Did the US sell weapons to Iraq?

[The Duke]

There is a myth that the US sold weapons to Iraq.  This is a popularly accepted myth, and I think it is important to put the truth out there.  Below is a link to an article on strategypage.com, a website that provides analysis on military affairs.  The article is one in a series of top ten lists done by the site, this one is the top ten myths about the US invasion of Iraq.  The article originally appeared on March 24, 2003, during the first days of the Iraq War.

http://www.strategypage.com/fyeo/qndguide/default.asp?target=topten

For some reason, it doesn't take you straight to the right page.  The list is on the thrid page, so you have to click through the first two.  Go to the bottom of the first page, click "more" go to the bottom of the next page on do the same.  A few of the best parts are:

"#4-The United States armed Saddam. This one grew over time, but when Iraq was on it's weapons spending spree from 1972 (when its oil revenue quadrupled) to 1990, the purchases were quite public and listed over $40 billion worth of arms sales. Russia was the largest supplier, with $25 billion. The US was the smallest, with $200,000. A similar myth, that the U.S. provided Iraq with chemical and biological weapons is equally off base. Iraq requested Anthrax samples from the US government, as do nations the world over, for the purpose of developing animal and human vaccines for local versions of Anthrax. Nerve gas doesn't require technical help, it's a variant of common insecticides. European nations sold Iraq the equipment to make poison gas."

"#7-The U.S. created Saddam. Arab nationalism created Saddam. He neither asked, needed nor got any help from the United States as he rose to power in the Baath party. When he took over in 1979, he promptly went to war with Iran a year later. Even before that, public opinion, and public policy, regarding Saddam (the bloody minded head of the secret police) was negative. You can go read it in the contemporary papers. Despite most Americans feeling OK about Iran getting hammered by Iraq (because Iran had held our embassy staff hostage for over a year), there was no move to provide Iraq with weapons. When the Iraqis looked like they might fold, and Iran's then fearsome Islamic Jihad (against less observant Moslems, and mostly against America, the Great Satan) might spread, the U.S. provided Iraq with satellite photos of Iranian military positions. After that war ended in a draw in 1988, the U.S. believed Saddam's pronouncements that he had seen the light and would rein in his aggressive impulses."

[MarkDel]

John,

Most of the "we helped Saddam" stuff coming from the political left is either patently false or embellished. However, we DID sell him some weapons, though what we sold was a drop in the ocean compared to what the Russians, French and Germans sold him.

And the idea that WE put him in power is one of the most factually incorrect statements to ever come out of the modern Democratic Party.

[Gustaf]

The answer to the above question is still yes. I always thought it was more of a principle than about the weapons themselves...but sure, everyone knows that France and the Soviets were worse...and not even the Soviets would give Iraq nuclear capability.

[??????????]

The French almost gave Iraq nuclear capability!

[dunn]

The French almost gave Iraq nuclear capability!

they did
and if not for the Israeli strike in their reactor in 81' they would have it by 85'-86'-87' defently by the 1st Gulf war

[Gustaf]

The French almost gave Iraq nuclear capability!

they did
and if not for the Israeli strike in their reactor in 81' they would have it by 85'-86'-87' defently by the 1st Gulf war

I just said that!

[dunn]

The French almost gave Iraq nuclear capability!

they did
and if not for the Israeli strike in their reactor in 81' they would have it by 85'-86'-87' defently by the 1st Gulf war

I just said that!

where?

[Gustaf]

The French almost gave Iraq nuclear capability!

they did
and if not for the Israeli strike in their reactor in 81' they would have it by 85'-86'-87' defently by the 1st Gulf war

I just said that!

where?

In my above post. Not the bombing of, what's its name, O-something in IRaq, but what StatesRights said about France.

[dunn]

The French almost gave Iraq nuclear capability!

they did
and if not for the Israeli strike in their reactor in 81' they would have it by 85'-86'-87' defently by the 1st Gulf war

I just said that!

where?

In my above post. Not the bombing of, what's its name, O-something in IRaq, but what StatesRights said about France.

Oh. i see
ok

[Filuwaúrdjan]

Not just "The French"... it was either Barre or Chirac

[Gustaf]

Not just "The French"... it was either Barre or Chirac

OK, then but it WAS sanctioned by the government, right?

[Filuwaúrdjan]

Not just "The French"... it was either Barre or Chirac

OK, then but it WAS sanctioned by the government, right?

As Barre and Chirac were French P.M's...

[Gustaf]

Not just "The French"... it was either Barre or Chirac

OK, then but it WAS sanctioned by the government, right?

As Barre and Chirac were French P.M's...

I seemed to remember that Chirac was mayor of Paris at that time, but I could be wrong. But then what was your point?

[© tweed]

We only sold them .5% of what they had, compared to like 50% from Russia.

[The Duke]

Actually, Russia sold the 62.5%

We sold them only 0.005%

[© tweed]

Actually, Russia sold the 62.5%

We sold them only 0.005%

Same idea

[??????????]

We sold the Germans weapons in WW1 and I believe very early on before the start of WW2. Does that really mean anything in the long run though? Its meaningless because large nations sell small nations weapons all the time. We might be friends with, for example lets say Taiwan, but 20 years from now they may be our enemy. That doesn't mean we were wrong to sell them the weapons.