Why did America sell chemical weapons to Saddam in the '80s?
483958
To build a reason for attacking Iraq
869793
Hell no!  No peace for Iraq....just more republican voters in the USA.\n\nwww.counterpunch.org\n\n But on 25 May 1994, the US Senate's Committee on Banking, Housing and Urban Affairs produced a report entitled "United States Chemical and Biological Warfare-related Dual-use exports to Iraq and their possible impact on the Health Consequences (sic) of the Persian Gulf War".\n\nThis was the 1991 war which prompted our liberation of Kuwait, and the report informed Congress about US government-approved shipments of biological agents sent by American companies to Iraq from 1985 or earlier. These included Bacillus anthracis, which produces anthrax; Clostridium botulinum; Histoplasma capsulatum; Brucella melitensis; Clostridium perfringens and Escherichia coli. The same report stated that the US provided Saddam with "dual use" licensed materials which assisted in the development of chemical, biological and missile-system programmes, including chemical warfare agent production facility plant and technical drawings (provided as pesticide production facility plans).\n\nYes, well I can well see why Saddam wasn't permitted to talk about this. John Reid, the British Home Secretary, said that Saddam's hanging "was a sovereign decision by a sovereign nation". Thank heavens he didn't mention the £200,000 worth of thiodiglycol, one of two components of mustard gas we exported to Baghdad in 1988, and another £50,000 worth of the same vile substances the following year.\n\nWe also sent thionyl chloride to Iraq in 1988 at a price of only £26,000. Yes, I know these could be used to make ballpoint ink and fabric dyes. But this was the same country--Britain--that would, eight years later, prohibit the sale of diphtheria vaccine to Iraqi children on the grounds that it could be used for--you guessed it--"weapons of mass destruction".
1084897
WE ALL KNOW IRAQ NEVER ATTACKED THE USA. Pres. Saddam Hussein was trying to make sure the flow of oil to the Zionists and America wasn't as fluid as America would like. Hence the reason they got rid of him. The pretext of saving the Iraqi people from Saddam is nothing but a lie. Just like 9/11
780264
Saddam was a friend to Reagan and Bush Sr., because during the time of their respective presidencies, Iraq was at war with Iran, and the US government supported Iraq and the Saddam Regime. One theory is that the CIA, and the US government, gave Saddam the OK to invade Kuwait because the Kuwaiti government had plans of screwing with the oil supply. However, Saddam went too far, and so the US military had to reel him in and put a short leash on him.\n\nThe theory is actually rather plausible, considering that Bush Sr is an advisor to the Carlyle Group, in which the Bin Laden family heavily invests; and considering that James Baker, the Secretary of State under Bush Sr., and whose law firm, Baker Botts, represents foreign oil interests and lobbyists. (As a side note, isn't it interesting that James Baker is now heading the so called Iraq Study Group, to develop a new strategy for the war in Iraq? And, isn't it equally interesting the Baker Botts law firm defended the Bin Laden family against the law suit brought on by the families of the 9-11 victims?)
536171
I believe most of the weapons used in the first desert storm were developed / enhanced during the 80s. This would include the smart bombs and stealth aircraft.
974740
The American Gov. helped get Saddam in power there so they could have control over Oil...Then due to the great wealth amassed by Iraq due to oil revenue, SADDAM got carried away with his riches..His people went without and he spoiled himself and his followers...Those that tried for Justice were killed off.Whole communities were wiped out...And it would be still going on today had Saddam not believed he could take on the USA...Saddam turned on the Nation that bought his country from the Dark Ages into one of the richest countries on Earth..Now we have to Silence (Kill) him before he lets the rest of the worl know what he had to do for AMERICA when he was a dictator.
332514
There were no Chemical weapons to start with. The process to manufacture the weapons is very dirty and if they had a chemical weapons manufacturing capability, they would have found those long ago, even if the weapons were moved. You can't hide all of the toxic waste generated in the process.\n\nAdditionally, if Saddam had weapons, don't you think he had them for a reason. And what better reason than to defend yourself against an attack? Didn't you ever wonder why they weren't used when they were invaded?\n\nAdditionally, if the US truely believed Saddam had WMD, they would never had send troops in until intelligence identified where they were located and the threat was neutralized first. Otherwise it would be too great a risk to our soldiers. \n\nI always wonder, how is it that we knew exactly were they were before we invaded (remember all the pretty pictures Powell showed us) but now that we are there, we can't find them anymore?
10174
I think it was beacuse of the Oil as Iraq was planning to award all the contracts to the European and Russian companies.\nThe other reason is that George Bush Jr wanted to complete the task what GB Sr has set to achieve "Oust saddam" campaign\nMaybe even to safeguard the interests of Israel
881843
Whilst both were supported by America, only Saddam threatened the oil supply. I believe that is why Saddam was hated by America. They have supported quite a lot of dictators in the past.
1145229
That would be because Saddam had them when we invaded in 2003.  I was in the military from 1993 until 2004.  I can tell you this:  they lobbed an artillery shell at us with chemicals in it.  However, it needed centrifugal force to mix the chemicals and make them lethal.  The enemy mearly catipulted it at us so it didn't explode.  The liberal media refuses to tell the truth.  They seem to have an agenda to undermine Bush, conservative Americans, and our War on Terror.  I was in the war.  I remember CNN giving our positions away over the radio which was being monitored by enemy forces.
778917
Because he invaded Iran , the enemy of the US, so he was supported by the US, Britain and other European countries even when he was gassing his own population.\nThe US supplied anthrax and military intelligence and helicopters, the europeans supplied materials for chemical weapons, the British supplied training for his army and navy.\nThere is a notorious photo of Donald Rumsfeld shaking hands with Saddam in 1983 at the height of his power.
297631
Quite easy.\n\nWhy: Saddam grew independent from the US admnistration who helped him to power and helped covering up his crimes. Under Saddam Iraq grew economically and became a fair power in the ME, one that was beginning to threaten US interests there and had a national strategy with the oil industry that was going to limit western companies access to raw oil.\n\nHow come: one reason is to save face. Without help rebuilding US would appear just as it is: a brute force agressor that pursues its own selfish interests. But with rebuilding there's still some doubt to that and there's a chance that US might somewhat care for the people. Another reason is that there are no more viable Iraq companies. All economic infrastructure would be build by (mostly) US companies, that includes beginning the reopening of oil fields. Those companies will profit enormously from low exploitation prices and govt subsidies. Maybe some companies will have an Iraq front-end, but that's were the game is headed. US will do an enormous 'favor' to the Iraqi people by sucking their oil fields for them.
803000
Shock and Awe I believe was the promotional for this time round...(hehe-sry). There WERE WMD's, proof of that even goes back to 1980!  I mean, are some people stupid, and just don't know that he gased Kurds...poof, trial and death by hanging now for that eh? (anyway)...AND Saddam Hussien used chemical weapon munitions against Iranian troops.  So- I rest my PROVABLE case there. \nIt may have been better to not invade Iraq, I dunno, but the fact remains, he had WMD's which had to be moved quickly- which some suspect may be in the hands of Syria today.
1127055
First of all, the entire world believed there were WMD in Iraq, based on Iraq's own documents and history of use, and much evidence and material has been found to support the existence of active chemical and biological weapons programs, even a few chemical warheads.  The fact is that the chemical and biological agents can be produced quickly from raw materials when needed and only stockpiles of the raw materials are required.  Of course, these raw materials usually have other legitimate uses and thus can be reasoned away.  \n\nFurther, the invasion of Iraq was in response to the numerous violations of UN secuity council resolutions dealing with WMD, several of which authorized the use of force.  Saddam was known to, and bragged about, helping international terrorism, and even though he probably didn't have any direct connection to 9/11, his connection to terrorism in general is well established.\n\nSo, get your facts straight and stop spewing this liberal, why-can't-we-all-just-get-along garbage.  There is evil in this world and it must be rooted out and destroyed at every opportunity.
947898
France was doing undertable deals with Saddam and violating the sanctions, same the same with Germany and Russia.  Small wonder those 3 didn't want us to invade, they were making millions.
1044146
Yeah, Saddam used WMDs IN THE 80'S. Fair enough. Bad guy. But did he actually have WMDs that he could actually use in 2003? No way. They were, even by Santorum's account degraded at that time.
663311
I believe it was a war of choice. The threat was not imminent, if it existed at all.\n\nnicolasraage gives some good links, although some are a bit biased.\n\nHis Washington Post article states that the chemical weapon lab was built after the 2003 invasion. So knock "1,500 gallons of chemical weapons agents" off the list.\n\nThe low-enriched uranium was from before the first Gulf War and was barely suitable for power generation, definitely not weapons grade.\n\nThe 17 chemical warheads containing cyclosarin were so degraded as to be relatively harmless. They were probably from pre-91.\n\n"Over 1,000 radioactive materials in powdered form meant for dispersal over populated areas". They had been used in Iraq for a range of medical and industrial purposes, such as testing oil wells and pipelines. Could they have been used for dispersal? Yes. Were they specifically "meant" for dispersal? No.\n\n" Roadside bombs loaded with mustard and “conventional” sarin gas, assembled in binary chemical projectiles for maximum potency". Both of your links to these stories say "possible" sarin and "possible" exposure, and that further tests would be necessary. The Fox news source is highly suspect.\n\nSo, what we have is weapons that were either built before '91 or after 2003, meaning that Saddam was probably not pursuing these technologies during the period when he was not allowed to.