Chomsky- The US is a Terrorist State

U.S. Supplied Arms to Iraq, Ex-Aide Says - New York Times

Trajan Octavian Titus said:

even if he was a U.S. asset only sold $200 million dollars worth of weapons to Iraq

Click to expand...

And this is simply what has leaked.

The CIA has contacts all over the globe. Weapons can be coming from anywhere in the world, we still can have a hand in it so don't try to use the physical location of shipments as some sort of evidence against our support of Saddam during the 80's. There is no doubt that we were strategically aligned with Saddam during the 80's and hence it would be logical to believe a preeminent power like the USA was lining up lots of his supplies. We don't have to wait for our government to declassify information on this subject.

TheHonestTruth said:

We installed Saddam

Click to expand...

Damn, YOU did it, and I thought I just made it up to irritate Democrats:

After Edward Kennedy tells “Why not the Best” Jimmy Carter “now is not the time for Socialised Medicine,” and Reagan was too popular, the Old World Order Fabian Socialists must have figured that they needed a Jawbone to attack US. So the Old World Order Fabian Socialists create the Mujahideen (Al Quacka on the payroll of Jimmy Carter?). Then while Jacques Chirac was mayor of Paris the Socialists flew the Ayatollah in for the 444 days of glory in Iran (friends of the Russians now), and prop up Cork Saddam (a friend of the Soviets), putting Sunni and Shiite in place for conflict, or Machiavellian cheap oil. All of that because Reagan was way too popular (In Atlanta I shook Reagan’s hand in 1976 and told him that after four years of Carter America would be begging for him.). Still they tried to get Reagan with Iran-Contra (remember Ortega and Jimmy Carter are Socialist butt buddies). Since Bush Sr. was not as popular as Reagan, he was a one term wonder when the Cork was used to get the Third Way socialists elected. The Third Way socialists allowed their Cork to continue to support terrorism in violation of H32 of UN resolution 687; Iraq was on the list of State Sponsors of Terrorism throughout the entire Third Way socialist Clinton Administration. Socialist Ramsey Clark, Saddam’s Defense attorney, Deputy Attorney General in the administration of Socialist PT boat hero Kennedy (yachted with deliberate act of betrayal PT boat hero John Kerry), was connected to the September 11, 2001, attacks against America, when Jimmy Carter‘s Mujahideen was used to try and make NWO “W“ another one term wonder:

“Ramsey Clark, former U.S. Attorney General…David Muller, South Movement, Melbourne, Victoria, Australia”
Workers World Oct. 4, 2001: Join a new anti-war coalition {See the Greens?}

South Movement is part of the Non-Aligned Movement of which Saddam’s Iraq was a Part. SEE: http://southmovement.alphalink.com.au/countries

“Varney: Is it possible that America’s interests have, in fact, been well served by the war in Iraq? Let me explain that. We have taken the fight to the enemy. The enemy is divided completely. And the enemy is now killing itself, fighting each other. Is that not long term, in a way, in America’s strategic interests?
Clark: Well, actually, I don’t think so. The ‘enemy’ so to speak, were the people that attacked us on 9/11. Saddam had really nothing to do directly with those people. He didn’t encourage the attack, he didn’t aid it. He wasn’t part of it, in fact they viewed Saddam as part of the enemy camp. So we attacked Afghanistan, we took out the government that supported the people that attacked us and then, in my view, in a strategic blunder, moved against Saddam Hussein. He was contained. Yes he was an unpleasant person. Yes he was a potential danger like every tyrant I guess is. But he couldn’t directly strike the United States and he was performing the function of a ‘cork in the bottle’ in the Persian Gulf containing the power of Iran. We removed him.” (Transcript of Stewart Varney interview of General Wesley Clark on Your World Cavuto, Fox News) YouTube - Varney-Clark Interview December 2006

Who was defending Socialist Saddam, where did the United Nations (of tyrants too) stand on regime change in Iraq, who was for Operation Iraqi Freedom?

I voted Libertarian in 1992 specifically to protest the endless war and leaving the problem in power, so do not include me in your “we.”

TheHonestTruth said:

U.S. Supplied Arms to Iraq, Ex-Aide Says - New York Times

Click to expand...

This is the same source and the same 200 million from the same Chilean company that you still haven't proven was a CIA front.

And this is simply what has leaked.

Click to expand...

Still not one scrap of evidence to prove it.

The CIA has contacts all over the globe. Weapons can be coming from anywhere in the world, we still can have a hand in it so don't try to use the physical location of shipments as some sort of evidence against our support of Saddam during the 80's. There is no doubt that we were strategically aligned with Saddam during the 80's and hence it would be logical to believe a preeminent power like the USA was lining up lots of his supplies. We don't have to wait for our government to declassify information on this subject.

Click to expand...

Got to love your standards of evidence, YOU DON'T HAVE ANY, there is only evidence is for us supplying Iraq with appx. .5% of his foreign arms sales, everything else is a construction of your own mind.

Trajan Octavian Titus said:

Got to love your standards of evidence, YOU DON'T HAVE ANY, there is only evidence is for us supplying Iraq with appx. .5% of his foreign arms sales, everything else is a construction of your own mind.

Click to expand...

Again, country of physical shipment doesn't indicate who lined up the deal.

:rofl

TheHonestTruth said:

Again, country of physical shipment doesn't indicate who lined up the deal.

:rofl

Click to expand...

Again its a pretty strong indicator considering that the majority arms were from nations who had state controlled Communist economies, all the other countries that shipped to Iraq combined don't rate as much as Russia and China.

Show me one shred of evidence that the U.S. sold him anymore than .5% of his weapons, and I'm still waiting on the evidence that the Chilean company was infact a CIA front.

TOT said:

Again its a pretty strong indicator considering that the majority arms were from nations who had state controlled Communist economies, all the other countries that shipped to Iraq combined don't rate as much as Russia and China.

Click to expand...

No. China does capitalism more strictly than we do. It doesn't limit exports. They have been an exporting leviathan since the 80's. Russia was crumbling in the 80's and easily would have had arms dealers in the country that could be utilized to arm Iraq.

TOT said:

I'm still waiting on the evidence that the Chilean company was infact a CIA front.

Click to expand...

You already got it.

It was a signed court affidavit!!!! Why would Teicher risk perjury charges?

You have no ethics when it comes to debate. You really don't belong here other than to act as the asshat troll you are. Well you do provide amusement Ill give you that. :lol:

"To prevent an Iraqi collapse, the Reagan administration supplied battlefield intelligence on Iranian troop buildups to the Iraqis, sometimes through third parties such as Saudi Arabia."

"As part of its opening to Baghdad, the Reagan administration removed Iraq from the State Department terrorism list in February 1982, despite heated objections from Congress. Without such a move, Teicher says, it would have been "impossible to take even the modest steps we were contemplating" to channel assistance to Baghdad. Iraq -- along with Syria, Libya and South Yemen -- was one of four original countries on the list, which was first drawn up in 1979."

"According to a sworn court affidavit prepared by Teicher in 1995, the United States "actively supported the Iraqi war effort by supplying the Iraqis with billions of dollars of credits, by providing military intelligence and advice to the Iraqis, and by closely monitoring third country arms sales to Iraq to make sure Iraq had the military weaponry required." Teicher said in the affidavit that former CIA director William Casey used a Chilean company, Cardoen, to supply Iraq with cluster bombs that could be used to disrupt the Iranian human wave attacks. Teicher refuses to discuss the affidavit."

"Although U.S. arms manufacturers were not as deeply involved as German or British companies in selling weaponry to Iraq, the Reagan administration effectively turned a blind eye to the export of "dual use" items such as chemical precursors and steel tubes that can have military and civilian applications. According to several former officials, the State and Commerce departments promoted trade in such items as a way to boost U.S. exports and acquire political leverage over Hussein.

When United Nations weapons inspectors were allowed into Iraq after the 1991 Gulf War, they compiled long lists of chemicals, missile components, and computers from American suppliers, including such household names as Union Carbide and Honeywell, which were being used for military purposes.

A 1994 investigation by the Senate Banking Committee turned up dozens of biological agents shipped to Iraq during the mid-'80s under license from the Commerce Department, including various strains of anthrax, subsequently identified by the Pentagon as a key component of the Iraqi biological warfare program. The Commerce Department also approved the export of insecticides to Iraq, despite widespread suspicions that they were being used for chemical warfare. "

"Far from declining, the supply of U.S. military intelligence to Iraq actually expanded in 1988, according to a 1999 book by Francona, "Ally to Adversary: an Eyewitness Account of Iraq's Fall from Grace." Informed sources said much of the battlefield intelligence was channeled to the Iraqis by the CIA office in Baghdad.

Although U.S. export controls to Iraq were tightened up in the late 1980s, there were still many loopholes. In December 1988, Dow Chemical sold $1.5 million of pesticides to Iraq, despite U.S. government concerns that they could be used as chemical warfare agents. An Export-Import Bank official reported in a memorandum that he could find "no reason" to stop the sale, despite evidence that the pesticides were "highly toxic" to humans and would cause death "from asphyxiation." "

http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn/A52241-2002Dec29?language=printer

Khayembii Communique said:

"To prevent an Iraqi collapse, the Reagan administration supplied battlefield intelligence on Iranian troop buildups to the Iraqis, sometimes through third parties such as Saudi Arabia."

Click to expand...

And?

"As part of its opening to Baghdad, the Reagan administration removed Iraq from the State Department terrorism list in February 1982, despite heated objections from Congress. Without such a move, Teicher says, it would have been "impossible to take even the modest steps we were contemplating" to channel assistance to Baghdad. Iraq -- along with Syria, Libya and South Yemen -- was one of four original countries on the list, which was first drawn up in 1979."

Click to expand...

And?

"According to a sworn court affidavit prepared by Teicher in 1995, the United States "actively supported the Iraqi war effort by supplying the Iraqis with billions of dollars of credits, by providing military intelligence and advice to the Iraqis, and by closely monitoring third country arms sales to Iraq to make sure Iraq had the military weaponry required." Teicher said in the affidavit that former CIA director William Casey used a Chilean company, Cardoen, to supply Iraq with cluster bombs that could be used to disrupt the Iranian human wave attacks. Teicher refuses to discuss the affidavit."

Click to expand...

A) The only federally backed loans Saddam got from the U.S. were from an Italian Bank with a branch in the U.S., they were illegal and the man responsible is in jail, if you have any evidence of any other such loans I'm all ears.

B) Once again no evidence that it was a CIA front, no evidence that he was selling arms on behalf of the U.S., and the fact of the matter is that Cardoen is wanted in the U.S. for selling arms to Iraq, and what's more Cardoen even if he was a U.S. asset only sold $200 million dollars worth of weapons to Iraq, so if you really want to go right ahead and add that to the .5% of foreign arm sales that the U.S. sold to Iraq, let's do the math the Soviet Union alone sold Iraq 30.5 billion dollars worth of arms to Iraq, France sold them 5.6 billion dollars worth of arms, China sold them 5.1 billion dollars worth of arms, the U.S.'s $200 million even if you add into that the $200 million from Cardoen is still only $400 million, which is a drop in the ****ing bucket!

"Although U.S. arms manufacturers were not as deeply involved as German or British companies in selling weaponry to Iraq, the Reagan administration effectively turned a blind eye to the export of "dual use" items such as chemical precursors and steel tubes that can have military and civilian applications. According to several former officials, the State and Commerce departments promoted trade in such items as a way to boost U.S. exports and acquire political leverage over Hussein.

Click to expand...

A) Not one drop of the Chemicals the U.S. sold to Iraq made it into Saddam's WMD programs and we sold neither gave him the technology or expertise needed to make his WMD.





B) So aluminum tubes are proof of support for a WMD program? lmfao, well I guess Bush didn't lie after all.

When United Nations weapons inspectors were allowed into Iraq after the 1991 Gulf War, they compiled long lists of chemicals, missile components, and computers from American suppliers, including such household names as Union Carbide and Honeywell, which were being used for military purposes.

Click to expand...

What missiles did the U.S. sell to Iraq? He was using SCUDS buddy. Furthermore; once again not one drop of our chemicals were used in Saddam's WMD programs. We sold him computers? Wow that's pretty horrible. :roll:

A 1994 investigation by the Senate Banking Committee turned up dozens of biological agents shipped to Iraq during the mid-'80s under license from the Commerce Department, including various strains of anthrax, subsequently identified by the Pentagon as a key component of the Iraqi biological warfare program. The Commerce Department also approved the export of insecticides to Iraq, despite widespread suspicions that they were being used for chemical warfare. "

Click to expand...

The dirty little secret is that these biological agents are easily obtained and require little more than placing a mail order, furthermore, we did not give him the technology or the expertise necessary to convert these legal and mostly benign agents into lethal and illegal WMD.

"Far from declining, the supply of U.S. military intelligence to Iraq actually expanded in 1988, according to a 1999 book by Francona, "Ally to Adversary: an Eyewitness Account of Iraq's Fall from Grace." Informed sources said much of the battlefield intelligence was channeled to the Iraqis by the CIA office in Baghdad.

Click to expand...

And your point? Yes we gave them intelligence.

Although U.S. export controls to Iraq were tightened up in the late 1980s, there were still many loopholes. In December 1988, Dow Chemical sold $1.5 million of pesticides to Iraq,

Click to expand...

That were not used in Saddam's WMD program.

despite U.S. government concerns that they could be used as chemical warfare agents. An Export-Import Bank official reported in a memorandum that he could find "no reason" to stop the sale, despite evidence that the pesticides were "highly toxic" to humans and would cause death "from asphyxiation." "

http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn/A52241-2002Dec29?language=printer

Click to expand...

[/quote]

Yep still no evidence that we sold Iraq more than .5% of his weapons or helped his WMD program outside of easily obtained biological agents.

TheHonestTruth said:

No. China does capitalism more strictly than we do. It doesn't limit exports. They have been an exporting leviathan since the 80's. Russia was crumbling in the 80's and easily would have had arms dealers in the country that could be utilized to arm Iraq.

Click to expand...

Now prove that U.S. firms in China and Russia or U.S. front companies in China or Russia were selling arms to Iraq on behalf of the U.S.. This is hilarious China and Russia had been selling Iraq weapons for decades since the 70's and now somehow its the U.S.'s fault. What a complete crock.

You already got it.

It was a signed court affidavit!!!!

Click to expand...

Which isn't evidence of anything.

Why would Teicher risk perjury charges?

Click to expand...

Irrelevant, you nor he has offered one shred of evidence to back his claims.

You have no ethics when it comes to debate. You really don't belong here other than to act as the asshat troll you are. Well you do provide amusement Ill give you that. :lol:

Click to expand...

GFYS mother ****er, you have not presented one scrap not one shred of evidence to back your claims, and even if we take Teicher's word at face value that the Chilean company was a CIA front even though the owner of that company is a wanted man in the U.S. and he is wanted for selling arms to Iraq, then that's still only $200 million worth of arm sales which is a drop in the bucket compared to the Soviets, the French, and the Chinese, you sir are the joke as is your argument.

Trajan Octavian Titus said:

Which isn't evidence of anything.

Click to expand...

Actually its a legally binding document which would indicate he is telling the truth.

I'll give you the last word because your insane fragile ego clearly needs to feel like you've "won" something here even though you've looked like the biggest clown possible.

:2wave:

TheHonestTruth said:

Actually its a legally binding document which would indicate he is telling the truth.

Click to expand...

Well, yes and no. A legal document yes, and depositions are taken under oath, as if one were testifying in a court room under oath. No, in that depositions do not preclude perjury-happens all the time. Consequently, no, depositions do no bind one, at least not in the sense that you seem to be suggesting.

BTW, I'm not taking sides in this exchange, just hoping to correct a mis-perception.

TheHonestTruth said:

Actually its a legally binding document which would indicate he is telling the truth.

Click to expand...

lmfao first of all one Chilean company accounting for $200 million dollars is still a drop in the bucket, and the last time I checked the standards of evidence needed to convict someone of a crime are just a tad bit higher than someones word, so far all you got is one mans claim, that's it and that's all.

oldreliable67 said:

Consequently, no, depositions do no bind one, at least not in the sense that you seem to be suggesting.

BTW, I'm not taking sides in this exchange, just hoping to correct a mis-perception.

Click to expand...

You aren't correcting anything. Obviously one can perjure on an affidavit, but you can be charged in doing so. Yes, therefore it is legally binding on that individual, which is the exact sense I was using it in. Obviously its not a 100% guarantee of factual accuracy, but its a good indicator in this case that there is legitimacy to the statements. In a situation where an NSC official in the reagan admin is making these claims, I would be inclined to believe they would charge you if you had been making things up out of thin air which TOT seems to want to suggest as he'll dismiss it entirely. That is simply asinine.

oldreliable67 said:

Well, yes and no. A legal document yes, and depositions are taken under oath, as if one were testifying in a court room under oath. No, in that depositions do not preclude perjury-happens all the time.

Click to expand...

Really? It happens all the time in cases like this? Do you have any statistics that show how often perjury happens on sworn court affidavits coming from an individual facing no sort of prosecution in said case?

This is a National Security Council member from the Reagan inner circle reporting under oath as to the conduct of the top members of government regarding covert third country arms sales to Iraq. To claim this has no legitimacy means you have no legitimacy. This guy had no reason to lie about this, he wasn't facing any charges he was simply blowing the whistle in a case where charges were being levied against a US company who was complicit in said arms sales. He told the February 23, 1992, LA Times: "There was a conscious effort to encourage third countries to ship US arms or acquiesce in shipments after the fact. It was a policy of nods and winks."

TheHonestTruth said:

You aren't correcting anything. Obviously one can perjure on an affidavit, but you can be charged in doing so. Yes, therefore it is legally binding on that individual, which is the exact sense I was using it in. Obviously its not a 100% guarantee of factual accuracy, but its a good indicator in this case that there is legitimacy to the statements. In a situation where an NSC official in the reagan admin is making these claims, I would be inclined to believe they would charge you if you had been making things up out of thin air which TOT seems to want to suggest as he'll dismiss it entirely. That is simply asinine.

Click to expand...

TheHonestTruth said:

Really? It happens all the time in cases like this? Do you have any statistics that show how often perjury happens on sworn court affidavits coming from an individual facing no sort of prosecution in said case?

This is a National Security Council member from the Reagan inner circle reporting under oath as to the conduct of the top members of government regarding covert third country arms sales to Iraq. To claim this has no legitimacy means you have no legitimacy. This guy had no reason to lie about this, he wasn't facing any charges he was simply blowing the whistle in a case where charges were being levied against a US company who was complicit in said arms sales. He told the February 23, 1992, LA Times: "There was a conscious effort to encourage third countries to ship US arms or acquiesce in shipments after the fact. It was a policy of nods and winks."

Click to expand...

First, you seem to be getting bent out of shape because I pointed out inaccuracies in your description of depositions. Why is that? I offered no opinion on whether the person cited lied or was truthful, nor did I make any statement or assertion on either your's or TOT's position. I specifically said that I was not taking sides in this debate. So why so defensive? You simply made layman's errors when discussing depositions.

Second, you have now reiterated one of your basic errors in asserting that someone's testimony in a deposition is "legally binding" on them. Maybe you think I'm splitting hairs here, but anyway: "binding" is used to refer to some guarantee or commitment to either cease some action/activity or to engage in some activity/behavior. Since the person offering testimony is subject only to rules of perjury, etc., regarding depositions, there is no promise or commitment to perform any activity. In other words, once your cited person had finished his/her deposition, they were finished with this subpoena (if one was required, which it sometimes is) and under no further obligation to do anything else. There is no element of "binding" with regard to subpoenas (or affidavits either, for that matter).

Third, you have now used affidavit and deposition synonymously. They are not the same. Some jurisdictions accept affidavits as a form of deposition, but not all. If you are confused, even Wiki has sufficiently clear explanations to assist you.

Like I said, I'm not taking sides in your debate with TOT, only pointing out inaccuracies in your descriptions and apparent mis-understandings about depositions and affidavits.

oldreliable67 said:

you have now reiterated one of your basic errors in asserting that someone's testimony in a deposition is "legally binding" on them.

Click to expand...

I never said that. I said a sworn court affidavit is legally binding, which it is.

And if you don't want to read anything in context then don't come here with your pseudo knowledge of legalese. Firstly you have provided no links on the legal definition of binding, secondly the way I was using if I am incorrect on that should have been clear enough but obviously you want to nit pick definitions instead looking for meanings.

If you still need clarification this was my point: He could be charged for lying on the sworn court affidavit. Thats a fact. Don't muddy that point.

Also you sound like you're not knowledgeable about this subject but rather you've googled a bit and now you're trying to be a fake expert. Its not convincing me.

oldreliable67 said:

Third, you have now used affidavit and deposition synonymously. They are not the same.

Click to expand...

Actually you'll notice I never used the word deposition. I did use the word subpoena but not synonymously with the word affidavit.

BTW, this is what your wiki link says, get your story straight.

"Some jurisdictions recognize an affidavit as a form of deposition."

TheHonestTruth said:

I never said that. I said a sworn court affidavit is legally binding, which it is.

And if you don't want to read anything in context then don't come here with your pseudo knowledge of legalese. Firstly you have provided no links on the legal definition of binding, secondly the way I was using if I am incorrect on that should have been clear enough but obviously you want to nit pick definitions instead looking for meanings.

Click to expand...

Jeez, this is the thanks I get for trying to correct some very basic mis-perceptions. You want folks to read your stuff in context, then make that context clear with accurate information.

If you still need clarification this was my point: He could be charged for lying on the sworn court affidavit. Thats a fact. Don't muddy that point.

Click to expand...

And I never disputed that, 'cause it is correct.

Also you sound like you're not knowledgeable about this subject but rather you've googled a bit and now you're trying to be a fake expert. Its not convincing me.

Click to expand...

Actually, I did google a bit to make sure there was a site that had a sufficiently clear explanation, one that even you could understand.

As for being a fake expert, I never said that I am a lawyer, but I do speak from many years of experience with exactly this kind of thing.

Actually you'll notice I never used the word deposition. I did use the word subpoena but not synonymously with the word affidavit.

Click to expand...

Take your own advice. The context in which you used deposition and affidavit strongly suggested interchangeability. At least, it did to me. Of course, others may interpret it differently.

BTW, this is what your wiki link says, get your story straight.

"Some jurisdictions recognize an affidavit as a form of deposition."

Click to expand...

Exactly. And I wrote, "Some jurisdictions accept affidavits as a form of deposition, but not all." What, thats not close enough for you?

donsutherland1 said:

human nature being what it is, such well-meaning policies could actually signal weakness and invite aggression. Blowback is real. However, it is not the only consideration in policy making.

Click to expand...

Well you are reasonable, but the fact is that we have to make a determination to our interests. I see domestic security as productive, and foreign occupation as counterproductive, as does the classified NIE report.