
CIA Files Prove America Helped Saddam as He Gassed Iran (2013) - georgecmu
https://foreignpolicy.com/2013/08/26/exclusive-cia-files-prove-america-helped-saddam-as-he-gassed-iran/
======
coldtea
Of course they did. Anybody with the tiny knowledge of 20th century history
wouldn't doubt that for a minute -- or believe BS sources like the NYT and
other parrots of official policy that only print such stuff decades after,
when it doesn't matter anymore.

~~~
sanderjd
I'm starting to wonder if there is a name for this fallacy where a relatively
small and knowledgeable contingent is aware (and often only strongly
suspicious) of some thing, and when that thing is broadly confirmed or
publicized the small contingent get annoyed that it is non-news because
"everybody already knew that".

I first noticed this when the Snowden leaks happened. A lot of the commentary
(and what I thought and said myself) was of the sort, well yeah, of course the
NSA is spying on everybody using our woefully insecure digital infrastructure!
But no, we didn't actually _know_ that until Snowden told us, and it was not
(and still is not) actually common knowledge that digital communications are
not generally private.

I've seen the same thing with the recent Facebook privacy kerfuffle, and now
this.

~~~
Sangermaine
>But no, we didn't actually know that until Snowden told us, and it was not
(and still is not) actually common knowledge that digital communications are
not generally private.

This is simply, demonstrably false. Snowden's a bad example of what you're
talking about. In fact, it's a good example of the opposite: people who didn't
bother to pay attention to widely-available information suddenly acting like
what they've just learned is completely new.

It wasn't just a "relatively small and knowledgeable contingent" that knew
about the government's mass surveillance program. The New York Times broke the
story on the Bush Administration surveillance program in 2005 (which forced
Bush and Gonzales to publicly acknowledge the program's existence for the
first time that December), and it and many other publications followed up on
those stories for years. It was a major, widely-reported topic of discussion
all throughout Bush's second term, with the discussion following the
predictable party lines.

Snowden may have given us more detail about what was going on, but the public
was already well aware of the government mass surveillance program long before
he blew the whistle.

~~~
mindslight
> _Snowden 's a bad example of what you're talking about_

Actually, I think Snowden is a _great_ example. Because apart from being in
line with first principles (what _would_ the NSA be doing if they weren't
tapping communications cables?), the public was repeatedly exposed to the idea
before Snowden. But yet they _refused_ to listen until the topic happened to
be presented in a way that caught on, which really illustrates the social-
proof-power that mass media holds. And given this power, especially in a
democracy, mass media can't help but be captured by entrenched interests.

------
adventured
Conveniently, articles like this always leave out how some European nations
directly and knowingly helped Saddam with his chemical weapons programs, such
as Germany and the UK. It was a united effort by the West, just as the vast
destruction of Syria has been.

"As part of Project 922, German firms helped build Iraqi chemical weapons
facilities such as laboratories, bunkers, an administrative building, and
first production buildings in the early 1980s under the cover of a pesticide
plant. Other German firms sent 1,027 tons of precursors of mustard gas, sarin,
tabun, and tear gasses in all. This work allowed Iraq to produce 150 tons of
mustard agent and 60 tons of Tabun in 1983 and 1984 respectively, continuing
throughout the decade. All told, 52% of Iraq's international chemical weapon
equipment was of German origin. One of the contributions was a £14m chlorine
plant known as "Falluja 2", built by Uhde Ltd, a UK subsidiary of a German
company; the plant was given financial guarantees by the UK's Export Credits
Guarantee Department despite official UK recognition of a "strong possibility"
the plant would be used to make mustard gas."

[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iraqi_chemical_weapons_program](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iraqi_chemical_weapons_program)

[https://fas.org/nuke/guide/iraq/cw/az120103.html](https://fas.org/nuke/guide/iraq/cw/az120103.html)

~~~
strictnein
Why you're getting buried is beyond me. The article headline tries to tie the
US to the gassing, when it was European countries (Germany and France
especially) that were actually responsible for it.

Of course, why this topic hasn't been nuked is also beyond me. 100% political
discussion.

~~~
adrianmonk
Maybe because they began their comment with "conveniently". This implies the
people who wrote this article have some kind of agenda. I, at least, don't
know any specific reason to believe they do.

------
ublime
Paralleles to Saudi Arabia being armed by the US in the war on Yemen and
resulting famine. Or US white phospherus being used in Lebanon by Israel.

~~~
montyf
Or the US using Agent Orange and inflicting shocking health effects to
millions of Vietnamese. Hiroshima/Nagasaki pale in comparison.

~~~
abandonliberty
This is a bit different - the health effects were not the intended outcome.

------
djsumdog
This will probably get flagged as being non tech, but yea. Duh.

I've been reading The Dictators Handbook recently and it does a good job of
explaining this situation. You help those that will keep you in power and give
you the resources you want. Every American president will help regimes who
will give them support and money, so they can pay their supporters (all the
people at the top in DC) and then they use what's left over on the people.
Democracies tend to spend more on people ideas, because there's a larger set
of replaceable (voters) in the selectorate.

It doesn't matter if a leader is doing what is good or not good for the
people. The chief goal of a leader is to get in power and stay in power. They
have to pay off all their supports, or keys to power. If that involves things
that are unsavory. You censor it. In democracies, you just make sure your
supporters include the propaganda (a.k.a news) agencies.

If a leader does something that helps the people, like in Libya where they
gave people free education, free power, housing subsidies, gas subsidies; but
do so at the expense of their supporters (not playing ball with America in the
oil trade), then the leaders get take out, given fake trials, killed and the
propaganda networks demonize them. It's not hard to demonize them, because all
leaders must be corrupt to get into power; so you can always find something to
speak to that corruption. Lest we forget that Obama gave America over to the
health care industry, killed thousands with predator drones and was the first
president to spend every day in office at war.

~~~
alexandercrohde
What I dislike about this attitude is it's reductionist. No: not "Duh."

Here in America we have a very confusing system, and no not everything is
explained by self interest. For example: George Washington voluntarily turning
down more power. Yes, self interest is a large player in people's choices,
larger than they publicly admit, and maybe larger than any other factor.

But jumping from that to helping a foreign dictator use chemical weapons is
not a "duh."

~~~
mistermann
Personally, I think "duh" is the _perfect_ sentiment for this. What
governments, ours and "corrupt" ones, are _really_ doing behind closed doors
vs what we're told by our media is vastly different. The hysterics over the
latest Syria gassing and the Russian hackers epidemic are just the latest
examples in a long line of using the media to manipulate public opinion and
keep people fighting among themselves so they never find out what's really
going on. And those that do peek behind the curtains, brand them conspiracy
theorists. Works like a charm.

~~~
alexandercrohde
I hear this theory a lot. And it's not paranoid, but it's also not fruitful
without substantiation.

You need to develop your theory and gather some evidence. How is the
government controlling media? Which media? Why are there no whistleblowers?
What's your evidence? Obviously the US government isn't censoring the
internet.

In the meantime, I fear you're actually making people more skeptical of you by
jumping to conclusions

~~~
mistermann
> And those that do peek behind the curtains, brand them conspiracy theorists.

Well that didn't take long.

Oh good lord, you talk as if this is the first time you've heard such a
theory. Everything you ask for has been well discussed and proof of varying
degrees provided, as I imagine you well know.

The parent comment to mine seems to have been granted an interesting status,
it now loads as collapsed under all browsers, including incognito.

~~~
alexandercrohde
This frustrates me, because I think your behavior makes people trust
government MORE. Because you're inarticulate, don't link to any articles, and
also unfriendly, it pushes people in the neutral zone away from your cause.

If you think there's objective proof of widespread government manipulation of
newspapers, then link to the wikipedia article. If you acknowledge a neutral
set of intellectual and informed judges (wikipedia) find it absurd, then don't
go around saying it's "proven."

~~~
mistermann
This comment is excellent (except for the proven slip-up), but you probably
knew that.

------
AriaMinaei
Five of my uncles fought in that war.

They've told us many stories from that time. Somehow they manage to make most
of it sound funny. Like the time they had to _eat_ hot water with stale bread
and pretend it was noodle soup!

\- Here is your soup. Eat fast. \- Sir, this is water. \- Eat your soup! \-
But,.. \- Are you disobeying your superior? Eat your soup and go easy on the
noodles! Don't want any bloated soldiers in my squad!

They're both smiling kindly to each other, knowing there isn't any food
tonight for anyone, but they can at least pretend to enjoy a soup together.

\---

There was one story though that turned into a nightmare for me as a child.
About the time my youngest uncle was exposed to a nerve agent.

They were stationed in a temporary base far behind the frontline, when an
Iraqi attack craft cuts through and drops a series of bombs.

The bombs don't destroy any valuable assets in the base. The soldiers were
relieved about that. They were mostly volunteers with little to no military
experience. They didn't know any better.

The bombs turn out to carry a nerve agent and possibly something else, the
smoke of which was beginning to spread through the base.

At that point in time, many people didn't even know much about chemical
weapons. Perhaps because the government kept the information to keep the
morale. But the news eventually spread, as Iran was crying foul to the UN,
pleading the powers to stop enabling Saddam to make the chemical weapons.
(European friends look very surprised and unconvinced now when they hear their
governments turned a blind eye to large European corporations selling chemical
technology to Saddam, knowing full well what the tech was going to be used
for).

The fear of chemical weapons got so widespread at some point, with pictures of
victims appearing everywhere, that there are reports of people dying of heart
attacks, after hearing that an explosion nearby was "chemical," even if it
turns out not to be.

Anyway, back to my uncle: He remembers flashes of what happened next in the
base. There was chaos and confusion and crying. He remembers being ordered to
lie flat on the ground and remove his clothing from the waist down. Then
medics come and inject shots of Atropine to every soldier on the ground.

He doesn't remember anything after that until next morning, when he wakes up,
barely able to see or breathe, but being told that they've survived death.

He eventually survives the whole war, comes back home, gets a job, and starts
a family. In his own words, he has made a full recovery. But every few weeks,
it happens that as he is leaving the house in the morning to go to work, he
makes a small sneeze, after which his body "locks." Family or neighbours would
carry him back home. He would be unable to move that whole day.

My uncle was certainly among the lucky ones. Most who were exposed didn't have
the luxury of Atropine shots or full body masks. Four years ago, I held two
friends in tears when they lost their father after two decades of agonising
pain. (Imagine not being able to take a fresh breath, for twenty years).

\---

The people that I know who fought in the war, now identify with different
political factions. Some are more conservative. Some much more liberal. But
one thing that unites them all, is that they're against war. Any war. Of any
kind.

And they share that opinion with pretty much anyone else I've ever met in my
country.

I know it doesn't seem that way when you watch the news, but if you made a
visit and saw for yourself, you'd be surprised to learn just how anti-war this
country really is.

~~~
SOLAR_FIELDS
I had never heard of the substance Atropine before I read this post, so I
looked it up and found this chilling bit from the Wikipedia entry:

"Both atropine and the genus name for deadly nightshade derive from Atropos,
one of the three Fates who, according to Greek mythology, chose how a person
was to die."

------
moondowner
Reminded me of... [https://www.theguardian.com/world/2015/jul/04/how-britain-
an...](https://www.theguardian.com/world/2015/jul/04/how-britain-and-us-
abandoned-srebrenica-massacre-1995)

------
drtyolmck
I thought that was common knowledge

~~~
josefresco
It's certainly been in a few books I've ready which weren't published
recently. I think this was just dug up (for clicks) because of the _Syria
situation_.

------
wybiral
Basically our intelligence agencies were starting to receive evidence that
suggest they were using gas around the same time that we had pre-existing
deals in place to support them?

Before you go full tin-foil-hat with this, realize that decision makers don't
always trust the intelligence being given to them and changes to policy and
existing agreements take time.

Did we continue to stay in support of them knowing this or did we later
condemn them for their use of chemical weapons?

~~~
Lionsion
> Did we continue to stay in support of them knowing this or did we later
> condemn them for their use of chemical weapons?

The US fought its own war against Iraq just three years after the time period
this article focuses on. I'm pretty sure they were pretty roundly condemned by
that point.

------
grzm
90 comments at the time:
[https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=6275149](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=6275149)

------
vermontdevil
And yet we invaded the same country. Heck of allies we are.

------
WindowsFon4life
So we gave Iraq military intel, but no weapons of any sort? Iran, on the other
hand, was using almost 100% American weaponry.

------
Lionsion
Some other interesting facts from the article:

> Also, the [CIA] noted that the Soviet Union had previously used chemical
> agents in Afghanistan and suffered few repercussions.

> Top CIA officials ... were told ... that Iraq was about to buy equipment
> from Italy to help speed up production of chemical-packed artillery rounds
> and bombs...

------
singularity2001
Tangential: with 107 blocked scripts this site sets a privacy intrusion
record; and a nice collection of sites to set to "untrusted"

~~~
DoctorOetker
what kind of blocker do you use? ABP is showing me 0...

~~~
uoaei
ABP is pretty widely considered compromised, i.e., sold out. Switch to uBlock
Matrix (or uBlock Origin for a drop-in replacement for ABP).

~~~
nickthegreek
What is the difference between Matrix and Origin?

~~~
sp332
Matrix lets you pick which sites can load which resources. It's a lot more
fine-grained than I need for basic ad blocking.
[https://addons.mozilla.org/en-
US/firefox/addon/umatrix/](https://addons.mozilla.org/en-
US/firefox/addon/umatrix/) "For advanced users"

~~~
helb
uBlock lets you do that too, if you check "I am an advanced user" in the
settings: [https://github.com/gorhill/uBlock/wiki/Dynamic-
filtering:-qu...](https://github.com/gorhill/uBlock/wiki/Dynamic-
filtering:-quick-guide)

~~~
DoctorOetker
thank you all for piercing my bubble!

getting really tired of all the false bottoms

------
flexie
So while Bush junior invaded Iraq and overturned Saddam Hussein because he
wrongly thought they had weapons of mass destruction, his father, Bush senior,
rightly thought so 13 years earlier but still decided to help Saddam Hussein.

~~~
UncleEntity
You know Bush Sr. also invaded Iraq which very few people would consider to be
"helping" Saddam Hussein, right?

Also Bush Sr. was smart enough to know that occupying Iraq would be an open-
ended endeavor so got them out of Kuwait and then left with some UN sanctions
in place -- one of which was the destruction of WMD's which _everyone_ knew
they had.

I'm of the personal opinion that Bush Jr & Co. were just looking for any
flimsy excuse to dispose Saddam because he tried to assassinate his father
_after_ he was out of office. Oh, and the oil...

