The PokéCommunity Forums  

Go Back   The PokéCommunity Forums > Off-Topic Discussions > Discussions & Debates
Sign Up Rules/FAQ Live Battle Blogs Mark Forums Read

Notices

Discussions & Debates The place to go for slightly more in-depth topics. Discussions and debates about the world, current events, ideas, news, and more.


Reply
Click here to go to the first staff post in this thread.  
Thread Tools
  #1    
Old August 26th, 2013, 07:50 AM
Lance's Avatar
Lance
Master of Dragons
 
Join Date: Jul 2009
Location: Blackthorn City
Gender: Male
Nature: Adamant
Send a message via Skype™ to Lance
Bit of a long read, but I think it's important to know.
Spoiler:

Quote:
The U.S. government may be considering military action in response to chemical strikes near Damascus. But a generation ago, America's military and intelligence communities knew about and did nothing to stop a series of nerve gas attacks far more devastating than anything Syria has seen, Foreign Policy has learned.

In 1988, during the waning days of Iraq's war with Iran, the United States learned through satellite imagery that Iran was about to gain a major strategic advantage by exploiting a hole in Iraqi defenses. U.S. intelligence officials conveyed the location of the Iranian troops to Iraq, fully aware that Hussein's military would attack with chemical weapons, including sarin, a lethal nerve agent.

The intelligence included imagery and maps about Iranian troop movements, as well as the locations of Iranian logistics facilities and details about Iranian air defenses. The Iraqis used mustard gas and sarin prior to four major offensives in early 1988 that relied on U.S. satellite imagery, maps, and other intelligence. These attacks helped to tilt the war in Iraq's favor and bring Iran to the negotiating table, and they ensured that the Reagan administration's long-standing policy of securing an Iraqi victory would succeed. But they were also the last in a series of chemical strikes stretching back several years that the Reagan administration knew about and didn't disclose.

U.S. officials have long denied acquiescing to Iraqi chemical attacks, insisting that Hussein's government never announced he was going to use the weapons. But retired Air Force Col. Rick Francona, who was a military attaché in Baghdad during the 1988 strikes, paints a different picture.

"The Iraqis never told us that they intended to use nerve gas. They didn't have to. We already knew," he told Foreign Policy.

According to recently declassified CIA documents and interviews with former intelligence officials like Francona, the U.S. had firm evidence of Iraqi chemical attacks beginning in 1983. At the time, Iran was publicly alleging that illegal chemical attacks were carried out on its forces, and was building a case to present to the United Nations. But it lacked the evidence implicating Iraq, much of which was contained in top secret reports and memoranda sent to the most senior intelligence officials in the U.S. government. The CIA declined to comment for this story.

In contrast to today's wrenching debate over whether the United States should intervene to stop alleged chemical weapons attacks by the Syrian government, the United States applied a cold calculus three decades ago to Hussein's widespread use of chemical weapons against his enemies and his own people. The Reagan administration decided that it was better to let the attacks continue if they might turn the tide of the war. And even if they were discovered, the CIA wagered that international outrage and condemnation would be muted.

In the documents, the CIA said that Iran might not discover persuasive evidence of the weapons' use -- even though the agency possessed it. Also, the agency noted that the Soviet Union had previously used chemical agents in Afghanistan and suffered few repercussions.

It has been previously reported that the United States provided tactical intelligence to Iraq at the same time that officials suspected Hussein would use chemical weapons. But the CIA documents, which sat almost entirely unnoticed in a trove of declassified material at the National Archives in College Park, Md., combined with exclusive interviews with former intelligence officials, reveal new details about the depth of the United States' knowledge of how and when Iraq employed the deadly agents. They show that senior U.S. officials were being regularly informed about the scale of the nerve gas attacks. They are tantamount to an official American admission of complicity in some of the most gruesome chemical weapons attacks ever launched.

Spoiler:

Quote:
Top CIA officials, including the Director of Central Intelligence William J. Casey, a close friend of President Ronald Reagan, were told about the location of Iraqi chemical weapons assembly plants; that Iraq was desperately trying to make enough mustard agent to keep up with frontline demand from its forces; that Iraq was about to buy equipment from Italy to help speed up production of chemical-packed artillery rounds and bombs; and that Iraq could also use nerve agents on Iranian troops and possibly civilians.

Officials were also warned that Iran might launch retaliatory attacks against U.S. interests in the Middle East, including terrorist strikes, if it believed the United States was complicit in Iraq's chemical warfare campaign.

"As Iraqi attacks continue and intensify the chances increase that Iranian forces will acquire a shell containing mustard agent with Iraqi markings," the CIA reported in a top secret document in November 1983. "Tehran would take such evidence to the U.N. and charge U.S. complicity in violating international law."

At the time, the military attaché's office was following Iraqi preparations for the offensive using satellite reconnaissance imagery, Francona told Foreign Policy. According to a former CIA official, the images showed Iraqi movements of chemical materials to artillery batteries opposite Iranian positions prior to each offensive.

Francona, an experienced Middle East hand and Arabic linguist who served in the National Security Agency and the Defense Intelligence Agency, said he first became aware of Iraq's use of chemical weapons against Iran in 1984, while serving as air attaché in Amman, Jordan. The information he saw clearly showed that the Iraqis had used Tabun nerve agent (also known as "GA") against Iranian forces in southern Iraq.

The declassified CIA documents show that Casey and other top officials were repeatedly informed about Iraq's chemical attacks and its plans for launching more. "If the Iraqis produce or acquire large new supplies of mustard agent, they almost certainly would use it against Iranian troops and towns near the border," the CIA said in a top secret document.

But it was the express policy of Reagan to ensure an Iraqi victory in the war, whatever the cost.

The CIA noted in one document that the use of nerve agent "could have a significant impact on Iran's human wave tactics, forcing Iran to give up that strategy." Those tactics, which involved Iranian forces swarming against conventionally armed Iraqi positions, had proved decisive in some battles. In March 1984, the CIA reported that Iraq had "begun using nerve agents on the Al Basrah front and likely will be able to employ it in militarily significant quantities by late this fall."

The use of chemical weapons in war is banned under the Geneva Protocol of 1925, which states that parties "will exert every effort to induce other States to accede to the" agreement. Iraq never ratified the protocol; the United States did in 1975. The Chemical Weapons Convention, which bans the production and use of such arms, wasn't passed until 1997, years after the incidents in question.

The initial wave of Iraqi attacks, in 1983, used mustard agent. While generally not fatal, mustard causes severe blistering of the skin and mucus membranes, which can lead to potentially fatal infections, and can cause blindness and upper respiratory disease, while increasing the risk of cancer. The United States wasn't yet providing battlefield intelligence to Iraq when mustard was used. But it also did nothing to assist Iran in its attempts to bring proof of illegal Iraqi chemical attacks to light. Nor did the administration inform the United Nations. The CIA determined that Iran had the capability to bomb the weapons assembly facilities, if only it could find them. The CIA believed it knew the locations.


Source


Given that we are almost totally certain that we have chemical & biological weapon use in Syria by Assad, how does this make the United States look, if we were to intervene there? Are you surprised that our foreign policy in the '80s involves being very friendly with our enemies in the 2000's? Should there be any kind of repercussions for the people involved in the Reagan-Bush Sr. Administration?

*Also making a Syria thread, so let's keep this one to the story above please, talk about Syria in its own thread.
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #2    
Old August 26th, 2013, 02:35 PM
TRIFORCE89's Avatar
TRIFORCE89
Guide of Darkness
 
Join Date: May 2004
Location: Temple of Light
Age: 25
Gender: Male
Nature: Quiet
Quote:
Originally Posted by Livewire View Post
Are you surprised that our foreign policy in the '80s involves being very friendly with our enemies in the 2000's?
No, not surprised. The US has always had strange bedfellows. They do things to, apparently, serve the interests of that country not other countries.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Livewire View Post
Should there be any kind of repercussions for the people involved in the Reagan-Bush Sr. Administration?
No. From what I read, they only sat on information.
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #3    
Old August 26th, 2013, 06:00 PM
Kanzler
スペースディスコ ��82.
Community Supporter
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: Toronto
Age: 20
Gender: Male
Nature: Relaxed
Quote:
Originally Posted by Livewire View Post
Are you surprised that our foreign policy in the '80s involves being very friendly with our enemies in the 2000's?
Same thing happened for the Taliban too, right? I think Saddam actually used the Cold War animosity as much as he could back in the day, courting both the American and Soviets. A legacy of that as well is the American friendship with Pakistan, just because India was more Soviet-oriented. If they were anti-communist, they were allies.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Livewire View Post
Should there be any kind of repercussions for the people involved in the Reagan-Bush Sr. Administration?
Should there be? Maybe by divine intervention or karma. But in the machine of policy-making, no one person is responsible. And it's really hard to determine who could be. It's not one solid mass, but a web of responsibility and authority that results in the decisions being made. It's a part of bureaucracy that the people involved become faceless.
__________________
Cadance.
Reply With Quote
  #4    
Old August 26th, 2013, 07:19 PM
Lance's Avatar
Lance
Master of Dragons
 
Join Date: Jul 2009
Location: Blackthorn City
Gender: Male
Nature: Adamant
Send a message via Skype™ to Lance
Quote:
Originally Posted by BlahISuck View Post
Same thing happened for the Taliban too, right? I think Saddam actually used the Cold War animosity as much as he could back in the day, courting both the American and Soviets. A legacy of that as well is the American friendship with Pakistan, just because India was more Soviet-oriented. If they were anti-communist, they were allies.
Well, we aided the Mujahadeen and worked very closely with the Saudis and the Pakistani ISI back in the 80's because they were all helping tribal Afghani forces in resisting the Soviets. The catch was that everybody had thier own secret agendas, and the relationships were shaky at best. The Reagan Administration pumped billions and billions into the CIA's black budget to help them, and due to a literal myriad of conditions, Bin Laden, the rise of militant fundamentalist Islam, religious ferver, etc, it basically blew back in our faces in the early 2000's.
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #5    
Old August 29th, 2013, 06:56 PM
J's Avatar
J
good morning
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Nature: Jolly
This is fairly moderate by CIA standards.
Let us recall, for example, the Nicaraguan Contras, and the Somoza dynasty in that same country; Noriega in Panama, the butchers in El Salvador, Suharto in Indonesia, Pinochet in Chile and the Shah in Iran...

Anyone who still thinks that "the Agency" is an instrument of world peace and the US a crusader for democracy and human rights ought to be dragged to the back of the room and given ten lashes of the whip!
__________________

Last edited by J; August 29th, 2013 at 07:05 PM.
Reply With Quote
  #6    
Old August 30th, 2013, 01:08 AM
Amore
Now stand up and begin
Community Supporter
 
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: Panic Station
Age: 19
Wow...this completely slipped under my radar (The article, not the chemical attacks in the 80s xD), I guess because I went from reading about how the CIA overthrew Iran's government in the 1950s (Shocker, wouldn't be surprised if they kicked off Syria tbh) to celebrating the UK not intervening in Syria.
But basically the US supported the use of WMD's? Damn right there should be consequences for everyone who knew and had the power to do anything - even if it was just telling people about it. If it wasn't that other countries are probably just as bad (Sadly our government probably knew about it - the "Special relationship" is basically where the UK is given info on a need-to-know basis and told not to oppose the US), I'd suggest they should be kicked off their permanent seat in the UN Security Council.
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #7    
Old September 9th, 2013, 12:00 PM
Lance's Avatar
Lance
Master of Dragons
 
Join Date: Jul 2009
Location: Blackthorn City
Gender: Male
Nature: Adamant
Send a message via Skype™ to Lance
Quote:
Originally Posted by J View Post
This is fairly moderate by CIA standards.
Let us recall, for example, the Nicaraguan Contras, and the Somoza dynasty in that same country; Noriega in Panama, the butchers in El Salvador, Suharto in Indonesia, Pinochet in Chile and the Shah in Iran...

Anyone who still thinks that "the Agency" is an instrument of world peace and the US a crusader for democracy and human rights ought to be dragged to the back of the room and given ten lashes of the whip!
Oh, Reagan and the Contras. Good times.


Quote:
I'd suggest they should be kicked off their permanent seat in the UN Security Council.
That would be a very bad idea.
__________________
Reply With Quote
Reply
Quick Reply

Sponsored Links
Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Minimum Characters Per Post: 25



All times are UTC -8. The time now is 08:01 PM.


Style by Nymphadora, artwork by Sa-Dui.
Like our Facebook Page Follow us on Twitter © 2002 - 2014 The PokéCommunity™, pokecommunity.com.
Pokémon characters and images belong to The Pokémon Company International and Nintendo. This website is in no way affiliated with or endorsed by Nintendo, Creatures, GAMEFREAK, The Pokémon Company or The Pokémon Company International. We just love Pokémon.
All forum styles, their images (unless noted otherwise) and site designs are © 2002 - 2014 The PokéCommunity / PokéCommunity.com.
PokéCommunity™ is a trademark of The PokéCommunity. All rights reserved. Sponsor advertisements do not imply our endorsement of that product or service. User generated content remains the property of its creator.