5 ms·

Here's somebody else's research on the subject: http://www.iranchamber.com/history/articles/arming_iraq.php http://www.iranchamber.com/history/articles/arming_

by afshin 16y ago

Here's somebody else's research on the subject: http://www.iranchamber.com/history/articles/arming_iraq.php http://www.iranchamber.com/history/articles/arming_iraq.php It seems pretty well cited. That citation itself came from this Wikipedia article: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iran–Iraq_War#U.S._support_for_Iraq http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iran–Iraq_War#U.S._support_for_...

_djo_ 16y ago
Neither of those sources contains a claim that Western states directly funded Iraq's military, so they don't represent a citation for the claim that you made. As I mentioned before, the fact that Western countries and the Soviet bloc happily sold Iraq weapons and dual-use items during the 1980s is not in question. We know that happened, it has been public knowledge for quite some time. Perhaps I'm being pedantic, but I feel that accuracy matters. There is a vast and important difference between directly funding a country's military and merely selling it weaponry. Besides, if we're referring solely to the issue of arming Iraq, then the statement that Western countries were solely responsible for that is incorrect too. As I said before, most of the Iraqi army's equipment was purchased from the Soviets.
- afshin 16y ago
  American and Soviet policies supported the Iraqi prosecution of the war while funds to Iran were frozen and embargoes were placed. I believe you're being overly specific in your definition of what constitutes something more than mere partisanship. I think it's a reasonably safe statement that the war would likely not have happened without American blessings. It is, of course, more complex because of the involvement of the Soviets, but I think in this case both the Soviets and the West wanted to contain Iran and both politically and materially encouraged Iraq to wage war.
  - _djo_ 16y ago
    I think you're missing the point. The only thing I have questioned is a very specific claim that you made in your original post, which was: Saddam Hussein's Iraq, whose military was entirely funded by Western powers All I've asked for is a citation for that claim. There really isn't much more to this than that.
    - afshin 16y ago
      I posted to a sibling of this comment, but here's the link again just in case you miss it: If you are nitpicking over the use of my quantifier "entirely" I'll retract that. The evidence, though, is pretty clear: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_support_for_Iraq_during_the_Iran–Iraq_war http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_support_for_Iraq_...
      - _djo_ 16y ago
        Still no evidence of direct Western funding of the Iraqi military, 'entirely' or otherwise. Again, selling Iraq weaponry, turning a blind eye to its actions and providing it with intelligence information are all not the same thing as directly funding its military. This is really such a simple issue that I'm surprised it has gone on for this long.
        afshin 16y ago
        Really? Are we reading the same article? Here are some direct quotations. * 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. * Saddam's elite troops received instruction in unconventional warfare at Fort Bragg * 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."
  - anamax 16y ago
    > I believe you're being overly specific in your definition of what constitutes something more than mere partisanship. Huh? You wrote "Saddam Hussein's Iraq, whose military was entirely funded by Western powers" You've yet to provide any evidence supporting "entirely funded". Yes, the US embargoed Iranian funds, but that's not the same as providing funds to Iraq. And neither is "the war wouldn't have happened without American blessings". The fact that bad things happened does not support the claim that certain bad things happened.
    - afshin 16y ago
      If you and _djo_ are nitpicking over the use of my quantifier "entirely" I'll retract that. The evidence, though, is pretty clear: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_support_for_Iraq_during_the_Iran–Iraq_war http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_support_for_Iraq_...
      - anamax 16y ago
        > If you and _djo_ are nitpicking over the use of my quantifier "entirely" I'll retract that. The evidence, though, is pretty clear. The evidence for what "is pretty clear"? Your reference says that some support was provided. It doesn't tell us how significant that support was given Hussein's other resources. (No "billions" isn't necessarily significant.) As far as "nitpicking" goes, you wrote "entirely" to score political points. Why do you think that it's unreasonable to point out that you overstated that case and knew about it? Feel free to assert that you'd give someone with whom you disagreed a pass if they'd done as you have.
        afshin 16y ago
        Here's my comment below with direct quotations from that article. If you're going to argue that I'm being nebulous, then you should perhaps have read the article a little more carefully. As for "scoring political points", I'm pointing out what I understood to be a matter of public record and common knowledge. Having had to look into it more to satisfy commenters here today has not revealed much evidence to the contrary. http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=2217424 http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=2217424

by afshin 16y ago

_djo_ 16y ago

Neither of those sources contains a claim that Western states directly funded Iraq's military, so they don't represent a citation for the claim that you made. As I mentioned before, the fact that Western countries and the Soviet bloc happily sold Iraq weapons and dual-use items during the 1980s is not in question. We know that happened, it has been public knowledge for quite some time. Perhaps I'm being pedantic, but I feel that accuracy matters. There is a vast and important difference between directly funding a country's military and merely selling it weaponry. Besides, if we're referring solely to the issue of arming Iraq, then the statement that Western countries were solely responsible for that is incorrect too. As I said before, most of the Iraqi army's equipment was purchased from the Soviets.

afshin 16y ago
American and Soviet policies supported the Iraqi prosecution of the war while funds to Iran were frozen and embargoes were placed. I believe you're being overly specific in your definition of what constitutes something more than mere partisanship. I think it's a reasonably safe statement that the war would likely not have happened without American blessings. It is, of course, more complex because of the involvement of the Soviets, but I think in this case both the Soviets and the West wanted to contain Iran and both politically and materially encouraged Iraq to wage war.
- _djo_ 16y ago
  I think you're missing the point. The only thing I have questioned is a very specific claim that you made in your original post, which was: Saddam Hussein's Iraq, whose military was entirely funded by Western powers All I've asked for is a citation for that claim. There really isn't much more to this than that.
  - afshin 16y ago
    I posted to a sibling of this comment, but here's the link again just in case you miss it: If you are nitpicking over the use of my quantifier "entirely" I'll retract that. The evidence, though, is pretty clear: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_support_for_Iraq_during_the_Iran–Iraq_war http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_support_for_Iraq_...
    - _djo_ 16y ago
      Still no evidence of direct Western funding of the Iraqi military, 'entirely' or otherwise. Again, selling Iraq weaponry, turning a blind eye to its actions and providing it with intelligence information are all not the same thing as directly funding its military. This is really such a simple issue that I'm surprised it has gone on for this long.
      - afshin 16y ago
        Really? Are we reading the same article? Here are some direct quotations. * 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. * Saddam's elite troops received instruction in unconventional warfare at Fort Bragg * 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."
- anamax 16y ago
  > I believe you're being overly specific in your definition of what constitutes something more than mere partisanship. Huh? You wrote "Saddam Hussein's Iraq, whose military was entirely funded by Western powers" You've yet to provide any evidence supporting "entirely funded". Yes, the US embargoed Iranian funds, but that's not the same as providing funds to Iraq. And neither is "the war wouldn't have happened without American blessings". The fact that bad things happened does not support the claim that certain bad things happened.
  - afshin 16y ago
    If you and _djo_ are nitpicking over the use of my quantifier "entirely" I'll retract that. The evidence, though, is pretty clear: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_support_for_Iraq_during_the_Iran–Iraq_war http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_support_for_Iraq_...
    - anamax 16y ago
      > If you and _djo_ are nitpicking over the use of my quantifier "entirely" I'll retract that. The evidence, though, is pretty clear. The evidence for what "is pretty clear"? Your reference says that some support was provided. It doesn't tell us how significant that support was given Hussein's other resources. (No "billions" isn't necessarily significant.) As far as "nitpicking" goes, you wrote "entirely" to score political points. Why do you think that it's unreasonable to point out that you overstated that case and knew about it? Feel free to assert that you'd give someone with whom you disagreed a pass if they'd done as you have.
      - afshin 16y ago
        Here's my comment below with direct quotations from that article. If you're going to argue that I'm being nebulous, then you should perhaps have read the article a little more carefully. As for "scoring political points", I'm pointing out what I understood to be a matter of public record and common knowledge. Having had to look into it more to satisfy commenters here today has not revealed much evidence to the contrary. http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=2217424 http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=2217424