons issue. Selective enforcement. Work the public up into a war frenzy if an M.E. country still MAYBE HAS the weapons but don't play nice anymore. But keep silent and overlook it's use if it suit our publicly unspoken purposes.

What's the real agenda today folks? Is this a republic anymore at all?

The article is part of a long line of incredible lies used by the anti-AmerKa cabal who parrot terrorist talking points.

Reagan and the US did not have a policy to ensure Iraqi success any more than it wanted to see an Iranian success. Our policy was that NEITHER side succeeded and the war would end in stalemate; which was the final outcome.

The US had no love for the Iranian regime that violated International laws and decency by attacking our embassy and imprisoning our citizens any more than the ire we carried for the brutal regime of Sadsam Hussein and his megalomania.

I am amused by similar lies that we somehow armed Saddams regime; we didn't. That would be the Russians.

But the fairy tales from the ME are always interesting in that gullible Westerners who are more inclined to hate America than they are the despots and terrorists committing the real atrocities in the ME gleefully parrot such nonsense.

European Imperialism helped set the table; Soviet Russian global domination armed the despots and the vaunted UN sat on its collective hands as Arab legions attempted to destroy the tiny sliver of land called Israel they helped to create just years befire. And yet, everyone wishes to pretend it is Americas fault. How trite, how simplistic; how clueless.

[Gaffer]

The article is part of a long line of incredible lies used by the anti-AmerKa cabal who parrot terrorist talking points.

Reagan and the US did not have a policy to ensure Iraqi success any more than it wanted to see an Iranian success. Our policy was that NEITHER side succeeded and the war would end in stalemate; which was the final outcome.

The US had no love for the Iranian regime that violated International laws and decency by attacking our embassy and imprisoning our citizens any more than the ire we carried for the brutal regime of Sadsam Hussein and his megalomania.

I am amused by similar lies that we somehow armed Saddams regime; we didn't. That would be the Russians.

But the fairy tales from the ME are always interesting in that gullible Westerners who are more inclined to hate America than they are the despots and terrorists committing the real atrocities in the ME gleefully parrot such nonsense.

European Imperialism helped set the table; Soviet Russian global domination armed the despots and the vaunted UN sat on its collective hands as Arab legions attempted to destroy the tiny sliver of land called Israel they helped to create just years befire. And yet, everyone wishes to pretend it is Americas fault. How trite, how simplistic; how clueless.

That's the argument I have made with him many times. His response will be, well yeah but...or he will wait a while present the same stuff again as if it has never been brought up before with even more "evidence".