Re: USA Africa Dialogue Series - Re: Paneta Warns Against MilitaryStrike Against Iran

4 views

Skip to first unread message

Abdul Bangura

unread,

Nov 13, 2011, 9:38:18 AM11/13/11

to usaafric...@googlegroups.com

Mwalimu Obe, you forgot to add that our US government supported Iraq's attack on Iran. Some observers even stated that our US government pushed Iraq to attack Iran in order to counterbalance the rise of Iran in the region. The following is a chronology of events by John King.

Arming Iraq: A Chronology of U.S. Involvement
By: John King, March 2003

What follows is an accurate chronology of United States involvement in the arming of Iraq during the Iraq-Iran war 1980-88. It is a powerful indictment of the president Bush administration attempt to sell war as a component of his war on terrorism. It reveals US ambitions in Iraq to be just another chapter in the attempt to regain a foothold in the Mideast following the fall of the Shah of Iran.

Arming Iraq and the Path to War
A crisis always has a history, and the current crisis with Iraq is no exception. Below are some relevant dates.

September, 1980. Iraq invades Iran. The beginning of the Iraq-Iran war. [8]

February, 1982. Despite objections from congress, President Reagan removes Iraq from its list of known terrorist countries. [1]

December, 1982. Hughes Aircraft ships 60 Defender helicopters to Iraq. [9]

1982-1988. Defense Intelligence Agency provides detailed information for Iraq on Iranian deployments, tactical planning for battles, plans for air strikes and bomb damage assessments. [4]

November, 1983. A National Security Directive states that the U.S would do "whatever was necessary and legal" to prevent Iraq from losing its war with Iran. [1] & [15]

Donald Rumsfeld -Reagan's Envoy- provided Iraq with
chemical & biological weapons

November, 1983. Banca Nazionale del Lavoro of Italy and its Branch in Atlanta begin to funnel $5 billion in unreported loans to Iraq. Iraq, with the blessing and official approval of the US government, purchased computer controlled machine tools, computers, scientific instruments, special alloy steel and aluminum, chemicals, and other industrial goods for Iraq's missile, chemical, biological and nuclear weapons programs. [14]

October, 1983. The Reagan Administration begins secretly allowing Jordan, Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, and Egypt to transfer United States weapons, including Howitzers, Huey helicopters, and bombs to Iraq. These shipments violated the Arms Export Control Act. [16]

November 1983. George Schultz, the Secretary of State, is given intelligence reports showing that Iraqi troops are daily using chemical weapons against the Iranians. [1]

December 20, 1983. Donald Rumsfeld , then a civilian and now Defense Secretary, meets with Saddam Hussein to assure him of US friendship and materials support. [1] & [15]

July, 1984. CIA begins giving Iraq intelligence necessary to calibrate its mustard gas attacks on Iranian troops. [19]

January 14, 1984. State Department memo acknowledges United States shipment of "dual-use" export hardware and technology. Dual use items are civilian items such as heavy trucks, armored ambulances and communications gear as well as industrial technology that can have a military application. [2]

March, 1986. The United States with Great Britain block all Security Council resolutions condemning Iraq's use of chemical weapons, and on March 21 the US becomes the only country refusing to sign a Security Council statement condemning Iraq's use of these weapons. [10]

May, 1986. The US Department of Commerce licenses 70 biological exports to Iraq between May of 1985 and 1989, including at least 21 batches of lethal strains of anthrax. [3]

May, 1986. US Department of Commerce approves shipment of weapons grade botulin poison to Iraq. [7]

March, 1987. President Reagan bows to the findings of the Tower Commission admitting the sale of arms to Iran in exchange for hostages. Oliver North uses the profits from the sale to fund an illegal war in Nicaragua. [17]

Late 1987. The Iraqi Air Force begins using chemical agents against Kurdish resistance forces in northern Iraq. [1]

February, 1988. Saddam Hussein begins the "Anfal" campaign against the Kurds of northern Iraq. The Iraq regime used chemical weapons against the Kurds killing over 100,000 civilians and destroying over 1,200 Kurdish villages. [8]

April, 1988. US Department of Commerce approves shipment of chemicals used in manufacture of mustard gas. [7]

August, 1988. Four major battles were fought from April to August 1988, in which the Iraqis massively and effectively used chemical weapons to defeat the Iranians. Nerve gas and blister agents such as mustard gas are used. By this time the US Defense Intelligence Agency is heavily involved with Saddam Hussein in battle plan assistance, intelligence gathering and post battle debriefing. In the last major battle with of the war, 65,000 Iranians are killed, many with poison gas. Use of chemical weapons in war is in violation of the Geneva accords of 1925. [6] & [13]

August, 1988. Iraq and Iran declare a cease fire. [8]

August, 1988. Five days after the cease fire Saddam Hussein sends his planes and helicopters to northern Iraq to begin massive chemical attacks against the Kurds. [8]

September, 1988. US Department of Commerce approves shipment of weapons grade anthrax and botulinum to Iraq. [7]

September, 1988. Richard Murphy, Assistant Secretary of State: "The US-Iraqi relationship is... important to our long-term political and economic objectives." [15]

December, 1988. Dow chemical sells $1.5 million in pesticides to Iraq despite knowledge that these would be used in chemical weapons. [1]

July 25, 1990. US Ambassador to Baghdad meets with Hussein to assure him that President Bush "wanted better and deeper relations". Many believe this visit was a trap set for Hussein. A month later Hussein invaded Kuwait thinking the US would not respond. [12]

August, 1990 Iraq invades Kuwait. The precursor to the Gulf War. [8]

July, 1991 The Financial Times of London reveals that a Florida chemical company had produced and shipped cyanide to Iraq during the 80's using a special CIA courier. Cyanide was used extensively against the Iranians. [11]

August, 1991. Christopher Droguol of Atlanta's branch of Banca Nazionale del Lavoro is arrested for his role in supplying loans to Iraq for the purchase of military supplies. He is charged with 347 counts of felony. Droguol is found guilty, but US officials plead innocent of any knowledge of his crime. [14]

June, 1992. Ted Kopple of ABC Nightline reports: "It is becoming increasingly clear that George Bush Sr., operating largely behind the scenes throughout the 1980's, initiated and supported much of the financing, intelligence, and military help that built Saddam's Iraq into [an aggressive power]." [5]

July, 1992. "The Bush administration deliberately, not inadvertently, helped to arm Iraq by allowing U.S. technology to be shipped to Iraqi military and to Iraqi defense factories... Throughout the course of the Bush administration, U.S. and foreign firms were granted export licenses to ship U.S. technology directly to Iraqi weapons facilities despite ample evidence showing that these factories were producing weapons." Representative Henry Gonzalez, Texas, testimony before the House. [18]

February, 1994. Senator Riegle from Michigan, chairman of the Senate Banking Committee, testifies before the senate revealing large US shipments of dual-use biological and chemical agents to Iraq that may have been used against US troops in the Gulf War and probably was the cause of the illness known as Gulf War Syndrome. [7]

August, 2002. "The use of gas [during the Iran-Iraq war] on the battle field by the Iraqis was not a matter of deep strategic concern... We were desperate to make sure that Iraq did not lose". Colonel Walter Lang, former senior US Defense Intelligence officer tells the New York Times. [4]

This chronology of the United States' sordid involvement in the arming of Iraq can be summarized in this way: The United States used methods both legal and illegal to help build Saddam's army into the most powerful army in the Mideast outside of Israel. The US supplied chemical and biological agents and technology to Iraq when it knew Iraq was using chemical weapons against the Iranians. The US supplied the materials and technology for these weapons of mass destruction to Iraq at a time when it was know that Saddam was using this technology to kill his Kurdish citizens. The United States supplied intelligence and battle planning information to Iraq when those battle plans included the use of cyanide, mustard gas and nerve agents. The United States blocked UN censure of Iraq's use of chemical weapons. The United States did not act alone in this effort. The Soviet Union was the largest weapons supplier, but England, France and Germany were also involved in the shipment of arms and technology.

References:

Washingtonpost.com. December 30, 2002
Jonathan Broder. Nuclear times, Winter 1990-91
Kurt Nimno. AlterNet. September 23, 2002
Newyorktimes.com. August 29, 2002
ABC Nightline. June9, 1992
Counter Punch, October 10, 2002
Riegle Report: Dual Use Exports. Senate Committee on Banking. May 25, 1994
Timeline: A walk Through Iraq's History. U.S. Department of State
Doing Business: The Arming of Iraq. Daniel Robichear
Glen Rangwala. Labor Left Briefing, 16 September, 2002
Financial Times of London. July 3, 1991
Elson E. Boles. Counter Punch. October 10, 2002
Iran-Iraq War, 1980-1988. Iranchamber.com
Columbia Journalism Review. March/April 1993. Iraqgate
Times Online. December 31, 2002. How U.S. Helped Iraq Build Deadly Arsenal
Bush's Secret Mission. The New Yorker Magazine. November 2, 1992
Grolier Multimedia Encyclopedia: Iran-Contra Affair
Congressional Record. July 27, 1992. Representative Henry B. Gonzalez
Bob Woodward. CIA Aiding Iraq in Persian Gulf War. Washington Post. 15 December, 1986
Case Study: The Anfal Campaign. www.gendercide.com

Iran-Iraq War 1980-1988

Chemical Warfare In The Iran-Iraq War 1980-1988

The Iran-Iraq War: Serving American Interests

The United States and Iran-Iraq War 1980-1988

Pictures of Iran-Iraq War 1980-1988

> [Original Message]
> From: Ayo Obe <ayo.m...@gmail.com>
> To: usaafric...@googlegroups.com <usaafric...@googlegroups.com>
> Date: 11/13/2011 1:12:19 AM
> Subject: Re: USA Africa Dialogue Series - Re: Paneta Warns Against MilitaryStrike Against Iran
>
> Come on Ken, you know that very well it was Iran that was attacked and invaded by Iraq. The response to that is not called 'waging war' but self-defence.
>
> And by the way, the support that Saddam Hussein's Iraq received from the United States dwarfs anything that Iran may have offered Hezbollah in its resistance to Israeli occupation.
>
> Ayo
> I invite you to follow me on Twitter @naijama
>
> On 13 Nov 2011, at 00:31, kenneth harrow <har...@msu.edu> wrote:
>
> > "iran has not waged war on another country."
> > so the 2 million or so who died in the iran-iraq war were imaginary?
> > ken
> >
> > On 11/12/11 6:11 PM, Cornelius Hamelberg wrote:
> >> Sir,
> >>
> >> True: Boko Haram is not a country, although it's a clear intention of
> >> theirs to proclaim Sharia Law throughout what they dream will soon be
> >> be the Federal Islamic Republic of Nigeria.
> >>
> >> Whereas Iran is already an Islamic State - please take note - Iran
> >> is not an ordinary Muslim State, or some uncle tom kind of Islamic
> >> State and that's why it's called the Revolutionary Islamic Republic
> >> with its own unique national, regional and global agenda. Under the
> >> mantle of Wilayat-e-faqih, the state has its duties and
> >> responsibilities though perhaps it's unlikely that the Mullahs (the
> >> Council of Guardians) call for a referendum - a consultation with the
> >> people about the nuclear issue or about any other priorities on their
> >> agenda.
> >>
> >> http://www.google.com/search?q=Boko+Haram&ie=utf-8&oe=utf-8&aq=t&rls=org.mozilla:sv-SE:official&client=firefox-a#q=Boko+Haram&hl=en&client=firefox-a&hs=Ejh&rls=org.mozilla:sv-SE:official&prmd=imvnsu&source=lnms&tbm=nws&ei=kPK-Ttq6O5SK4gTPuMG4BA&sa=X&oi=mode_link&ct=mode&cd=5&ved=0CBgQ_AUoBA&bav=on.2,or.r_gc.r_pw.,cf.osb&fp=b79e7cf5fdd41d7d&biw=1255&bih=844
> >>
> >> Iran and their surrogates Hezbollah are working for the erection of a
> >> New Islamic State between Jordan and the deep blue Sea   - to replace
> >> Israel which they would like to wipe off the surface of the map ( God
> >> forbid) and they would like to call their new state the Great Islamic
> >> Republic of Palestine, the 23rd Arab State. I believe that they intend
> >> to create that state through military means.
> >>
> >> You seem to think that it's mainly the West that's worried about
> >> Iran's peaceful nuclear programme, but I assure you that all the
> >> neighbouring Sunni Arab Muslim countries, the Saudis, Egypt, the
> >> Turks, in short all the Sunnis great and small are a little worried
> >> about the more dominant role that Iran could play - militarily in
> >> their neighbourhood �ｿｽ
> >>
> >> There's a lot of truth in what you say about listening to all sides of
> >> the conflict in the name of fair play and I am as concerned about the
> >> security, peace and well-being of the Iranian people as you are �ｿｽ in
> >> fact I supported Iran throughout the war that Iraq and sponsors
> >> imposed on the Islamic Republic. As things are in that volatile
> >> region, even having nuclear reactors for peaceful purposes only
> >> incurs the risk of those reactors being targeted �ｿｽ as military
> >> targets- in the eventually of an enemy attack on Iran and that could
> >> cause great sorrow.
> >>
> >> You say that �ｿｽIran has stated that the possession of nuclear weapons
> >> is prohibited in Islam�ｿｽ
> >> How do you reconcile Pakistan - another Muslim state - being in
> >> possession of nuclear weapons?
> >> Which other weapons of mass destruction does Islam prohibit?
> >>
> >> Our great concern about Iran's nuclear intentions doesn't go away
> >> because of your simple assurance that �ｿｽIran is an strictly Islamic
> >> state. Iran has so far not attacked or waged war on another country.�ｿｽ
> >>
> >> Looka here:
> >> http://www.tehrantimes.com/index.php/politics/4489-any-action-against-iran-will-speed-up-israels-collapse-ambassador
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> On Nov 12, 10:27 pm, "Anunoby, Ogugua"<Anuno...@lincolnu.edu> wrote:
> >>> '...you too would have the same
> >>> shivers running down your spine were you to hear that Boko Haram had
> >>> got their hands on some weapons of mass destruction, and in fact
> >>> declared that they were going nuclear with their intentions."
> >>>
> >>> ch
> >>>
> >>> Iran is a state/country. Boko Haram is not. Boko Haram is amorphous and anomalous. Iran is not. The differences here is significant.
> >>> Iran has always made it clear that its nuclear program is for peaceful purposes only. Iran has stated that the possession of nuclear weapons is prohibited in Islam. Iran is an strictly Islamic state. Iran has so far not attacked or waged war on another country. She been attacked by other countries.
> >>> It is all well to be concerned about the western interests in the Middle East and oil. Should it not be as well to be concerned about Iran and her people, and their fear of external military attack.
> >>> Peace, true peace is usually possible and is more likely to be achieved if the concern of all parties are frontally, earnestly, and fully addressed. Peace in the Middle East or indeed any place else should be predicated on the resolution of the concerns of all parties to a conflict.
> >>> Those supporting a military stike against Iran probably know how the strike will begin. What no one knows is how Iran will respond to a military strike and therefore what happens after. What is needed in the Middle East is negotiated peace however difficult, not forced peace however "easy".
> >>>
> >>> oa
> >>>
> >>> ________________________________________
> >>> From: usaafric...@googlegroups.com [usaafric...@googlegroups.com] On Behalf Of Cornelius Hamelberg [corneliushamelb...@gmail.com]
> >>> Sent: Saturday, November 12, 2011 8:33 AM
> >>> To: USA Africa Dialogue Series
> >>> Subject: Re: USA Africa Dialogue Series - Re: Paneta Warns Against Military Strike Against Iran
> >>>
> >>> The future in that area is uncertain - and nuclear weapons in the
> >>> hands of a theocracy which denies the Holocaust and has already talked
> >>> about wiping out Israel, is not to be taken lightly.
> >>>
> >>> If you are half as Nigerian as I am, then you too would have the same
> >>> shivers running down your spine were you to hear that Boko Haram had
> >>> got their hands on some weapons of mass destruction, and in fact
> >>> declared that they were going nuclear with their intentions.
> >>>
> >>> In the final analysis "prevention is better than cure" and when the
> >>> Shia doctrines of Taqiyya and Kitman enter the political arena of
> >>> public diplomacy there's no telling exactly where the Iranian regime
> >>> is heading. It's extra dangerous because we cannot foresee that the
> >>> regime is destined to be stable., forever. Most of the Sunni World
> >>> backed Saddam Hussein in his 8 year war which he started against Iran
> >>> and since around that time there's been a storm brewing with the
> >>> custodians of the Holy places in Saudi Arabia and as you know the
> >>> whole area is the reservoir of oil supplies to the West, to China and
> >>> Japan......so nobody wants to see any nuclear tipped missiles flying
> >>> around in this area which would be better off without them and the
> >>> mad rush of the other neighbours to achieve nuclear capability. If
> >>> Gaddafi, and Saddam had had nuclear weapons we'd now be telling
> >>> another tale.
> >>>
> >>> Should Iran be given the opportunity of upgrading from peaceful to
> >>> military, in response to the IEAE saying so you were lying, they will
> >>> justify themselves with �ｿｽ But Israel also has�ｿｽ and the doctrine of �ｿｽ
> >>> All's fair in love and war.�ｿｽ
> >>>
> >>> No matter how sympathetically you look at the scenario, it's a matter
> >>> of great concern, presently and in the unforeseeable future.
> >>>
> >>> http://www.thelocal.se/blogs/corneliushamelberg/
> >>>
> >>> On Nov 12, 5:10 am, "Anunoby, Ogugua"<Anuno...@lincolnu.edu> wrote:
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>> Every right thinking person knows that a military strike against Iran will have serious consequences for all concerned and more. If Iran is indeed developing nuclear weapons, a military strike will at best delay it. The question that needs to be asked and answered truthfully is why Iran would want to develop nuclear weapons. Iran must be aware of the weapons' deterent benefit. If Iran felt more safe from external threats and attack than it presently does, its posture on self-defense might be different. Iran's situation is analogous to Pakistan's after India developed nuclear weapons. Russia and China propose the continuation of talks. They know that talk is is more efficacious and cheaper than war.
> >>>> What the world needs is peace and leaders of goodwill, not a new imperialism and belligerent leaders of belicose countries. The experience of recent history is that the attack of one country by another is decreasingly a win-win possibility. War is increasingly unwise and too costly at the end of the day. War may enrich individuals and corporations but it impoverishes countries. Military superiority no longer conveys the advantage that it did in the past. Victory and defeat have lost their essence, meaning, and value. War without end is the new normal. Paneta is well aware of this reality. He has done his job. He has warned against military strike on Iran. Will "they" listen is once again the question.
> >>>> oa
> >>>> ________________________________________
> >>>> From: usaafric...@googlegroups.com [usaafric...@googlegroups.com] On Behalf Of Emeagwali, Gloria (History) [emeagw...@mail.ccsu.edu]
> >>>> Sent: Friday, November 11, 2011 6:04 PM
> >>>> To: usaafric...@googlegroups.com
> >>>> Subject: RE: USA Africa Dialogue Series - Re: Paneta Warns Against Military Strike Against Iran
> >>>> One of the unintended consequences of hitting Iran's nuclear
> >>>> facilities could be the radioactive fallout enveloping the area in a
> >>>> nuclear fog....and this could affect a lot of innocent Iranians, who
> >>>> have no part to play in the ideals of nuclear terror.
> >>>> True.   Maybe the Iranians can pay Cheney's former firm Blackwater to do the clean up.
> >>>> Come to think of it, an unihabitable and underpopulated MiddleEast will be great for Big Oil.
> >>>> They can have it all....and Obama would have an oil tanker named after him.
> >>>> Dr. Gloria Emeagwali
> >>>> Prof. of History& African Studies
> >>>> History Department
> >>>> Central Connecticut State University
> >>>> New Britain
> >>>> CT 06050www.africahistory.netwww.esnips.com/web/GloriaEmeagwali
> >>>> emeagw...@ccsu.edu
> >>>> ________________________________________
> >>>> From: usaafric...@googlegroups.com [usaafric...@googlegroups.com] On Behalf Of Cornelius Hamelberg [corneliushamelb...@gmail.com]
> >>>> Sent: Friday, November 11, 2011 9:53 AM
> >>>> To: USA Africa Dialogue Series
> >>>> Subject: USA Africa Dialogue Series - Re: Paneta Warns Against Military Strike Against Iran
> >>>> One of the unintended consequences of hitting Iran's nuclear
> >>>> facilities could be the radioactive fallout enveloping the area in a
> >>>> nuclear fog....and this could affect a lot of innocent Iranians, who
> >>>> have no part to play in the ideals of nuclear terror.
> >>>> The bigger question is what would be the consequence of not doing
> >>>> anything?
> >>>> Some of the consequences of inaction are spelled out here in the
> >>>> alarming updates on the approaching inevitable showdown between Iran
> >>>> and those united in faith against an Iranian bomb, which all things
> >>>> considered ought to be feared...
> >>>> http://www.dailyalert.org/archive/2011-11/2011-11-11.html
> >>>> On Nov 11, 4:29 am, Abdul Karim Bangura<th...@earthlink.net> wrote:
> >>>>> Panetta warns on Iran strike consequencesUS defence chief cautions on regional fallout from any military strike against Iran.
> >>>>> Last Modified:11 Nov 2011 01:46
> >>>>> Panetta says a strike on Iran will only delay its nuclear programme [EPA]
> >>>>> US Defence Secretary Leon Panetta has warned that military action against Iran could lead to "unintended consequences" for the region.
> >>>>> "You've got to be careful of unintended consequences here," Panetta told reporters at a Pentagon press conference on Thursday.
> >>>>> His comments came only hours after Tehran itself warned that any attack on its nuclear sites would be met with "iron fists."
> >>>>> Panetta, who in July succeeded Robert Gates in the Pentagon's top post, said his assessment is in line with his predecessor's.
> >>>>> He maintained that a strike on Iran might fail to deter Iran "from what they want to do" and would only delay its controversial nuclear programme.
> >>>>> "But more importantly, it could have a serious impact in the region, and it could have a serious impact on US forces in the region," he said. "And I think all of those things, you know, need to be carefully considered."
> >>>>> 'Toughest sanctions'
> >>>>> Panetta stressed instead on US efforts to win tougher sanctions against Tehran.
> >>>>> "It is important for us to make sure we apply the toughest sanctions -- economic, diplomatic pressures -- on Iran to change their behaviour," he said.
> >>>>> "And we are in discussions with our allies with regards to additional sanctions that ought to be placed on Iran."
> >>>>> The European Union may approve fresh sanctions against Iran within weeks, after a UN agency said Tehran had worked to design nuclear bombs, EU diplomats said on Thursday.
> >>>>> EU sanctions would be a significant part of Western efforts to ratchet up pressure on Tehran. Western governments would prefer UN Security Council measures against Tehran, but Russia and China, both permanent UN Security Council members with veto power, are opposed.
> >>>>> Tensions over Tehran's nuclear programme were re-ignited on Tuesday when a report by the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA), said Iran had worked on designing a bomb and that research to that end may be on-going.
> >>>>> Israel exacerbated speculation of a strike against Iran after last week'stesting of a ballistic missilecapable of traveling the 6,437 kilometres to Iran.
> >>>>> Israel's first test-fire of a missile in three years came after Israeli media speculation alleging Benyamin Netanyahu, the Israeli prime minister, and Ehud Barak, defence minister, of planning a strike against Iran's nuclear facilities.
> >>>>> Iran has warned that it will respond to any attacks
> >>> ...
> >>>
> >>> read more �ｿｽ
> >
> > --
> > kenneth w. harrow
> > distinguished professor of english
> > michigan state university
> > department of english
> > east lansing, mi 48824-1036
> > ph. 517 803 8839
> > har...@msu.edu
> >
> > --
> > You received this message because you are subscribed to the "USA-Africa Dialogue Series" moderated by Toyin Falola, University of Texas at Austin.
> > For current archives, visit http://groups.google.com/group/USAAfricaDialogue
> > For previous archives, visit http://www.utexas.edu/conferences/africa/ads/index.html
> > To post to this group, send an email to USAAfric...@googlegroups.com
> > To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to USAAfricaDialogue-       unsub...@googlegroups.com
>
> --
> You received this message because you are subscribed to the "USA-Africa Dialogue Series" moderated by Toyin Falola, University of Texas at Austin.
>    For current archives, visit http://groups.google.com/group/USAAfricaDialogue
>    For previous archives, visit http://www.utexas.edu/conferences/africa/ads/index.html
>    To post to this group, send an email to USAAfric...@googlegroups.com
>    To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to USAAfricaDialogue-
>    unsub...@googlegroups.com

14_iran_iraq_war.jpg

article1.gif

trans1x1.gif

camera1.gif

line_680.gif

line_680em.gif

article1.gif

trans1x1.gif

article1.gif

trans1x1.gif

article1.gif

trans1x1.gif

Abdul Bangura

unread,

Nov 13, 2011, 9:40:51 AM11/13/11

to usaafric...@googlegroups.com

Addendum: A Wikipedia essay on our US government's support for Iraq during its attack on Iran

United States support for Iraq during the Iran�Iraq war

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

"Iraqgate" redirects here. For other uses, see Iraqgate (disambiguation).

Saddam Hussein donated large sums to various institutions in his campaign to curry favour with the United States. He was made an honorary citizen of Detroit in 1980.^[1]^[2]

United States support for Iraq during the Iran�Iraq War, as a counterbalance to post-revolutionary Iran, included several billion dollars worth of economic aid, the sale of dual-use technology, non-U.S. origin weaponry, military intelligence, Special Operations training, and direct involvement in warfare against Iran.^[3]^[4]

Support from the U.S. for Iraq was not a secret and was frequently discussed in open session of the Senate and House of Representatives. On June 9, 1992, Ted Koppel reported on ABC's Nightline, "It is becoming increasingly clear that George Bush, operating largely behind the scenes throughout the 1980s, initiated and supported much of the financing, intelligence, and military help that built Saddam's Iraq into" the power it became",^[5] and "Reagan/Bush administrations permitted�and frequently encouraged�the flow of money, agricultural credits, dual-use technology, chemicals, and weapons to Iraq."^[6]

[hide]

[edit] U.S. foreknowledge and reaction to the conflict

The Iranian Shah meeting with President Jimmy Carter and Zbigniew Brzezinski, 1977.

Diplomatic relations with Iraq had been severed shortly after the 1967 Arab-Israeli Six-Day War. A decade later, following a series of major political developments, particularly after the Iranian Revolution and the seizure of embassy staff in the 1979�81 Iran hostage crisis, President Jimmy Carter ordered a review of American policy toward Iraq.

According to Kenneth R. Timmerman, the "Islamic revolution in Iran upset the entire strategic equation in the region. America's principal ally in the Persian Gulf, the Shah, was swept aside overnight, and no one else on the horizon could replace him as the guarantor of U.S. interests in the region."^[4]

During the crisis, Iraqi leader Saddam Hussein attempted to take advantage of the disorder of the Revolution, the weakness of the Iranian military and the revolution's antagonism with Western governments. The Iranian military had been disbanded during the revolt and with the Shah ousted, Hussein had ambitions to position himself as the new strong man of the Middle East. "He condemned the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan and signed an alliance with Saudi Arabia to block the Soviet-backed attempt to take over North Yemen. In 1979 he also allowed the CIA, which he had once so virulently attacked, to open an office in Baghdad."^[7] Zbigniew Brzezinski, National Security Advisor to President Carter, "began to look more favorably toward Saddam Hussein as a potential counterweight to the Ayatollah Khomeini and as a force to contain Soviet expansionism in the region."^[4]^[8]

The hint of change in the U.S. attitude toward Iraq was warmly welcomed in Baghdad... Saddam Hussein believed that recognition by the United States of Iraq's role as a counter to radical, fundamentalist Iran would boost his ambition of becoming the acknowledged head of the Arab world. ... Saddam had an old score to settle with the Iranians over his southern border. He had never liked the agreement signed with the Shah in 1975. He felt confident he could regain the lost territory and probably topple the anti-American regime in Tehran by taking swift military action. He had no illusions that the United States would openly support the war he proposed to start. But getting rid of the Ayatollah Khomeini was clearly in the American interest, and in many other ways the United States and Iraq could benefit each other, Saddam believed. It was time to renew diplomatic relations with Washington and to move on quickly to more elaborate forms of strategic cooperation. ^{p. 75}

Biographer Said K. Aburish, author of Saddam Hussein: The Politics Of Revenge, says the Iraqi dictator made a visit to Amman in the year 1979, before the Iran�Iraq War, where he met with King Hussein and, very possibly, three agents of the Central Intelligence Agency (CIA). Aburish says there is "considerable evidence that he discussed his plans to invade Iran with the CIA agents."^[9]^[10]^[11] Timmerman records American officials meeting only with King Hussein on precisely the same date, noting this "top-secret negotiating session was Brzezinski's idea." He quotes National Security Council staff member and former aide Gary G. Sick:^[4]

Brzezinski was letting Saddam assume there was a U.S. green light for his invasion of Iran, because there was no explicit red light. But to say the U.S. planned and plotted it all out in advance is simply not true. Saddam had his own reasons for invading Iran, and they were sufficient. ^{p. 76}

According to Zbigniew Brzezinski's memoir, the United States initially took a largely neutral position on the Iran�Iraq War, with some minor exceptions. First, the U.S. acted in an attempt to prevent the confrontation from widening, largely in order to prevent additional disruption to world oil supplies and to honor U.S. security assurances to Saudi Arabia. As a result, the U.S. reacted to Soviet troop movements on the border of Iran by informing the Soviet Union that they would defend Iran in the event of Soviet invasion. The U.S. also acted to defend Saudi Arabia, and lobbied the surrounding states not to become involved in the war. Brzezinski characterizes this recognition of the Middle East as a vital strategic region on a par with Western Europe and the Far East as a fundamental shift in U.S. strategic policy.^[12] Second, the United States explored whether the Iran�Iraq War would offer leverage with which to resolve the Iranian Hostage Crisis. In this regard, the Carter administration explored the use of both "carrots," by suggesting that they might offer military assistance to Iran upon release of the hostages, and "sticks," by discouraging Israeli military assistance to Iran and suggesting that they might offer military assistance to Iraq if the Iranians did not release the hostages. Third, as the war progressed, freedom of navigation, especially at the Strait of Hormuz, was deemed a critical priority.^[12]

[edit] Support

President Ronald Reagan and Vice President George H. W. Bush work in the Oval Office of the White House, July 20, 1984.

Starting in 1982 with Iranian success on the battlefield, the United States made its backing of Iraq more pronounced, normalizing relations with the government, supplying it with economic aid, counter-insurgency training, operational intelligence on the battlefield, and weapons.^[3]^[13]

President Ronald Reagan initiated a strategic opening to Iraq, signing National Security Decision Directive 4-82 and selecting Donald Rumsfeld as his emissary to Hussein, whom he visited in December 1983 and March 1984.^[14] According to U.S. ambassador Peter W. Galbraith, far from winning the conflict, "the Reagan administration was afraid Iraq might actually lose."^[15]

In 1982, Iraq was removed from a list of State Sponsors of Terrorism to ease the transfer of dual-use technology to that country. According to investigative journalist Alan Friedman, Secretary of State Alexander Haig was "upset at the fact that the decision had been made at the White House, even though the State Department was responsible for the list."^[3] "I was not consulted," Haig is said to have complained.

Howard Teicher served on the National Security Council as director of Political-Military Affairs. He accompanied Rumsfeld to Baghdad in 1983.^[16] According to his 1995 affidavit and separate interviews with former Reagan and Bush administration officials, the Central Intelligence Agency secretly directed armaments and hi-tech components to Iraq through false fronts and friendly third parties such as Jordan, Saudi Arabia, Egypt and Kuwait, and they quietly encouraged rogue arms dealers and other private military companies to do the same:

[T]he United States actively supported the Iraqi war effort by supplying the Iraqis with billions of dollars of credits, by providing U.S. military intelligence and advice to the Iraqis, and by closely monitoring third country arms sales to Iraq to make sure that Iraq had the military weaponry required. The United States also provided strategic operational advice to the Iraqis to better use their assets in combat... The CIA, including both CIA Director Casey and Deputy Director Gates, knew of, approved of, and assisted in the sale of non-U.S. origin military weapons, ammunition and vehicles to Iraq. My notes, memoranda and other documents in my NSC files show or tend to show that the CIA knew of, approved of, and assisted in the sale of non-U.S. origin military weapons, munitions and vehicles to Iraq.^[17]

Donald Rumsfeld meets Saddam on 19�20 December 1983. Rumsfeld visited again on 24 March 1984, the day the UN reported that Iraq had used mustard gas and tabun nerve agent against Iranian troops. The NY Times reported from Baghdad on 29 March 1984, that "American diplomats pronounce themselves satisfied with Iraq and the U.S., and suggest that normal diplomatic ties have been established in all but name."^[14]

The full extent of these covert transfers is not yet known. Teicher's files on the subject are held securely at the Ronald Reagan Presidential Library and many other Reagan Era documents that could help shine new light on the subject remain classified. Teicher declined to discuss details of the affidavit with the Washington Post shortly before the 2003 invasion of Iraq.^[18]

About two of every seven licenses for the export of "dual use" technology items approved between 1985 and 1990 by the U.S. Department of Commerce "went either directly to the Iraqi armed forces, to Iraqi end-users engaged in weapons production, or to Iraqi enterprises suspected of diverting technology" to weapons of mass destruction, according to an investigation by House Banking Committee Chairman Henry B. Gonzalez. Confidential Commerce Department files also reveal that the Reagan and Bush administrations approved at least 80 direct exports to the Iraqi military. These included computers, communications equipment, aircraft navigation and radar equipment.^[19]

In conformance with the Presidential directive, the U.S. began providing tactical battlefield advice to the Iraqi Army. "The prevailing view", says Alan Friedman, "was that if Washington wanted to prevent an Iranian victory, it would have to share some of its more sensitive intelligence photography with Saddam."^[3]

At times, thanks to the White House's secret backing for the intelligence-sharing, U.S. intelligence officers were actually sent to Baghdad to help interpret the satellite information. As the White House took an increasingly active role in secretly helping Saddam direct his armed forces, the United States even built an expensive high-tech annex in Baghdad to provide a direct down-link receiver for the satellite intelligence and better processing of the information... ^{p. 27}

The American military commitment that had begun with intelligence-sharing expanded rapidly and surreptitiously throughout the Iran�Iraq War. A former White House official explained that "by 1987, our people were actually providing tactical military advice to the Iraqis in the battlefield, and sometimes they would find themselves over the Iranian border, alongside Iraqi troops." ^{p. 38}

Author Barry M. Lando says, by 1987, the U.S. military was so invested in the correct outcome, that "officers from the Pentagon's Defense Intelligence Agency dispatched to Baghdad were actually planning day-by-day strategic bombing strikes for the Iraqi Air Force."^[7]^[20] Iraq used this data to target Iranian positions with chemical weapons, says ambassador Galbraith.^[15]

The MK-84: Saudi Arabia transferred to Iraq hundreds of U.S.-made general-purpose "dumb bombs".^[3]

According to retired Army Colonel W. Patrick Lang, senior defense intelligence officer for the United States Defense Intelligence Agency at the time, "the use of gas on the battlefield by the Iraqis was not a matter of deep strategic concern" to Reagan and his aides, because they "were desperate to make sure that Iraq did not lose."^[21] Lang disclosed that more than 60 officers of the Defense Intelligence Agency were secretly providing detailed information on Iranian deployments. He cautioned that the DIA "would have never accepted the use of chemical weapons against civilians, but the use against military objectives was seen as inevitable in the Iraqi struggle for survival." Despite this claim, the Reagan administration did not stop aiding Iraq after receiving reports affirming the use of poison gas on Kurdish civilians.^[22]^[23]

Joost R. Hiltermann says that when the Iraqi military turned its chemical weapons on the Kurds during the war, killing approximately 5,000 people in the town of Halabja and injuring thousands more, the Reagan administration actually sought to obscure Iraqi leadership culpability by suggesting, inaccurately, that the Iranians may have carried out the attack.^[24]

[edit] Military training

Fort Bragg, home of Special Operations Forces.

Iraqi military personnel received various types of guidance from their American counterparts on U.S. soil. According to Roque Gonzalez, an ex-Special Forces officer with multilingual expertise, Saddam's elite troops received instruction in unconventional warfare at Fort Bragg, North Carolina. "The idea was that, in the event of an Iranian victory, the Iraqi soldiers would be able to wage a guerrilla struggle against the occupying Iranian force", writes Barry Lando, former investigative producer with 60 Minutes.^[7] Author Joseph J. Trento adds, "We were training thorough the Green Berets, we were [giving] counter insurgency training, because we were afraid that if Iran overwhelmed Saddam's army, that the units might have to go underground and operate underground, and so they received training in being able to operate as guerillas."^[25]

Iraqi helicopter pilots, traveling on Jordanian passports, are reported to have received training in the United States.^[7]

[edit] Foreign Materiel Acquisition and Bear Spares

With the UN-imposed embargo on warring parties, and with the Soviet Union opposing the conflict, Iraqi engineers found it increasingly difficult to repair and replace hardware damaged in battle.^[26]^[27] According to Kenneth Timmerman, "Saddam did foresee one immediate consequence of his invasion of Iran: the suspension of arms supplies from the USSR."^[4]

When he launched his attack, the Soviets were busy playing games in Iran. They were not amused that the Iraqis upset their plans. For generations the KGB had been working to penetrate Iran's Shiite clergy. In February 1979, when Ayatollah Khomeini took power and threw the Americans out of Iran, the Soviets stood to gain more than they had ever believed possible. ... KGB boss Yuri Andropov [had] little difficulty in convincing Brezhnev and Kosygin to agree to an embargo on arms to Iraq... ^{p. 83-84}

The United States assisted Iraq through a military aid program known as "Bear Spares", whereby the U.S. military "made sure that spare parts and ammunition for Soviet or Soviet-style weaponry were available to countries which sought to reduce their dependence on the Soviets for defense needs."^[17] According to Howard Teicher's court sworn declaration:

If the "Bear Spares" were manufactured outside the United States, then the U.S. could arrange for the provision of these weapons to a third country without direct involvement. Israel, for example, had a very large stockpile of Soviet weaponry and ammunition captured during its various wars. At the suggestion of the United States, the Israelis would transfer the spare parts and weapons to third countries... Similarly, Egypt manufactured weapons and spare parts from Soviet designs and provided these weapons and ammunition to the Iraqis and other countries.

Little today is known about this program as details remain scarce.

[edit] Chemical and Biological exports

Iraq purchased 8 strains of anthrax from the United States in 1985, according to British biological weapons expert David Kelly.^[28] The Iraqi military settled on the American Type Culture Collection strain 14578 as the exclusive strain for use as a biological weapon, according to Charles Duelfer.^[29]

On May 25, 1994, the U.S. Senate Banking Committee released a report in which it was stated that "pathogenic (meaning 'disease producing'), toxigenic (meaning 'poisonous'), and other biological research materials were exported to Iraq pursuant to application and licensing by the U.S. Department of Commerce." It added: "These exported biological materials were not attenuated or weakened and were capable of reproduction."^[30]

The report then detailed 70 shipments (including Bacillus anthracis) from the United States to Iraqi government agencies over three years, concluding "It was later learned that these microorganisms exported by the United States were identical to those the UN inspectors found and recovered from the Iraqi biological warfare program."^[31]

Donald Riegle, Chairman of the Senate committee that authored the aforementioned Riegle Report, said:

U.N. inspectors had identified many United States manufactured items that had been exported from the United States to Iraq under licenses issued by the Department of Commerce, and [established] that these items were used to further Iraq's chemical and nuclear weapons development and its missile delivery system development programs. ... The executive branch of our government approved 771 different export licenses for sale of dual-use technology to Iraq. I think that is a devastating record.

The U.S. Centers for Disease Control sent Iraq 14 separate agents "with biological warfare significance," according to Riegle's investigators.^[32]

[edit] Diplomatic support

In 1984, Iran introduced a draft resolution to the United Nations Security Council, citing the Geneva Protocol of 1925, condemning Saddam Hussein's use of chemical weapons on the battlefield. In response, the United States instructed its delegate at the UN to lobby friendly representatives in support of a motion to take "no decision" on the use of chemical munitions by Iraq. If backing to obstruct the resolution could be won, then the U.S. delegation were to proceed and vote in favour of taking zero action; if support were not forthcoming, the U.S. delegate were to refrain from voting altogether.

USDEL should work to develop general Western position in support of a motion to take "no decision" on Iranian draft resolution on use of chemical weapons by Iraq. If such a motion gets reasonable and broad support and sponsorship, USDEL should vote in favor. Failing Western support for "no decision," USDEL should abstain.^[33]

Representatives of the United States argued that the UN Human Rights Commission was an "inappropriate forum" for consideration of such abuses. According to Joyce Battle, the Security Council eventually issued a "presidential statement" condemning the use of unconventional weapons "without naming Iraq as the offending party."^[14]

[edit] Parties involved

[edit] Sarkis Soghanalian

MD 500 Defender: Iraq acquired 60 multi-role military helicopters directly from the United States in 1983. Additional helicopter sales prompted congressional opposition, forcing the Reagan administration to explore alternative ways of assisting Saddam.^[3]

Alan Friedman writes that Sarkis Soghanalian, one of the most notorious arms dealers during the Cold War, procured Eastern Bloc and French origin weaponry, and brokered vast deals with Iraq, with the tacit approval of the Central Intelligence Agency.^[3]

The most prominent [arms merchant] was Sarkis Soghanalian, a Miami-based former CIA contractor who brokered tens of billions of dollars' worth of military hardware for Iraq during the 1980s, reporting many of his transactions to officials in Washington. [Soghanalian] was close to the Iraqi leadership and to intelligence officers and others in the Reagan administration. In many respects he was the living embodiment of plausible deniability, serving as a key conduit for CIA and other U.S. government operations. ^{p. 36}

In an interview with William Kistner, Soghanalian stated that he was "working closely with the U.S. government".^[34] According to Timmerman, Soghanalian also helped the Iraqis obtain TOW anti-tank missiles, for which he was later prosecuted by the United States Department of Justice.^[4]

[edit] Banca Nazionale del Lavoro

The "Iraqgate" scandal revealed that an Atlanta branch of Italy's largest bank, Banca Nazionale del Lavoro, relying heavily on U.S. government-guaranteed loans, funneled over US$ 5 billion to Iraq from 1985 to 1989. In August 1989, when FBI agents finally raided the Atlanta branch of BNL, the branch manager, Christopher Drogoul, was charged with making unauthorized, clandestine, and illegal loans to Iraq � an unspecified amount of which, according to his indictment, was used to purchase arms and weapons technology. The CIA had previously concealed this information from the Congress, according to senior analyst Melvin A. Goodman.^[35]

Beginning in September, 1989, the Financial Times laid out the first charges that BNL was funding Iraqi chemical and nuclear weapons work. For the next two and a half years, the FT provided the only continuous newspaper reportage on the subject. Among the companies shipping militarily useful technology to Iraq under the eye of the U.S. government, according to the Financial Times, were Hewlett-Packard, Tektronix, and Matrix Churchill, through its Ohio branch.^[36]

Even before the Persian Gulf War started in 1990, the Intelligencer Journal of Pennsylvania in a string of articles reported: "If U.S. and Iraqi troops engage in combat in the Persian Gulf, weapons technology developed in Lancaster and indirectly sold to Iraq will probably be used against U.S. forces ... And aiding in this ... technology transfer was the Iraqi-owned, British-based precision tooling firm Matrix Churchill, whose U.S. operations in Ohio were recently linked to a sophisticated Iraqi weapons procurement network."^[36]

"One entire facility, a tungsten-carbide manufacturing plant that was part of the Al Atheer complex," Kenneth Timmerman informed the Senate Committee on Banking, Housing, and Urban Affairs, "was blown up by the IAEA in April 1992 because it lay at the heart of the Iraqi clandestine nuclear weapons program, PC-3. Equipment for this plant appears to have been supplied by the Latrobe, Pennsylvania manufacturer, Kennametal, and by a large number of other American companies, with financing provided by the Atlanta branch of the BNL bank."^[37]

Aside from the New York Times, the Los Angeles Times, and ABC's Ted Koppel, the Iraq-gate story never picked up much momentum, even though the U.S. Congress became involved with the scandal. See an article by journalist William Safire, introduced into the Congressional Record by Rep. Tom Lantos.^[38]

By contrast, Alcolac International, a Maryland company, transported thiodiglycol, a mustard gas precursor, to Iraq. Alcolac was successfully prosecuted for its violations of export control law.

[edit] Index of American companies

According to German daily newspaper Die Tageszeitung, which is reported to have reviewed an uncensored copy of Iraq's 11,000-page declaration to the U.N. Security Council in 2002, almost 150 foreign companies supported Saddam Hussein's WMD program. Twenty-four U.S. firms were involved in exporting materials to Baghdad.^[39] An even longer list of American companies and their involvements in Iraq was provided by the LA Weekly in May 2003.^[40]

[edit] Energy development and security

[edit] Aqaba pipeline project

The United States government supported the construction of new oil pipeline that would run westward from Iraq across land to the Jordanian port city of Aqaba, permitting access from the Red Sea. The Bechtel Corporation was the prime contractor for this project. Donald Rumsfeld discussed the advantages of the pipeline personally with Saddam Hussein in 1983. The Aqaba project never made it past the drawing board, however, because of its proximity to Israel, which planners insisted upon. So near to the border it would run, the Iraqi leadership feared the Israeli side could disable the pipeline at a later date, simply by "lobbing a few hand grenades" at it.^[4]

[edit] Tanker War and U.S. military involvement

The Tanker War started when Iraq attacked Iranian tankers and the oil terminal at Kharg island in 1984. Iran struck back by attacking tankers carrying Iraqi oil from Kuwait and then any tanker of the Persian Gulf states supporting Iraq. Both nations attacked oil tankers and merchant ships, including those of neutral nations, in an effort to deprive the opponent of trade. After repeated Iraqi attacks on Iran's main exporting facility on Khark Island, Iran attacked a Kuwaiti tanker near Bahrain on May 13, 1984, and a Saudi tanker in Saudi waters on May 16. Attacks on ships of noncombatant nations in the Persian Gulf sharply increased thereafter, and this phase of the war was dubbed the "Tanker War."

Lloyd's of London, a British insurance market, estimated that the Tanker War damaged 546 commercial vessels and killed about 430 civilian mariners. The largest of attacks were directed by Iran against Kuwaiti vessels, and on November 1, 1986, Kuwait formally petitioned foreign powers to protect its shipping. The Soviet Union agreed to charter tankers starting in 1987, and the United States Navy offered to provide protection for tankers flying the U.S. flag on March 7, 1987. Operation Prime Chance was a United States Special Operations Command operation intended to protect U.S.-flagged oil tankers from Iranian attack. The operation took place roughly at the same time as Operation Earnest Will, the largely Navy effort to escort the tankers through the Persian Gulf.

Agusta-Bell 212 ASW: The Italian subsidiary of Bell Textron sold Iraq military helicopters fitted out for anti-submarine warfare. This deal needed, and duly received, government approval.^[4]

Under international law, an attack on such ships would be treated as an attack on the U.S., allowing the U.S. to retaliate militarily. This support would protect ships headed to Iraqi ports, effectively guaranteeing Iraq's revenue stream for the duration of the war.

Special Operations Forces also assisted in this effort. The 160th Special Operations Aviation Regiment operated AH-6 helicopters from a large barge anchored at sea. A second platform was manned by Special Forces from Fort Bragg, piloting OH-58Ds. "These things looked extremely sinister. They were all black and bristling with antennas and had a huge round sight module about two feet in diameter stuck on a mast above the rotor blades. ... The impression you got, just looking at one of these things on the ground, was of a giant insect staring at you before you die", a Special Forces officer is quoted as saying.^[3]

On April 14, 1988, the frigate USS Samuel B. Roberts was badly damaged by an Iranian mine. U.S. forces responded with Operation Praying Mantis on April 18, the United States Navy's largest engagement of surface warships since World War II. Two Iranian ships were destroyed, and an American helicopter was shot down, killing the two pilots.^[41]

A number of researchers and former military personnel contend that the United States carried out Black operations against Iranian military targets during the war. Lt. Col. Roger Charles, who worked in the Office of the Secretary of Defense at the Pentagon, says the Navy used specially equipped Mark III patrol boats during the night, with the intent of luring Iranian gunboats away from territorial waters, where they could be fired upon and destroyed. "They took off at night and rigged up false running lights so that from a distance it would appear there was a merchant ship, which the Iranians would want to inspect."^[3] Barry Lando writes, "The Americans often claimed they attacked the Iranian ships only after the Iranians first menaced neutral ships plying the Gulf. In some cases, however, the neutral ships which the Americans claimed to be defending didn't even exist."

Information collected from Operation Eager Glacier, a top-secret intelligence-gathering program, was also used to bomb manufacturing plants inside Iran by the CIA.^[3]

[edit] The USS Stark incident

An Iraqi jet fighter mistakenly attacked the USS Stark in May 1987, killing 37 servicemen and injuring 21.^[42] But attention in Washington was on isolating Iran; accepting Saddam's apology for the error, the White House criticized Iran's mining of international waters, and in October 1987, the U.S. attacked Iranian oil platforms in retaliation for an Iranian attack on the U.S.-flagged Kuwaiti tanker Sea Isle City.^[41]

Professor Noam Chomsky says the only country to have been granted the "privilege" of attacking a U.S. warship and getting away with it, other than Israel in 1967, is Saddam Hussein's Iraq.^[43]

[edit] The USS Vincennes incident

Main article: Iran Air Flight 655

"During the Iran-Iraq war, Saddam used 101,000 chemical munitions, which was no secret. The U.S. once in a while would peep and say chemical weapons were bad, but at the same time we were giving Saddam intelligence that laid out where Iranian troops were massing. Then he would gas the living daylights out of them. If you're Saddam, you wonder: How is it that between August 1990 and April 1991 the U.S. became so interested in weapons of mass destruction?"

�Charles Duelfer^[44]

In the course of these escorts by the U.S. Navy, the cruiser USS Vincennes shot down Iran Air Flight 655 with the loss of all 290 civilian passengers and crew on July 3, 1988. The American government said that the airliner had been mistaken for an Iranian F-14 Tomcat, and that the USS Vincennes was operating in international waters at the time and feared that it was under attack. The Iranians maintain that the Vincennes was in Iranian territorial waters and that the passenger jet was turning away and increasing altitude after take-off. U.S. Admiral William J. Crowe later acknowledged on ABC's Nightline that the Vincennes was inside Iranian territorial waters when it launched the missiles.^[6]

This event, and the ease with which the United States government accepted the killing of its own servicemen, may have helped convince Iran to agree to a ceasefire. The United States has never formally apologized for the attack in which 290 civilians died.

[edit] Longer term interests

In October 1989, President Bush signed NSD 26, which begins, "Access to Persian Gulf oil and the security of key friendly states in the area are vital to U.S. national security." With respect to Iraq, the directive stated, "Normal relations between the United States and Iraq would serve our longer term interests and promote stability in both the Persian Gulf and the Middle East."^[45]

On August 2, 1990 at 2:00 am, local time, Iraq launched an invasion of oil-rich Kuwait. America's expedient ally had, overnight, become its most bitter enemy.

[edit] Books

Kenneth R. Timmerman, The Death Lobby: How the West Armed Iraq. New York, Houghton Mifflin Company, 1991.
Alan Friedman, Spider's Web: The Secret History of how the White House Illegally Armed Iraq. New York, Bantam Books, 1993.
Bruce Jentleson, With friends like these: Reagan, Bush, and Saddam, 1982-1990. New York, W. W. Norton, 1994.
Mark Phythian, Arming Iraq: How the U.S. and Britain Secretly Built Saddam's War Machine. Boston, Northeastern University Press, 1997.
Barry Lando, Web of Deceit: The History of Western Complicity in Iraq, from Churchill to Kennedy to George W. Bush. Other Press, 2007.
Bryan R. Gibson, "Covert Relationship: American Foreign Policy, Intelligence, and the Iran-Iraq War, 1980-88". Praeger, 2010.

[edit] See also

Operation Staunch was created in spring 1983 by the United States State Department to stop the illicit flow of U.S. arms to Iran.^[46]
Saddam Hussein - United States relations
International aid to combatants in the Iran�Iraq War

[edit] References

^ Chan, Sue. Guess Who Got The Key To Detroit? , CBS News. March 26, 2003.
^ Saddam Reportedly Given Key To Detroit, clickondetroit.com, March 26, 2003.
^ ^a ^b ^c ^d ^e ^f ^g ^h ⁱ ^j Friedman, Alan. Spider's Web: The Secret History of How the White House Illegally Armed Iraq, Bantam Books, 1993.
^ ^a ^b ^c ^d ^e ^f ^g ^h Timmerman, Kenneth R. The Death Lobby: How the West Armed Iraq. New York, Houghton Mifflin Company, 1991.
^ McPherson, James. Journalism at the End of the American Century, 1965-Present, Praeger Publishers, page 125, 30 June 2006.
^ ^a ^b Koppel, Ted. The USS Vincennes: Public War, Secret War, ABC Nightline. July 1, 1992.
^ ^a ^b ^c ^d Lando, Barry Web of Deceit: The History of Western Complicity in Iraq, from Churchill to Kennedy to George W. Bush, Other Press, 2007.
^ "Brzezinski maintained that with the right combination of blandishments, Iraq could be weaned away from Moscow. Encouraged by the suppression of the Iraqi Communist party, and perhaps believing that Iraq could, like Egypt after the October 1973 War, also be convinced to turn toward Washington, Brzezinski concluded that Iraq was poised to succeed Iran as the principle pillar of stability in the Persian Gulf. Although this notion remained very discreet for nearly a year, by the spring of 1980 Brzezinski and others in government and the media began to suggest publicly that Iraq was the logical successor to Iran as the dominant military power in the Persian Gulf. ... Indeed, in April, Brzezinski stated on national television that he saw no fundamental incompatibility of interests between the United States and Iraq." Teicher, Howard. Twin Pillars To Desert Storm, William Morrow and Company, Inc. New York, 1993.
^ Aburish, Said K. The survival of Saddam, PBS Frontline. January 25, 2000.
^ "As it became increasingly clear that the dispute between Saddam and Khomeini could lead to war, Saddam also began looking for allies among his neighbors. ... The most important of these meetings was with Saudi Prince Fahd. As if contracting a mafia hit team, Fahd promised Saddam billions of dollars of support for any move to eliminate Khomeini. The United States followed all this with obvious approval. ... [T]he U.S. made certain that Saddam Hussein understood that an attack on Khomeini would be welcomed by Washington and supported by its allies in the Gulf. Indeed, when Iraqi forces swept into Iran on September 22, 1980, there were no indignant speeches from Western leaders or calls for a U.S. embargo, as there were when Saddam invaded Kuwait ten years later." Lando, Barry M. Web Of Deceit, Other Press, 2007.
^ Additional information comes from a declassified "talking points" memo prepared by President Ronald Reagan's first Secretary of State, Alexander Haig, who in 1981 had just visited Egyptian leader Anwar Sadat and King Fahd of Saudi Arabia. Summing up the trip, which he found productive, Haig wrote: "Both Sadat and Fahd provided other bits of useful intelligence (e.g. Iran is receiving military spares for U.S. equipment from Israel). It was also interesting to confirm that President Carter gave the Iraqis a green light to launch the war against Iran through Fahd." See Parry, Robert. Top Secret "Talking Points" on 1981 Trip to Mideast, Consortium News. February 27, 2003.
^ ^a ^b Brzezinski, Zbigniew. Power and Principle, Memoirs of the National Security Advisor 1977-1981, Farrar Straus Giroux. 1983.
^ Woodward, Bob. "CIA Aiding Iraq in Gulf War; Target Data From U.S. Satellites Supplied for Nearly 2 Years", Washington Post. Dec 15, 1986.
^ ^a ^b ^c Battle, Joyce. Shaking Hands with Saddam Hussein: The U.S. Tilts toward Iraq, 1980-1983 , National Security Archive Electronic Briefing Book No. 82. George Washington University National Security Archive, February 25, 2003.
^ ^a ^b Galbraith, Peter W. "The true Iraq appeasers, The Boston Globe. August 31, 2006.
^ Teicher, Howard. Twin Pillars To Desert Storm: America's Flawed Vision in the Middle East from Nixon to Bush, William Morrow, NY, 1993.
^ ^a ^b Statement by former NSC official Howard Teicher to the U.S. District Court, Southern District of Florida. Plain text version
^ Dobbs, Michael. U.S. Had Key Role in Iraq Buildup Washington Post. December 30, 2002.
^ Smith, R. Jeffrey. Dozens of U.S. Items Used in Iraq Arms, Washington Post. July 22, 1992.
^ Lando, Barry M. A Secret War Against Iran? We've Done It Once-Why Not Again?, Huffington Post. February 27, 2007.
^ Tyler, Patrick E. Officers Say U.S. Aided Iraq in War Despite Use of Gas New York Times August 18, 2002.
^ Pear, Robert. U.S. Says It Monitored Iraqi Messages on Gas, New York Times. September 15, 1988.
^ Chadwick, Alex & Shuster, Mike. U.S. Links to Saddam During Iran�Iraq War National Public Radio. September 22, 2005.
^ Hiltermann, Joost R. Halabja: America didn't seem to mind poison gas, International Herald tribune. January 17, 2003.
^ Lando, Barry M. & Despratx, Michel. Saddam Hussein: The Trial The World Will Never See, Canal + 90 Minutes. 2004.
^ "The Iraqis used mostly Soviet-made equipment, and because the Russians were honoring the arms embargo, the Iraqis were about to run out of ammunition." Martin, Terrence L. & Reid, Rob. "Merchants of Death", Discovery Channel Productions. July 12, 1999.
^ "Egypt had purchased great quantities of Soviet weaponry throughout the 1960s and 1970s, and it still had large stockpiles of Soviet ammunition, spare parts, rocket launchers, and aircraft. ... Only days after the Soviet Union imposed the embargo in late September 1980, [Anwar] Sadat conferred with the Carter administration, then announced that Egypt would sell Iraq $1 billion worth of Soviet arms." Timmerman, Kenneth R. The Death Lobby: How the West Armed Iraq, p 86.
^ Lauria, Joe. Iraq Purchased Anthrax From US Company, Vancouver Sun. October 22, 2001.
^ Duelfer, Charles. Comprehensive Report of the Special Advisor to the Director of Central Intelligence on Iraq's Weapons of Mass Destruction, 30 September 2004, Vol 3, "Biological Warfare", p.21.
^ U.S. Senate Banking Committee. Second Staff Report on U.S. CBW-Related Dual-Use Exports to Iraq, May 25, 1994.
^ Riegle, Jr., Donald W. U.S. Chemical and Biological Warfare-Related Dual Use Exports to Iraq and their Possible Impact on the Health Consequences of the Gulf War, Committee on Banking, Housing and Urban Affairs, May 25, 1994.
^ Drury, Tom. How Iraq built its weapons programs, with a little help from its friends, St. Petersburg Times. March 16, 2003.
^ Department of State Cable from George P. Shultz to the Mission to the European Office of the United Nations and Other International Organizations. "UN Human Rights Commission: Item 12: Iranian Resolution on Use of Chemical Weapons by Iraq," March 14, 1984.
^ Kistner, William. The Cold War's largest arms merchant. PBS Frontline. March 2001
^ Goodman, Melvin A. "The CIA's History of Deception", consortiumnews.com, May 23, 2009.
^ ^a ^b Baker, Russ W. Iraq-gate: The Big One That (Almost) Got Away, Columbia Journalism Review. March, 1993.
^ Timmerman, Kenneth R. "Testimony before the Senate Committee on Banking, Housing, and Urban Affairs", October 27, 1992.
^ Lantos, Tom (May 19, 1992). The Administration's Iraq Gate Scandal, by William Safire. Congressional Record
^ Paterson, Tony. Leaked Report Says German and US Firms Supplied Arms to Saddam The Independent. December 18, 2002.
^ Crogan, Joe. Made in the USA, Part III: The Dishonor Roll, LA Weekly. May 01, 2003.
^ ^a ^b Peniston, Bradley. No Higher Honor: Saving the USS Samuel B. Roberts in the Persian Gulf, Naval Institute Press. 2006.
^ Martins, Mark S. (Winter 1994). "Rules of Engagement for Land Forces: A Matter of Training, Not Lawyering". Military Law Review 143: 43�46
^ Noam Chomsky interviewed by Michael Albert Will the US Invade Iraq?, Z Magazine. September 1, 2002.
^ Kingsbury, Alex (19 February 20093). "Charles Duelfer recounts his searches for Iraqi WMD". U.S. News & World Report.
^ "National Security Directive 26". The White House. 1988-10-02. Retrieved 2006-10-12.
^ Timmerman, Kenneth R. Fanning the Flames: Guns, Greed & Geopolitics in the Gulf War, The Iran Brief, 1986-1988.

[edit] External links

Shaking Hands with Saddam Hussein: The U.S. Tilts toward Iraq, 1980-1984 National Security Archive Electronic Briefing Book No. 82
U.S. Diplomatic and Commercial Relationships with Iraq, 1980 - 2 August 1990 Timeline

> >> There's a lot of truth in what you say about listening to all sides of
> >> the conflict in the name of fair play and I am as concerned about the

> >> security, peace and well-being of the Iranian people as you are � in

> >> fact I supported Iran throughout the war that Iraq and sponsors
> >> imposed on the Islamic Republic. As things are in that volatile
> >> region, even having nuclear reactors for peaceful purposes only

> >> incurs the risk of those reactors being targeted � as military

> >> targets- in the eventually of an enemy attack on Iran and that could
> >> cause great sorrow.
> >>

> >> You say that �Iran has stated that the possession of nuclear weapons
> >> is prohibited in Islam�

> >> How do you reconcile Pakistan - another Muslim state - being in
> >> possession of nuclear weapons?
> >> Which other weapons of mass destruction does Islam prohibit?
> >>
> >> Our great concern about Iran's nuclear intentions doesn't go away

> >> because of your simple assurance that �Iran is an strictly Islamic
> >> state. Iran has so far not attacked or waged war on another country.�

> >>> justify themselves with � But Israel also has� and the doctrine of �

> >>> All's fair in love and war.�
> >>>

200px-Cardoen_Saddam.jpg

magnify-clip.png

200px-Bragg_gate.066.jpg

magnify-clip.png

200px-Bacillus_anthracis_Gram.jpg

magnify-clip.png

200px-McDONNELL_DOUGLAS_DEFENDER_500.png

magnify-clip.png

200px-Rafinerija.jpg

magnify-clip.png

200px-Hellenic_Navy_AB-212_ASW_28129.JPG

magnify-clip.png

200px-The_Shah_with_Atherton2C_Sullivan2C_Vance2C_Carter_and_Brzezinski2C_1977.jpg

magnify-clip.png

200px-Bush_reagan.jpg

magnify-clip.png

seek3D5-Shakinghands_high.OGG.jpg

magnify-clip.png

Mk84bomb.png

Chika Onyeani

unread,

Nov 13, 2011, 12:31:27 PM11/13/11

to usaafric...@googlegroups.com

www.africansuntimes.com

A PARADE OF GOOD NEWS OUT OF ZIMBABWE

There seems to be a parade of good news coming out of Zimbabwe. It would appear that it was like just yesterday that the country was on the cusp of boiling over with political violence orchestrated by ZANU-PF supporters against now Prime Minister and opposition leader Morgan Tsvangirai personally and his MDC (Movement for Democratic Change). What crystalized in 2008 and brought about the violence was the apparent support that the opposition had garnered among Zimbabweans, and translated into the 2008 elections. The 2008 elections were considered one of the fairest elections in Africa whereby Tsvangirai defeated Robert Mugabe in the presidential election. Zimbabweans had defied warnings by security forces during the campaign that they would never accept Tsvangirai as Commander-in-Chief if he won the election, to vote for him.

CONTINUE READING

www.africansuntimes.com

CAIN AND WOODS: WHAT'S WITH BLACK MEN'S PENISES AND WHITE BLOND WOMEN?

Left photo, GOP Presidential hopeful Herman Cain, and right, golf phenom Tiger Woods

Unless you are living in another planet, you would have heard of the accusations of sexual harassment against Republican presidential contender Herman Cain. But like all the others before, Clinton, Weiner and others, he has denied ever harassing these women.

kenneth harrow

unread,

Nov 13, 2011, 5:13:37 PM11/13/11

to usaafric...@googlegroups.com

the u.s. was happy to use iraq as its tool to attack iran; iran, once into the war, pursued it past the point where a peace deal would have ended it, thinking it could conquer iraq. you could add, abdul, that rumsfeld sanctioned the iraqi use of chemical weapons, and the germans supplied parts. but to exculpate iran, in the end, by claiming it remained only a defensive war on their part is probably incorrect.

wiki:

"The war began when Iraq invaded Iran, launching a simultaneous invasion by air and land into Iranian territory on 22 September 1980 following a long history of border disputes, and fears of Shia insurgency among Iraq's long-suppressed Shia majority influenced by the Iranian Revolution. Iraq was also aiming to replace Iran as the dominant Persian Gulf state. Although Iraq hoped to take advantage of the revolutionary chaos in Iran and attacked without formal warning, they made only limited progress into Iran and within several months were repelled by the Iranians who regained virtually all lost territory by June 1982. For the next six years, Iran was on the offensive.^[15]"

ken

On 11/13/11 9:38 AM, Abdul Bangura wrote:

Mwalimu Obe, you forgot to add that our US government supported Iraq's attack on Iran. Some observers even stated thatï¿½our US governmentï¿½pushed Iraq to attack Iran in order to counterbalance the rise of Iran in the region. The following is a chronology of events by John King.

ï¿½

> Come on Ken, you know that very well it was Iran that was attacked and invaded by Iraq.ï¿½ The response to that is not called 'waging war' but self-defence.

>
> And by the way, the support that Saddam Hussein's Iraq received from the United States dwarfs anything that Iran may have offered Hezbollah in its resistance to Israeli occupation.
>
> Ayo
> I invite you to follow me on Twitter @naijama
>
> On 13 Nov 2011, at 00:31, kenneth harrow <har...@msu.edu> wrote:
>
> > "iran has not waged war on another country."
> > so the 2 million or so who died in the iran-iraq war were imaginary?
> > ken
> >
> > On 11/12/11 6:11 PM, Cornelius Hamelberg wrote:
> >> Sir,
> >>
> >> True: Boko Haram is not a country, although it's a clear intention of

> >> theirs to proclaim Sharia Lawï¿½ throughout what they dream will soon be
> >> be the Federalï¿½ Islamic Republic of Nigeria.
> >>
> >> Whereas Iran is already an Islamic State -ï¿½ please take note -ï¿½ Iran

> >> is not an ordinary Muslim State, or some uncle tom kind of Islamic
> >> State and that's why it's called the Revolutionary Islamic Republic
> >> with its own unique national, regional and global agenda. Under the
> >> mantle of Wilayat-e-faqih, the state has its duties and
> >> responsibilities though perhaps it's unlikely that the Mullahs (the

> >> Council of Guardians) call for a referendumï¿½ - a consultation with the
> >> people about the nuclearï¿½ issue or about any other priorities on their

> >> agenda.
> >>
> >> http://www.google.com/search?q=Boko+Haram&ie=utf-8&oe=utf-8&aq=t&rls=org.mozilla:sv-SE:official&client=firefox-a#q=Boko+Haram&hl=en&client=firefox-a&hs=Ejh&rls=org.mozilla:sv-SE:official&prmd=imvnsu&source=lnms&tbm=nws&ei=kPK-Ttq6O5SK4gTPuMG4BA&sa=X&oi=mode_link&ct=mode&cd=5&ved=0CBgQ_AUoBA&bav=on.2,or.r_gc.r_pw.,cf.osb&fp=b79e7cf5fdd41d7d&biw=1255&bih=844
> >>
> >> Iran and their surrogates Hezbollah are working for the erection of a

> >> New Islamic State between Jordan and the deep blue Seaï¿½ï¿½ - to replace

> >> Israel which they would like to wipe off the surface of the map ( God

> >> forbid) and they would like to call their new stateï¿½ the Great Islamic

> >> Republic of Palestine, the 23rd Arab State. I believe that they intend
> >> to create that state through military means.
> >>
> >> You seem to think that it's mainly the West that's worried about
> >> Iran's peaceful nuclear programme, but I assure you that all the
> >> neighbouring Sunni Arab Muslim countries, the Saudis, Egypt, the

> >> Turks, in shortï¿½ all the Sunnis great and small are a little worried
> >> about the more dominant role that Iran could playï¿½ - militarily in
> >> their neighbourhood ï¿½

> >>
> >> There's a lot of truth in what you say about listening to all sides of
> >> the conflict in the name of fair play and I am as concerned about the

> >> security, peace and well-being of the Iranian people as you are ï¿½ in

> >> fact I supported Iran throughout the war that Iraq and sponsors
> >> imposed on the Islamic Republic. As things are in that volatile

> >> region, even havingï¿½ nuclear reactors for peaceful purposes only
> >> incurs the risk of those reactors being targeted ï¿½ as military

> >> targets- in the eventually of an enemy attack on Iran and that could

> >> causeï¿½ great sorrow.
> >>
> >> You say that ï¿½Iran has stated that the possession of nuclear weapons
> >> is prohibited in Islamï¿½
> >> How do you reconcileï¿½ Pakistanï¿½ - another Muslim stateï¿½ - being in

> >> possession of nuclear weapons?
> >> Which other weapons of mass destruction does Islam prohibit?
> >>
> >> Our great concern about Iran's nuclear intentions doesn't go away

> >> because of your simple assurance that ï¿½Iran is an strictly Islamic
> >> state. Iran has so far not attacked or waged war on another country.ï¿½

> >>> In the final analysis "prevention is better than cure"ï¿½ and when the

> >>> Shia doctrines of Taqiyya and Kitman enter the political arena of
> >>> public diplomacy there's no telling exactly where the Iranian regime
> >>> is heading. It's extra dangerous because we cannot foresee that the

> >>> regime is destined to be stable., forever. Most ofï¿½ the Sunni World

> >>> backed Saddam Hussein in his 8 year war which he started against Iran

> >>> and since around that time there'sï¿½ been a storm brewing with the

> >>> custodians of the Holy places in Saudi Arabia and as you know the
> >>> whole area is the reservoir of oil supplies to the West, to China and
> >>> Japan......so nobody wants to see any nuclear tipped missiles flying

> >>> aroundï¿½ in this areaï¿½ which would be better off without them and the

> >>> mad rush of the other neighbours to achieve nuclear capability. If
> >>> Gaddafi, and Saddam had had nuclear weapons we'd now be telling
> >>> another tale.
> >>>
> >>> Should Iran be given the opportunity of upgrading from peaceful to

> >>> military, in response to the IEAE sayingï¿½ so you were lying, they will
> >>> justify themselves with ï¿½ But Israel also hasï¿½ï¿½ and the doctrine of ï¿½
> >>> All's fair in love and war.ï¿½

> >>>
> >>> No matter how sympathetically you look at the scenario, it's a matter
> >>> of great concern, presently and in the unforeseeable future.
> >>>
> >>> http://www.thelocal.se/blogs/corneliushamelberg/
> >>>
> >>> On Nov 12, 5:10 am, "Anunoby, Ogugua"<Anuno...@lincolnu.edu>ï¿½ wrote:
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>> Every right thinking person knows that a military strike against Iran will have serious consequences for all concerned and more. If Iran is indeed developing nuclear weapons, a military strike will at best delay it. The question that needs to be asked and answered truthfully is why Iran would want to develop nuclear weapons. Iran must be aware of the weapons' deterent benefit. If Iran felt more safe from external threats and attack than it presently does, its posture on self-defense might be different. Iran's situation is analogous to Pakistan's after India developed nuclear weapons. Russia and China propose the continuation of talks. They know that talk is is more efficacious and cheaper than war.

> >>>> What the world needs is peace and leaders of goodwill, not a new imperialism and belligerent leaders of belicose countries. The experience of recent history is that the attack of one country by another is decreasingly a win-win possibility. War is increasingly unwise and too costly at the end of the day. War may enrich individuals and corporations but it impoverishes countries. Military superiority no longer conveys the advantage that it did in the past. Victory and defeat have lost their essence, meaning, and value.ï¿½ War without end is the new normal. Paneta is well aware of this reality. He has done his job. He has warned against military strike on Iran. Will "they" listen is once again the question.

> >>>> oa
> >>>> ________________________________________
> >>>> From: usaafric...@googlegroups.com [usaafric...@googlegroups.com] On Behalf Of Emeagwali, Gloria (History) [emeagw...@mail.ccsu.edu]
> >>>> Sent: Friday, November 11, 2011 6:04 PM
> >>>> To: usaafric...@googlegroups.com
> >>>> Subject: RE: USA Africa Dialogue Series - Re: Paneta Warns Against Military Strike Against Iran
> >>>> One of the unintended consequences of hitting Iran's nuclear
> >>>> facilities could be the radioactive fallout enveloping the area in a
> >>>> nuclear fog....and this could affect a lot of innocent Iranians, who
> >>>> have no part to play in the ideals of nuclear terror.

> >>>> True.ï¿½ï¿½ Maybeï¿½ the Iranians can pay Cheney's former firm Blackwater to do the clean up.
> >>>> Come to think of it, an unihabitable and underpopulatedï¿½ MiddleEastï¿½ will be great for Big Oil.

> >>>> They can have it all....and Obama would have an oil tanker named after him.
> >>>> Dr. Gloria Emeagwali

> >>>> Prof. of History&ï¿½ African Studies

> >>>> History Department
> >>>> Central Connecticut State University
> >>>> New Britain
> >>>> CT 06050www.africahistory.netwww.esnips.com/web/GloriaEmeagwali
> >>>> emeagw...@ccsu.edu
> >>>> ________________________________________
> >>>> From: usaafric...@googlegroups.com [usaafric...@googlegroups.com] On Behalf Of Cornelius Hamelberg [corneliushamelb...@gmail.com]
> >>>> Sent: Friday, November 11, 2011 9:53 AM
> >>>> To: USA Africa Dialogue Series
> >>>> Subject: USA Africa Dialogue Series - Re: Paneta Warns Against Military Strike Against Iran
> >>>> One of the unintended consequences of hitting Iran's nuclear
> >>>> facilities could be the radioactive fallout enveloping the area in a
> >>>> nuclear fog....and this could affect a lot of innocent Iranians, who
> >>>> have no part to play in the ideals of nuclear terror.
> >>>> The bigger question is what would be the consequence of not doing
> >>>> anything?
> >>>> Some of the consequences of inaction are spelled out here in the

> >>>> alarming updates on the approachingï¿½ inevitable showdown between Iran
> >>>> and those united in faith against an Iranian bomb, whichï¿½ all things

> >>>> considered ought to be feared...
> >>>> http://www.dailyalert.org/archive/2011-11/2011-11-11.html

> >>>> On Nov 11, 4:29 am, Abdul Karim Bangura<th...@earthlink.net>ï¿½ wrote:
> >>>>> Panetta warns on Iran strike consequencesUS defence chief cautions on regional fallout from any military strike against Iran.
> >>>>> Last Modified:11 Nov 2011 01:46

> >>>>> Panetta saysï¿½ a strike on Iran will only delay its nuclear programme [EPA]

> >>>>> US Defence Secretary Leon Panetta has warned that military action against Iran could lead to "unintended consequences" for the region.
> >>>>> "You've got to be careful of unintended consequences here," Panetta told reporters at a Pentagon press conference on Thursday.
> >>>>> His comments came only hours after Tehran itself warned that any attack on its nuclear sites would be met with "iron fists."
> >>>>> Panetta, who in July succeeded Robert Gates in the Pentagon's top post, said his assessment is in line with his predecessor's.
> >>>>> He maintained that a strike on Iran might fail to deter Iran "from what they want to do" and would only delay its controversial nuclear programme.
> >>>>> "But more importantly, it could have a serious impact in the region, and it could have a serious impact on US forces in the region," he said. "And I think all of those things, you know, need to be carefully considered."
> >>>>> 'Toughest sanctions'
> >>>>> Panetta stressed instead on US efforts to win tougher sanctions against Tehran.
> >>>>> "It is important for us to make sure we apply the toughest sanctions -- economic, diplomatic pressures -- on Iran to change their behaviour," he said.
> >>>>> "And we are in discussions with our allies with regards to additional sanctions that ought to be placed on Iran."
> >>>>> The European Union may approve fresh sanctions against Iran within weeks, after a UN agency said Tehran had worked to design nuclear bombs, EU diplomats said on Thursday.
> >>>>> EU sanctions would be a significant part of Western efforts to ratchet up pressure on Tehran. Western governments would prefer UN Security Council measures against Tehran, but Russia and China, both permanent UN Security Council members with veto power, are opposed.
> >>>>> Tensions over Tehran's nuclear programme were re-ignited on Tuesday when a report by the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA), said Iran had worked on designing a bomb and that research to that end may be on-going.
> >>>>> Israel exacerbated speculation of a strike against Iran after last week'stesting of a ballistic missilecapable of traveling the 6,437 kilometres to Iran.
> >>>>> Israel's first test-fire of a missile in three years came after Israeli media speculation alleging Benyamin Netanyahu, the Israeli prime minister, and Ehud Barak, defence minister, of planning a strike against Iran's nuclear facilities.
> >>>>> Iran has warned that it will respond to any attacks
> >>> ...
> >>>

> >>> read more ï¿½

> >
> > --
> > kenneth w. harrow
> > distinguished professor of english
> > michigan state university
> > department of english
> > east lansing, mi 48824-1036
> > ph. 517 803 8839
> > har...@msu.edu
> >
> > --
> > You received this message because you are subscribed to the "USA-Africa Dialogue Series" moderated by Toyin Falola, University of Texas at Austin.

> >ï¿½ For current archives, visit http://groups.google.com/group/USAAfricaDialogue
> >ï¿½ For previous archives, visitï¿½ http://www.utexas.edu/conferences/africa/ads/index.html
> >ï¿½ To post to this group, send an email to USAAfric...@googlegroups.com
> >ï¿½ To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to USAAfricaDialogue-ï¿½ï¿½ï¿½ï¿½ï¿½ï¿½ unsub...@googlegroups.com

>
> --
> You received this message because you are subscribed to the "USA-Africa Dialogue Series" moderated by Toyin Falola, University of Texas at Austin.

>ï¿½ï¿½ï¿½ For current archives, visit http://groups.google.com/group/USAAfricaDialogue
>ï¿½ï¿½ï¿½ For previous archives, visitï¿½ http://www.utexas.edu/conferences/africa/ads/index.html
>ï¿½ï¿½ï¿½ To post to this group, send an email to USAAfric...@googlegroups.com
>ï¿½ï¿½ï¿½ To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to USAAfricaDialogue-ï¿½ï¿½ï¿½ï¿½
>ï¿½ï¿½ï¿½ unsub...@googlegroups.com

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the "USA-Africa Dialogue Series" moderated by Toyin Falola, University of Texas at Austin.
For current archives, visit http://groups.google.com/group/USAAfricaDialogue
For previous archives, visit http://www.utexas.edu/conferences/africa/ads/index.html
To post to this group, send an email to USAAfric...@googlegroups.com
To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to USAAfricaDialogue-
unsub...@googlegroups.com

kenneth harrow

unread,

Nov 13, 2011, 5:28:48 PM11/13/11

to usaafric...@googlegroups.com

here are more details concerning that war. too many people died for absolutely nothing, and the interest in pursuing the war after 1982 fell on both sides, but particularly iran. i wonder how many on this list read Persepolis, the graphic novel by marhane satrapi. she paints an awful picture of that war, after its initial patriotic phase of iranians defending their country. the martyrdom and use of chemical weapons was horrendous, and ultimately completely pointless. a million or two million died for no real reason.
isn't there any way we can think of improving our lot on this planet besides following fanatical or greedy leaders?
ken

http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/world/war/iran-iraq.htmIraqi Retreats, 1982-84

The Iranian high command passed from regular military leaders to clergy in mid-1982.

In March 1982, Tehran launched its Operation Undeniable Victory, which marked a major turning point, as Iran penetrated Iraq's "impenetrable" lines, split Iraq's forces, and forced the Iraqis to retreat. Its forces broke the Iraqi line near Susangerd, separating Iraqi units in northern and southern Khuzestan. Within a week, they succeeded in destroying a large part of three Iraqi divisions. This operation, another combined effort of the army, Pasdaran, and Basij, was a turning point in the war because the strategic initiative shifted from Iraq to Iran.

In May 1982, Iranian units finally regained Khorramshahr, but with high casualties. After this victory, the Iranians maintained the pressure on the remaining Iraqi forces, and President Saddam Hussein announced that the Iraqi units would withdraw from Iranian territory. Saddam ordered a withdrawal to the international borders, believing Iran would agree to end the war. Iran did not accept this withdrawal as the end of the conflict, and continued the war into Iraq. In late June 1982, Baghdad stated its willingness to negotiate a settlement of the war and to withdraw its forces from Iran. Iran refused.

In July 1982 Iran launched Operation Ramadan on Iraqi territory, near Basra. Although Basra was within range of Iranian artillery, the clergy used "human-wave" attacks by the Pasdaran and Basij against the city's defenses, apparently waiting for a coup to topple Saddam Hussein. Tehran used Pasdaran forces and Basij volunteers in one of the biggest land battles since 1945. Ranging in age from only nine to more than fifty, these eager but relatively untrained soldiers swept over minefields and fortifications to clear safe paths for the tanks. All such assaults faced Iraqi artillery fire and received heavy casualties. The Iranians sustained an immmense number of casualties, but they enabled Iran to recover some territory before the Iraqis could repulse the bulk of the invading forces.

By the end of 1982, Iraq had been resupplied with new Soviet materiel, and the ground war entered a new phase. Iraq used newly acquired T-55 tanks and T-62 tanks, BM-21 Stalin Organ rocket launchers, and Mi-24 helicopter gunships to prepare a Soviet-type three-line defense, replete with obstacles, minefields, and fortified positions. The Combat Engineer Corps proved efficient in constructing bridges across water obstacles, in laying minefields, and in preparing new defense lines and fortifications.

Throughout 1983 both sides demonstrated their ability to absorb and to inflict severe losses. Iraq, in particular, proved adroit at constructing defensive strong points and flooding lowland areas to stymie the Iranian thrusts, hampering the advance of mechanized units. Both sides also experienced difficulties in effectively utilizing their armor. Rather than maneuver their armor, they tended to dig in tanks and use them as artillery pieces. Furthermore, both sides failed to master tank gunsights and fire controls, making themselves vulnerable to antitank weapons.

In 1983 Iran launched three major, but unsuccessful, humanwave offensives, with huge losses, along the frontier. On February 6, Tehran, using 200,000 "last reserve" Pasdaran troops, attacked along a 40-kilometer stretch near Al Amarah, about 200 kilometers southeast of Baghdad. Backed by air, armor, and artillery support, Iran's six-division thrust was strong enough to break through. In response, Baghdad used massive air attacks, with more than 200 sorties, many flown by attack helicopters. More than 6,000 Iranians were killed that day, while achieving only minute gains. In April 1983, the Mandali-Baghdad northcentral sector witnessed fierce fighting, as repeated Iranian attacks were stopped by Iraqi mechanized and infantry divisions. Casualties were very high, and by the end of 1983, an estimated 120,000 Iranians and 60,000 Iraqis had been killed. Despite these losses, in 1983 Iran held a distinct advantage in the attempt to wage and eventually to win the war of attrition.

Beginning in 1984, Baghdad's military goal changed from controlling Iranian territory to denying Tehran any major gain inside Iraq. Furthermore, Iraq tried to force Iran to the negotiating table by various means. First, President Saddam Hussein sought to increase the war's manpower and economic cost to Iran. For this purpose, Iraq purchased new weapons, mainly from the Soviet Union and France. Iraq also completed the construction of what came to be known as "killing zones" (which consisted primarily of artificially flooded areas near Basra) to stop Iranian units. In addition, according to Jane's Defence Weekly and other sources, Baghdad used chemical weapons against Iranian troop concentrations and launched attacks on many economic centers. Despite Iraqi determination to halt further Iranian progress, Iranian units in March 1984 captured parts of the Majnun Islands, whose oil fields had economic as well as strategic value.

Second, Iraq turned to diplomatic and political means. In April 1984, Saddam Hussein proposed to meet Khomeini personally in a neutral location to discuss peace negotiations. But Tehran rejected this offer and restated its refusal to negotiate with President Hussein.

Third, Iraq sought to involve the superpowers as a means of ending the war. The Iraqis believed this objective could be achieved by attacking Iranian shipping. Initially, Baghdad used borrowed French Super Etendard aircraft armed with Exocets. In 1984 Iraq returned these airplanes to France and purchased approximately thirty Mirage F-1 fighters equipped with Exocet missiles. Iraq launched a new series of attacks on shipping on February 1, 1984.

The War of Attrition, 1984-87

By 1984 it was reported that some 300,000 Iranian soldiers and 250,000 Iraqi troops had been killed, or wounded. Most foreign military analysts felt that neither Iraq nor Iran used its modern equipment efficiently. Frequently, sophisticated materiel was left unused, when a massive modern assault could have won the battle for either side. Tanks and armored vehicles were dug in and used as artillery pieces, instead of being maneuvered to lead or to support an assault. William O. Staudenmaeir, a seasoned military analyst, reported that "the land-computing sights on the Iraqi tanks [were] seldom used. This lower[ed] the accuracy of the T-62 tanks to World War II standards." In addition, both sides frequently abandoned heavy equipment in the battle zone because they lacked the skilled technical personnel needed to carry out minor repairs.

Analysts also assert that the two states' armies showed little coordination and that some units in the field have been left to fight largely on their own. In this protracted war of attrition, soldiers and officers alike failed to display initiative or professional expertise in combat. Difficult decisions, which should have had immediate attention, were referred by section commanders to the capitals for action. Except for the predictable bursts on important anniversaries, by the mid-1980s the war was stalemated.

In early 1984, Iran had begun Operation Dawn V, which was meant to split the Iraqi 3rd Army Corps and 4th Army Corps near Basra. In early 1984, an estimated 500,000 Pasdaran and Basij forces, using shallow boats or on foot, moved to within a few kilometers of the strategic Basra-Baghdad waterway. Between February 29 and March 1, in one of the largest battles of the war, the two armies clashed and inflicted more than 25,000 fatalities on each other. Without armored and air support of their own, the Iranians faced Iraqi tanks, mortars, and helicopter gunships. Within a few weeks, Tehran opened another front in the shallow lakes of the Hawizah Marshes, just east of Al Qurnah, in Iraq, near the confluence of the Tigris and Euphrates rivers. Iraqi forces, using Soviet- and French-made helicopter gunships, inflicted heavy casualties on the five Iranian brigades (15,000 men) in this Battle of Majnun.

Lacking the equipment to open secure passages through Iraqi minefields, and having too few tanks, the Iranian command again resorted to the human-wave tactic. In March 1984, an East European journalist claimed that he "saw tens of thousands of children, roped together in groups of about twenty to prevent the faint-hearted from deserting, make such an attack." The Iranians made little, if any, progress despite these sacrifices. Perhaps as a result of this performance, Tehran, for the first time, used a regular army unit, the 92nd Armored Division, at the Battle of the Marshes a few weeks later.

Within a four-week period between February and March 1984, the Iraqis reportedly killed 40,000 Iranians and lost 9,000 of their own men, but even this was deemed an unacceptable ratio, and in February the Iraqi command ordered the use of chemical weapons. Despite repeated Iraqi denials, between May 1981 and March 1984, Iran charged Iraq with forty uses of chemical weapons. The year 1984 closed with part of the Majnun Islands and a few pockets of Iraqi territory in Iranian hands. Casualties notwithstanding, Tehran had maintained its military posture, while Baghdad was reevaluating its overall strategy.

The major development in 1985 was the increased targeting of population centers and industrial facilities by both combatants. In May Iraq began aircraft attacks, long-range artillery attacks, and surface-to-surface missile attacks on Tehran and on other major Iranian cities. Between August and November, Iraq raided Khark Island forty-four times in a futile attempt to destroy its installations. Iran responded with its own air raids and missile attacks on Baghdad and other Iraqi towns. In addition, Tehran systematized its periodic stop-and-search operations, which were conducted to verify the cargo contents of ships in the Persian Gulf and to seize war materiel destined for Iraq.

The Iraqi Air Force's first real strategic bombing campaign, the so-called war of the cities, aimed at breaking civilian morale and disrupting military targets. Iraq's two efforts early in 1985, from 14 March to 7 April and 25 May to 15 June, were reportedly very effective. Opposition from the Iranian Air Force was negligible to nonexistent, as the Iraqis hit air bases and military and industrial targets all over Iran (in Tabriz, Urmia, Rasht, Bakhteran, Hamadan, Tehran, Isfahan, Dezful, Ahvaz, Kharg, Bushehr, and Shiraz). Even Iraq's lumbering old Tu-16 bombers were getting through, presumably with MiG-25 and Mirage F-1 escorts, as the Iraqis hit targets as far away as Kashan, more than 360 miles from their own bases. Iran's official Kayhan daily confirmed this, reporting that Tehran was being bombed by "Tupolevs (Tu-16 Badger and Tu-22 Blinder bombers) flying at very high altitudes." The brunt of Iraq's bombing offensive, borne by nearly 600 smaller Iraqi combat planes, has fallen on Tehran in an effort to crush Iranian morale. the Iraqis boasted of 180-plane raids on the Iranian capital. Antiwar feeling in Tehran was at an all-time high, as the Iraqis hit the city an average of twice a day and, on two occasions, six times. Among the areas hit were the Bagh-e Saba Revolutionary Guard Barracks, Tehran's main power station, the Military Staff College, the Military Academy, the main army barracks, and the Abbas Abbad Army Base. Southern Tehran's locomotive works and the heavy industrial area near Javadieh were also hit, and even the three military airfields that were supposed to protect the city-Mehrabad, Jey, and Qual'eh Murgeh-were repeatedly attacked with impunity.

Iraq's air force and 'Scud' stikes at Iranian cities pushed the Islamic Republic to look for a comparable response. Iran began the Iran-Iraq War with no SSM capability but managed to import SS-1 'Scud Bs' (R-17Es) in 1985 from Libya and in 1986 from Syria. The Revolutionary Guard Corps, which took charge of the weapons, used them against Iraq between 1985 and 1988. Iran used 'Scud Bs' from Syria, Libya and possibly North Korea against major cities, including Baghdad and Basra. During this first war of the cities, Iran's strategic depth prevented Iraq's missiles from reaching major targets such as Tehran. By 1988, however, Iraq had developed its extended range 'Scud', the al-Hussein, and took Iran by surprise with its strikes on key urban conurbations. In the spring of 1988, Iraq launched up to 200 SSMs against Tehran, Qom and Isfahan. Although only 2000 people were killed in these attacks, they caused panic in the populace and hundreds of thousands fled the cities.

During the war, Iranian leaders frequently exaggerated their capabilities in the missile field. Although their 'Scud Bs' could hit Baghdad, these weapons lacked the accuracy or destructive power to do significant damage. In addition, Iran was unable to match Iraq's quantity of missiles. Iraq fired 361 'Scud Bs' at Iran from 1982 to 1988 and about 160 al-Hussein's at Tehran in early 1988. In contrast, Iran fired 117 'Scuds' throughout the war, including perhaps 60 fired at Baghdad.

On 11/13/11 9:38 AM, Abdul Bangura wrote:

Mwalimu Obe, you forgot to add that our US government supported Iraq's attack on Iran. Some observers even stated thatï¿½our US governmentï¿½pushed Iraq to attack Iran in order to counterbalance the rise of Iran in the region. The following is a chronology of events by John King.

ï¿½

> Come on Ken, you know that very well it was Iran that was attacked and invaded by Iraq.ï¿½ The response to that is not called 'waging war' but self-defence.

>
> And by the way, the support that Saddam Hussein's Iraq received from the United States dwarfs anything that Iran may have offered Hezbollah in its resistance to Israeli occupation.
>
> Ayo
> I invite you to follow me on Twitter @naijama
>
> On 13 Nov 2011, at 00:31, kenneth harrow <har...@msu.edu> wrote:
>
> > "iran has not waged war on another country."
> > so the 2 million or so who died in the iran-iraq war were imaginary?
> > ken
> >
> > On 11/12/11 6:11 PM, Cornelius Hamelberg wrote:
> >> Sir,
> >>
> >> True: Boko Haram is not a country, although it's a clear intention of

> >> theirs to proclaim Sharia Lawï¿½ throughout what they dream will soon be
> >> be the Federalï¿½ Islamic Republic of Nigeria.
> >>

> >> Whereas Iran is already an Islamic State -ï¿½ please take note -ï¿½ Iran

> >> is not an ordinary Muslim State, or some uncle tom kind of Islamic
> >> State and that's why it's called the Revolutionary Islamic Republic
> >> with its own unique national, regional and global agenda. Under the
> >> mantle of Wilayat-e-faqih, the state has its duties and
> >> responsibilities though perhaps it's unlikely that the Mullahs (the

> >> Council of Guardians) call for a referendumï¿½ - a consultation with the
> >> people about the nuclearï¿½ issue or about any other priorities on their

> >> agenda.
> >>
> >> http://www.google.com/search?q=Boko+Haram&ie=utf-8&oe=utf-8&aq=t&rls=org.mozilla:sv-SE:official&client=firefox-a#q=Boko+Haram&hl=en&client=firefox-a&hs=Ejh&rls=org.mozilla:sv-SE:official&prmd=imvnsu&source=lnms&tbm=nws&ei=kPK-Ttq6O5SK4gTPuMG4BA&sa=X&oi=mode_link&ct=mode&cd=5&ved=0CBgQ_AUoBA&bav=on.2,or.r_gc.r_pw.,cf.osb&fp=b79e7cf5fdd41d7d&biw=1255&bih=844
> >>
> >> Iran and their surrogates Hezbollah are working for the erection of a

> >> New Islamic State between Jordan and the deep blue Seaï¿½ï¿½ - to replace

> >> Israel which they would like to wipe off the surface of the map ( God

> >> forbid) and they would like to call their new stateï¿½ the Great Islamic

> >> Republic of Palestine, the 23rd Arab State. I believe that they intend
> >> to create that state through military means.
> >>
> >> You seem to think that it's mainly the West that's worried about
> >> Iran's peaceful nuclear programme, but I assure you that all the
> >> neighbouring Sunni Arab Muslim countries, the Saudis, Egypt, the

> >> Turks, in shortï¿½ all the Sunnis great and small are a little worried
> >> about the more dominant role that Iran could playï¿½ - militarily in
> >> their neighbourhood ï¿½

> >>
> >> There's a lot of truth in what you say about listening to all sides of
> >> the conflict in the name of fair play and I am as concerned about the

> >> security, peace and well-being of the Iranian people as you are ï¿½ in

> >> fact I supported Iran throughout the war that Iraq and sponsors
> >> imposed on the Islamic Republic. As things are in that volatile

> >> region, even havingï¿½ nuclear reactors for peaceful purposes only
> >> incurs the risk of those reactors being targeted ï¿½ as military

> >> targets- in the eventually of an enemy attack on Iran and that could

> >> causeï¿½ great sorrow.
> >>
> >> You say that ï¿½Iran has stated that the possession of nuclear weapons
> >> is prohibited in Islamï¿½

> >> How do you reconcileï¿½ Pakistanï¿½ - another Muslim stateï¿½ - being in

> >> possession of nuclear weapons?
> >> Which other weapons of mass destruction does Islam prohibit?
> >>
> >> Our great concern about Iran's nuclear intentions doesn't go away

> >> because of your simple assurance that ï¿½Iran is an strictly Islamic
> >> state. Iran has so far not attacked or waged war on another country.ï¿½

> >>> In the final analysis "prevention is better than cure"ï¿½ and when the

> >>> Shia doctrines of Taqiyya and Kitman enter the political arena of
> >>> public diplomacy there's no telling exactly where the Iranian regime
> >>> is heading. It's extra dangerous because we cannot foresee that the

> >>> regime is destined to be stable., forever. Most ofï¿½ the Sunni World

> >>> backed Saddam Hussein in his 8 year war which he started against Iran

> >>> and since around that time there'sï¿½ been a storm brewing with the

> >>> custodians of the Holy places in Saudi Arabia and as you know the
> >>> whole area is the reservoir of oil supplies to the West, to China and
> >>> Japan......so nobody wants to see any nuclear tipped missiles flying

> >>> aroundï¿½ in this areaï¿½ which would be better off without them and the

> >>> mad rush of the other neighbours to achieve nuclear capability. If
> >>> Gaddafi, and Saddam had had nuclear weapons we'd now be telling
> >>> another tale.
> >>>
> >>> Should Iran be given the opportunity of upgrading from peaceful to

> >>> military, in response to the IEAE sayingï¿½ so you were lying, they will
> >>> justify themselves with ï¿½ But Israel also hasï¿½ï¿½ and the doctrine of ï¿½

> >>> All's fair in love and war.ï¿½

> >>>
> >>> No matter how sympathetically you look at the scenario, it's a matter
> >>> of great concern, presently and in the unforeseeable future.
> >>>
> >>> http://www.thelocal.se/blogs/corneliushamelberg/
> >>>
> >>> On Nov 12, 5:10 am, "Anunoby, Ogugua"<Anuno...@lincolnu.edu>ï¿½ wrote:
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>> Every right thinking person knows that a military strike against Iran will have serious consequences for all concerned and more. If Iran is indeed developing nuclear weapons, a military strike will at best delay it. The question that needs to be asked and answered truthfully is why Iran would want to develop nuclear weapons. Iran must be aware of the weapons' deterent benefit. If Iran felt more safe from external threats and attack than it presently does, its posture on self-defense might be different. Iran's situation is analogous to Pakistan's after India developed nuclear weapons. Russia and China propose the continuation of talks. They know that talk is is more efficacious and cheaper than war.

> >>>> What the world needs is peace and leaders of goodwill, not a new imperialism and belligerent leaders of belicose countries. The experience of recent history is that the attack of one country by another is decreasingly a win-win possibility. War is increasingly unwise and too costly at the end of the day. War may enrich individuals and corporations but it impoverishes countries. Military superiority no longer conveys the advantage that it did in the past. Victory and defeat have lost their essence, meaning, and value.ï¿½ War without end is the new normal. Paneta is well aware of this reality. He has done his job. He has warned against military strike on Iran. Will "they" listen is once again the question.

> >>>> oa
> >>>> ________________________________________
> >>>> From: usaafric...@googlegroups.com [usaafric...@googlegroups.com] On Behalf Of Emeagwali, Gloria (History) [emeagw...@mail.ccsu.edu]
> >>>> Sent: Friday, November 11, 2011 6:04 PM
> >>>> To: usaafric...@googlegroups.com
> >>>> Subject: RE: USA Africa Dialogue Series - Re: Paneta Warns Against Military Strike Against Iran
> >>>> One of the unintended consequences of hitting Iran's nuclear
> >>>> facilities could be the radioactive fallout enveloping the area in a
> >>>> nuclear fog....and this could affect a lot of innocent Iranians, who
> >>>> have no part to play in the ideals of nuclear terror.

> >>>> True.ï¿½ï¿½ Maybeï¿½ the Iranians can pay Cheney's former firm Blackwater to do the clean up.
> >>>> Come to think of it, an unihabitable and underpopulatedï¿½ MiddleEastï¿½ will be great for Big Oil.

> >>>> They can have it all....and Obama would have an oil tanker named after him.
> >>>> Dr. Gloria Emeagwali

> >>>> Prof. of History&ï¿½ African Studies

> >>>> History Department
> >>>> Central Connecticut State University
> >>>> New Britain
> >>>> CT 06050www.africahistory.netwww.esnips.com/web/GloriaEmeagwali
> >>>> emeagw...@ccsu.edu
> >>>> ________________________________________
> >>>> From: usaafric...@googlegroups.com [usaafric...@googlegroups.com] On Behalf Of Cornelius Hamelberg [corneliushamelb...@gmail.com]
> >>>> Sent: Friday, November 11, 2011 9:53 AM
> >>>> To: USA Africa Dialogue Series
> >>>> Subject: USA Africa Dialogue Series - Re: Paneta Warns Against Military Strike Against Iran
> >>>> One of the unintended consequences of hitting Iran's nuclear
> >>>> facilities could be the radioactive fallout enveloping the area in a
> >>>> nuclear fog....and this could affect a lot of innocent Iranians, who
> >>>> have no part to play in the ideals of nuclear terror.
> >>>> The bigger question is what would be the consequence of not doing
> >>>> anything?
> >>>> Some of the consequences of inaction are spelled out here in the

> >>>> alarming updates on the approachingï¿½ inevitable showdown between Iran
> >>>> and those united in faith against an Iranian bomb, whichï¿½ all things

> >>>> considered ought to be feared...
> >>>> http://www.dailyalert.org/archive/2011-11/2011-11-11.html

> >>>> On Nov 11, 4:29 am, Abdul Karim Bangura<th...@earthlink.net>ï¿½ wrote:
> >>>>> Panetta warns on Iran strike consequencesUS defence chief cautions on regional fallout from any military strike against Iran.
> >>>>> Last Modified:11 Nov 2011 01:46

> >>>>> Panetta saysï¿½ a strike on Iran will only delay its nuclear programme [EPA]

> >>>>> US Defence Secretary Leon Panetta has warned that military action against Iran could lead to "unintended consequences" for the region.
> >>>>> "You've got to be careful of unintended consequences here," Panetta told reporters at a Pentagon press conference on Thursday.
> >>>>> His comments came only hours after Tehran itself warned that any attack on its nuclear sites would be met with "iron fists."
> >>>>> Panetta, who in July succeeded Robert Gates in the Pentagon's top post, said his assessment is in line with his predecessor's.
> >>>>> He maintained that a strike on Iran might fail to deter Iran "from what they want to do" and would only delay its controversial nuclear programme.
> >>>>> "But more importantly, it could have a serious impact in the region, and it could have a serious impact on US forces in the region," he said. "And I think all of those things, you know, need to be carefully considered."
> >>>>> 'Toughest sanctions'
> >>>>> Panetta stressed instead on US efforts to win tougher sanctions against Tehran.
> >>>>> "It is important for us to make sure we apply the toughest sanctions -- economic, diplomatic pressures -- on Iran to change their behaviour," he said.
> >>>>> "And we are in discussions with our allies with regards to additional sanctions that ought to be placed on Iran."
> >>>>> The European Union may approve fresh sanctions against Iran within weeks, after a UN agency said Tehran had worked to design nuclear bombs, EU diplomats said on Thursday.
> >>>>> EU sanctions would be a significant part of Western efforts to ratchet up pressure on Tehran. Western governments would prefer UN Security Council measures against Tehran, but Russia and China, both permanent UN Security Council members with veto power, are opposed.
> >>>>> Tensions over Tehran's nuclear programme were re-ignited on Tuesday when a report by the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA), said Iran had worked on designing a bomb and that research to that end may be on-going.
> >>>>> Israel exacerbated speculation of a strike against Iran after last week'stesting of a ballistic missilecapable of traveling the 6,437 kilometres to Iran.
> >>>>> Israel's first test-fire of a missile in three years came after Israeli media speculation alleging Benyamin Netanyahu, the Israeli prime minister, and Ehud Barak, defence minister, of planning a strike against Iran's nuclear facilities.
> >>>>> Iran has warned that it will respond to any attacks
> >>> ...
> >>>

> >>> read more ï¿½

> >
> > --
> > kenneth w. harrow
> > distinguished professor of english
> > michigan state university
> > department of english
> > east lansing, mi 48824-1036
> > ph. 517 803 8839
> > har...@msu.edu
> >
> > --
> > You received this message because you are subscribed to the "USA-Africa Dialogue Series" moderated by Toyin Falola, University of Texas at Austin.

> >ï¿½ For current archives, visit http://groups.google.com/group/USAAfricaDialogue
> >ï¿½ For previous archives, visitï¿½ http://www.utexas.edu/conferences/africa/ads/index.html
> >ï¿½ To post to this group, send an email to USAAfric...@googlegroups.com

> >ï¿½ To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to USAAfricaDialogue-ï¿½ï¿½ï¿½ï¿½ï¿½ï¿½ unsub...@googlegroups.com

>
> --
> You received this message because you are subscribed to the "USA-Africa Dialogue Series" moderated by Toyin Falola, University of Texas at Austin.

>ï¿½ï¿½ï¿½ For current archives, visit http://groups.google.com/group/USAAfricaDialogue
>ï¿½ï¿½ï¿½ For previous archives, visitï¿½ http://www.utexas.edu/conferences/africa/ads/index.html
>ï¿½ï¿½ï¿½ To post to this group, send an email to USAAfric...@googlegroups.com
>ï¿½ï¿½ï¿½ To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to USAAfricaDialogue-ï¿½ï¿½ï¿½ï¿½

>ï¿½ï¿½ï¿½ unsub...@googlegroups.com

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the "USA-Africa Dialogue Series" moderated by Toyin Falola, University of Texas at Austin.
For current archives, visit http://groups.google.com/group/USAAfricaDialogue
For previous archives, visit http://www.utexas.edu/conferences/africa/ads/index.html
To post to this group, send an email to USAAfric...@googlegroups.com
To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to USAAfricaDialogue-
unsub...@googlegroups.com

Farooq A. Kperogi

unread,

Nov 13, 2011, 9:57:26 PM11/13/11

to usaafric...@googlegroups.com, kenneth harrow

"i wonder how many on this list read Persepolis, the graphic novel by marhane satrapi. she paints an awful picture of that war, after its initial patriotic phase of iranians defending their country." kenneth harrow <har...@msu.edu

I thought you said novels are supposed to be fictional, nay fictive, narratives that need not be factual recapitulation of events. You said this in defense of Chimamanda's alleged distortion of the history and sociology of the Igbo society in her novel. Not being an Igbo, I am in no position to make any judgment on the accuracy or facticity of the accusation against Chimamanda (whose novels I've never even read), but I was struck (unnerved is more like it) by your argument that fidelity to historical facts is outside the province of the novelistic enterprise. That, you said, belongs to history and anthropology. Now you are inviting us to gaze at a historical event through the lenses of a novel!

Farooq

Farooq A. Kperogi, Ph.D.

Assistant Professor of Journalism & Citizen Media
Department of Communication
Kennesaw State University
1000 Chastain Road, MD 2207

Kennesaw, Georgia, USA 30144
Cell: (+1) 404-573-969:
Personal website: www.farooqkperogi.com

Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/farooqkperogi

Twitter: https://twitter.com/#!/farooqkperogi

"The nice thing about pessimism is that you are constantly being either proven right or pleasantly surprised." G. F. Will

Reply all

Reply to author

Forward

0 new messages

Re: USA Africa Dialogue Series - Re: Paneta Warns Against MilitaryStrike Against Iran

Abdul Bangura

Abdul Bangura

United States support for Iraq during the Iran�Iraq war

Contents

[edit] U.S. foreknowledge and reaction to the conflict

[edit] Support

[edit] Military training

[edit] Foreign Materiel Acquisition and Bear Spares

[edit] Chemical and Biological exports

[edit] Diplomatic support

[edit] Parties involved

[edit] Sarkis Soghanalian

[edit] Banca Nazionale del Lavoro

[edit] Index of American companies

[edit] Energy development and security

[edit] Aqaba pipeline project

[edit] Tanker War and U.S. military involvement

[edit] The USS Stark incident

[edit] The USS Vincennes incident

[edit] Longer term interests

[edit] Books

[edit] See also

[edit] References

[edit] External links

Chika Onyeani

kenneth harrow

kenneth harrow

http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/world/war/iran-iraq.htmIraqi Retreats, 1982-84

The War of Attrition, 1984-87

Farooq A. Kperogi