In 1983, US envoy Donald Rumsfeld paid a personal visit to Hussein and restored diplomatic relations, which had been cut during the 1967 Arab-Israel War. America 's rulers resumed relations with Iraq despite their knowledge that Hussein had used chemical weapons against Iran only a few months before. They also knew that Hussein was building manufacturing facilities to produce more WMDs. Rumsfeld, one of the strongest advocates of the removal of Hussein from power under Bush II, was a strong proponent of the relationship with Hussein under Reagan. By 1984, both the US State Department and European doctors had confirmed that Iraq was using nerve gas against Iranians. After digesting this information, the US Aristocracy decided to initiate a program which forgave $5 billion worth of agricultural loans to Iraq between 1983 and 1990, freeing up more cash for Hussein to fund his war machine.
Hussein's relationship with the United States came into full bloom in 1985. Protecting the flow of US weapons and money to Saddam, the Reagan administration pressured a member of Congress to drop a proposed resolution that would have reclassified Iraq as a supporter of terrorism. The US Commerce Department began a five year pattern of approving sales of US computers to Iraq for use in weapons labs. 1985 marked the advent of the Reagan administration supplying Hussein with biological weapon precursors like botulism and anthrax. By 1988, the US had made 70 shipments of these precursors to fuel Saddam's WMD program.
Perhaps the most egregious example of the hypocrisy of the US Oligarchs in Iraq occurred in 1988. In March, Hussein launched a poisonous gas attack and killed 5,000 Kurds in the Iraqi town of Halabja . In July, one of the Corporatacracy's own, Bechtel (Secretary of State George Shultz's' company), won a contract to build a petrochemical plant, which Hussein could use to manufacture more WMDs. Besides continuing to support Iraq and to enable its corporate darlings (like Honeywell, Rockwell, Hewlett Packard, and DuPont) to profiteer from the war, the Reagan administration crushed a Congressional attempt to sanction Hussein for committing genocide against Iraqi Kurds.
2007-08-07 15:56:54
·
answer #1
·
answered by Anonymous
·
13⤊
3⤋
sure it is, Rumsfeld has a brilliant volume of blood on his arms, regardless of each and every thing it became Rummy who additionally became on the board of a organisation that bought the nuclear reactors to North Korea that helped them create the gas for their Nuclear weapons. It became additionally Rummy who became very influential back interior the Reagan administration that have been given the deadly poison Aspartame handed via the FDA as being risk-free to consume. Rumsfeld is in charge for a lot of dying! i've got confidence it became in part because of the fact rumsfeld became in contact in advertising the sarin gas used on the Kurds that Saddam became purely tried (and hung) for the deaths of 148 Iraqis who tried to assinate him. If Saddam were tried for the different super scale massacres then the whole worldwide would have publicly bourne witness to the grimy deals that Rumsfeld and the U. S. administrations the place as much as their necks in. How approximately observing another movies? i hit upon those taken in early 2001 the place Condi Rice and Colin Powell declare that Saddam isn't achieveable, that Saddam had no longer re-constituted his WMD programmes or protection tension and that he became effectively contained. the Bush administration later admitted (before the invasion of Iraq) that it had no extra beneficial information than then, yet became observing the previous information in a 'new gentle' the whole invasion, profession and next descent into civil conflict became in accordance with a planned and willfull lie. Rumsfeld became instremental in development Saddam up, turning him right into a monster and destroying the monster that he helped create. Rumsfeld has the blood of thousands and thousands on his arms!
2016-12-15 08:45:44
·
answer #2
·
answered by ? 4
·
0⤊
0⤋
Because, at the time, we were not far removed from Iran taking our hostages in 1979. Iraq was the top enemy of Iran. The same reason why we supported Afganistan during that time period. Russia was our top enemy and we were still in the Cold War. Russia invaded Afganistan, so we supported them in order to fight communist Russia.
2007-08-07 16:16:51
·
answer #3
·
answered by Dude 6
·
2⤊
0⤋
Because of the Iran Iraq War and how Iran wanted to spread radical islam around the world and Saddam was in a position to stop that. Though that backfired on us like the taliban and osama bin laden.
2007-08-07 15:57:15
·
answer #4
·
answered by Half-pint 5
·
8⤊
2⤋
I don't understand what you're trying to say things change politically every day your friends today might not be tomorrow that's the way it works your not being that naive are you?
2007-08-07 16:16:40
·
answer #5
·
answered by josh m 5
·
1⤊
0⤋
Special envoy to Middle East for weapons proliferation, we were selling poison gas production means( through front companies) To kill Iranians. American policy at it's zenith for the now neo-cons. Tragic that Americans have NO have knowledge of their own past, policy or how it bares on the present, thus we seem doomed to repeat our mistakes again and again.
2007-08-07 16:03:09
·
answer #6
·
answered by Anonymous
·
6⤊
2⤋
I really can't say but...I have it on good account that Saddam is shaking hands now with Jerry Falwell sitting on a tuffet while eating their Kurds and gays.
2007-08-07 16:01:32
·
answer #7
·
answered by Don W 6
·
5⤊
3⤋
Because the rightwingers who seized control of the government in 2000 are a bunch of criminals who have no morals whatsoever.
2007-08-07 16:14:22
·
answer #8
·
answered by Anonymous
·
2⤊
3⤋
Yea, and Madeline Albright met with Kim Jung.
BTW,it was a Dutch businessman who sold Saddam the chemicals. He's in prison now.
2007-08-07 16:03:21
·
answer #9
·
answered by Tin Foil Fez 5
·
6⤊
5⤋
Why not? Obama said that he would meet with Fidel, Kim Jong-il, and those crazies. Was it not okay for Rumsfeld to have met with Saddam?
2007-08-07 16:00:43
·
answer #10
·
answered by ncrawler1 2
·
4⤊
5⤋