'Chemical Ali' geëxecuteerd, wanneer Bush en zijn knecht Blair?

[grievous]

Oorspronkelijk geplaatst door Johan Bollen

Uw positie is slechts houdbaar vanuit een positie van macht. Ze gaat voorbij aan mensenrechten, aan de lessen van WO2, en zal uiteindelijk tot een nieuwe grote oorlog leiden.

Bij mijn weten hebben staten tot op heden altijd oorlog gevoerd als ze daar zin in hadden en ik heb daar geen bezwaar tegen.

[grievous]

Oorspronkelijk geplaatst door Fallen Angel

Hoeveel oorlogen heeft China (het land met het grootste leger) gevoerd sinds de tweede wereldoorlog?

Hoeveel oorlogen heeft de VS gevoerd sinds de tweede wereldoorlog?

Eerlijk zijn he.

Aantallen hebben geen enkel belang.Er is geen bezwaar tegen het voeren van militaire actie als daar een gegronde reden voor bestaat.China heeft dat ook een paar keer gedaan maar daar zult ge niet veel gezaag over horen.

[grievous]

Oorspronkelijk geplaatst door Fallen Angel

Het legt wel de hypocrisie bloot.

Toch niet.

[Fallen Angel]

Oorspronkelijk geplaatst door grievous

Aantallen hebben geen enkel belang.Er is geen bezwaar tegen het voeren van militaire actie als daar een gegronde reden voor bestaat.China heeft dat ook een paar keer gedaan maar daar zult ge niet veel gezaag over horen.

Ah wanneer, waar?

[Fallen Angel]

Oorspronkelijk geplaatst door grievous

Klopt niet.

Klopt wel

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_...%80%93Iraq_war

Chemical and Biological exports

On May 25 1994, the U.S. Senate Banking Committee released a report in which it was stated that "pathogenic (meaning 'disease producing'), toxigenic (meaning 'poisonous'), and other biological research materials were exported to Iraq pursuant to application and licensing by the U.S. Department of Commerce." It added: "These exported biological materials were not attenuated or weakened and were capable of reproduction."[30]

The report then detailed 70 shipments (including Bacillus anthracis) from the United States to Iraqi government agencies over three years, concluding "It was later learned that these microorganisms exported by the United States were identical to those the UN inspectors found and recovered from the Iraqi biological warfare program."[31]

Donald Riegle, Chairman of the Senate committee that authored the aforementioned Riegle Report, said:

U.N. inspectors had identified many United States manufactured items that had been exported from the United States to Iraq under licenses issued by the Department of Commerce, and [established] that these items were used to further Iraq's chemical and nuclear weapons development and its missile delivery system development programs. ... The executive branch of our government approved 771 different export licenses for sale of dual-use technology to Iraq. I think that is a devastating record.

The U.S. Centers for Disease Control sent Iraq 14 separate agents "with biological warfare significance," according to Riegle's investigators.[32]

[grievous]

Oorspronkelijk geplaatst door Fallen Angel

Ah wanneer, waar?

In de jaren zestig is er een kortstondig conflict met India geweest en Vietnam werd aangevallen in 1979.

[Fallen Angel]

Oorspronkelijk geplaatst door grievous

In de jaren zestig is er een kortstondig conflict met India geweest en Vietnam werd aangevallen in 1979.

Bron?

[grievous]

Oorspronkelijk geplaatst door Fallen Angel

Klopt wel

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_...%80%93Iraq_war

Klopt niet want dual use technologie toelaten te verkopen,is wel wat andeeers dan WMD's leveren.
En ge kunt de link over de steun van de ussr tijdens de iran iraq oorlog duidelijk niet over het hoofd gezien hebben .Ge hebt dus terzake duidelijk gelogen in een ander onderwerp.

[grievous]

Oorspronkelijk geplaatst door Fallen Angel

Bron?

Geschiedenisboeken lezen jongen.Schijnt bij u nodig te zijn.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sino-Indian_War
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sino-Vietnamese_War

[Fallen Angel]

Oorspronkelijk geplaatst door grievous

Klopt niet want dual use technologie toelaten te verkopen,is wel wat andeeers dan WMD's leveren.

Als je het leveren van Anthrax en andere biologische en chemische wapens als dual-use technology beschouwd..................

Oorspronkelijk geplaatst door grievous

En ge kunt de link over de steun van de ussr tijdens de iran iraq oorlog duidelijk niet over het hoofd gezien hebben .Ge hebt dus terzake duidelijk gelogen in een ander onderwerp.

Deze?:

With the UN-imposed embargo on warring parties, and with the Soviet Union opposing the conflict, Hussein found it increasingly difficult to repair and replace hardware damaged in battle.[26][27] According to Kenneth Timmerman, "Saddam did foresee one immediate consequence of his invasion of Iran: the suspension of arms supplies from the USSR."[4]

When he launched his attack, the Soviets were busy playing games in Iran. They were not amused that the Iraqis upset their plans. For generations the KGB had been working to penetrate Iran's Shiite clergy. In February 1979, when Ayatollah Khomeini took power and threw the Americans out of Iran, the Soviets stood to gain more than they had ever believed possible. ... KGB boss Yuri Andropov [had] little difficulty in convincing Brezhnev and Kosygin to agree to an embargo on arms to Iraq... p. 83-84

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."[17] According to Howard Teicher's court sworn declaration:

If the "Bear Spares" were manufactured outside the United States, then the U.S. could arrange for the provision of these weapons to a third country without direct involvement. Israel, for example, had a very large stockpile of Soviet weaponry and ammunition captured during its various wars. At the suggestion of the United States, the Israelis would transfer the spare parts and weapons to third countries... Similarly, Egypt manufactured weapons and spare parts from Soviet designs and provided these weapons and ammunition to the Iraqis and other countries.

[grievous]

Oorspronkelijk geplaatst door Fallen Angel

Als je het leveren van Anthrax en andere bacteriën en virussen als dual-use technology beschouwd..................



Deze:

Ge bewijst hier alleen uw eigen leugens want ge kunt niet over het hoofd gezien hebben dat de periode van neutraliteit van de USSR maar zeer kort duurde d.w.z tot de ouvertures aan Iran afgewezen waren.Stond in hetzelfde artikel.

[Fallen Angel]

Oorspronkelijk geplaatst door grievous

Ge bewijst hier alleen uw eigen leugens want ge kunt niet over het hoofd gezien hebben dat de periode van neutraliteit van de USSR maar zeer kort duurde d.w.z tot de ouvertures aan Iran afgewezen waren.Stond in hetzelfde artikel.

???
Ik weet niet of u het weet maar de USSR steunde Iran in het conflict.
De VS steunde Irak en gaf WMD's aan Sadam.

[grievous]

Oorspronkelijk geplaatst door Fallen Angel

???
Ik weet niet of u het weet maar de USSR steunde Iran in het conflict.
De VS steunde Sadam en Irak.

Een volledig citaat uit wikipedia:
""Strict neutrality" (1980-82)
The outbreak of the Iran–Iraq War in September, 1980 provided the Soviets with a quandary since they aimed to be friends with both sides. The 1979 Iranian revolution had overthrown the Shah, the USA's key ally in the Middle East. Iran's new anti-American stance presented the USSR with a golden opportunity to win the country over to the Soviet camp. But the war between Iraq and Iran complicated matters. Iraq had been a very close ally of the Soviets since 1958 and in 1972, the USSR and Iraq had signed a Treaty of Friendship and Cooperation in which both countries promised to help each other under threat and to avoid entering hostile alliances against one another.[1] Iraq had replaced Egypt as the Soviet's chief partner in the region after the Camp David Accords. It supplied the USSR with oil and was a valuable customer for Eastern Bloc arms. The Soviets were unhappy with Iraq's offensive against Iran, although they avoided issuing an official condemnation. They were reluctant to supply Iraq with more arms although they allowed their Warsaw Pact allies to continue doing so.[2][3] At the same time, the USSR attempted to court Iran and offered to sell arms to the Iranians, a bid for friendship which was rejected by Tehran, due to its historic distrust of Russia and the Soviet Union. Nevertheless, the USSR's allies, Libya and Syria, sold weapons to the Iranians, presumably with Soviet permission.[4] The Soviets also worried what Western reaction would be if they opted to back either Iraq or Iran. The complicated balancing act of trying to maintain good relations with both Iran and Iraq led the USSR to observe a policy of "strict neutrality" during the opening phase of the war while calling for a negotiated peace. [5]

[edit] The USSR tilts towards Iraq (1982-86)
However, the Iranians rebuffed Soviet offers of friendship and by 1982 they also had the upper hand in the war. They decided to push on into Iraq and overthrow Saddam Hussein. This led to a change in Soviet policy from Summer, 1982. The Soviets did not like the implications of an Iranian victory, fearing Tehran would go on to export Islamic revolution elsewhere in the world. Although officially still neutral, the USSR gradually increased economic and military support to Iraq to stop the collapse of Saddam. The Soviets had a commitment not to let an ally be overthrown and support for Iraq also played well with many Arab nations (the Soviets finally achieved diplomatic relations with Oman and the UAE and an agreement to supply arms to Kuwait).[6] In 1983, the actions of the Iranians became increasingly anti-Soviet. The authorities cracked down on the Moscow-backed Iranian communist party, Tudeh, and then expelled 18 Soviet diplomats. The Soviets were also keen to counterbalance Iraq's increasingly friendly relations with the West by boosting military aid to Saddam. Iraq became "the largest recipient of Soviet-bloc military aid among the countries of the Third World".[7] In 1984, Iraq officially established diplomatic relations with the USA. This, combined with the outbreak of the "tanker war" (Iranian-Saudi confrontation over oil tankers in the Persian Gulf) opened the worrying prospect for the Soviets of an increased US presence in the region. The USSR responded with yet more military aid to Saddam.[8]

[edit] Active support for Iraq (1986-88)
In 1986-7, the Soviet Union definitely turned to supporting Iraq. The war had been bogged down in a stalemate until the Iranians had taken the Faw Peninsula. This and other military gains offered the prospect of an Iraqi collapse. This worrying development pushed the conservative Arab rulers closer to the USA, which they saw as their protector. The USSR did not relish the idea of increased American military presence in the area. The Soviets were also worried about what would happen in Afghanistan. They had invaded this neighbour of Iran in 1979 and fought a long war there. Iran had provided support to some of the anti-Soviet Afghan Mujahideen. In March, 1987 the Soviets decided to withdraw their forces from Afghanistan, and they were concerned that the vacuum would be filled by an "Islamic fundamentalist" regime. There was also the prospect of Islamist revolution spreading to Soviet Central Asia. This "Islamic factor" became a major concern for the Soviet leadership during the last phase of the Iran–Iraq War and led them to boost arms supplies to Iraq. "The decision to give Iraq the military edge was universal. Not only the Soviet Union, but the entire Western alliance, largely financed by conservative Arab states, engaged in the most comprehensive and massive arms transfer in history to a Third World state engaged in conflict (...) The 'Western package' for Iraq, however, paled in comparison with the Soviet's. Between 1986 and 1988, the Soviets delivered to Iraq arms valued at roughly $8.8 to $9.2 billion, comprising more than 2,000 tanks (including 800 T-72s), 300 fighter aircraft, almost 300 surface-to-air missiles (mostly Scud Bs) and thousands of pieces of heavy artillery and armored personnel vehicles." [9]The massive increase in weaponry allowed Iraq to regain the initiative in the war. At the same time, the USSR continued to press for a ceasefire and offer itself as a mediator. To this end, the Soviets made several economic concessions to Iran and opposed the US reflagging of ships in the Persian Gulf. However, Iran showed little interest in friendship with the USSR, rejecting the Communist world along with the West. Soviet aid allowed Iraq to begin a renewed offensive against Iran in April, 1988, the success of which led to a ceasefire and the end of the war on August 20 of that year.[10]"

Daarmee ligt ge er.

[Fallen Angel]

Oorspronkelijk geplaatst door grievous

Een volledig citaat uit wikipedia:
""Strict neutrality" (1980-82)
The outbreak of the Iran–Iraq War in September, 1980 provided the Soviets with a quandary since they aimed to be friends with both sides. The 1979 Iranian revolution had overthrown the Shah, the USA's key ally in the Middle East. Iran's new anti-American stance presented the USSR with a golden opportunity to win the country over to the Soviet camp. But the war between Iraq and Iran complicated matters. Iraq had been a very close ally of the Soviets since 1958 and in 1972, the USSR and Iraq had signed a Treaty of Friendship and Cooperation in which both countries promised to help each other under threat and to avoid entering hostile alliances against one another.[1] Iraq had replaced Egypt as the Soviet's chief partner in the region after the Camp David Accords. It supplied the USSR with oil and was a valuable customer for Eastern Bloc arms. The Soviets were unhappy with Iraq's offensive against Iran, although they avoided issuing an official condemnation. They were reluctant to supply Iraq with more arms although they allowed their Warsaw Pact allies to continue doing so.[2][3] At the same time, the USSR attempted to court Iran and offered to sell arms to the Iranians, a bid for friendship which was rejected by Tehran, due to its historic distrust of Russia and the Soviet Union. Nevertheless, the USSR's allies, Libya and Syria, sold weapons to the Iranians, presumably with Soviet permission.[4] The Soviets also worried what Western reaction would be if they opted to back either Iraq or Iran. The complicated balancing act of trying to maintain good relations with both Iran and Iraq led the USSR to observe a policy of "strict neutrality" during the opening phase of the war while calling for a negotiated peace. [5]

[edit] The USSR tilts towards Iraq (1982-86)
However, the Iranians rebuffed Soviet offers of friendship and by 1982 they also had the upper hand in the war. They decided to push on into Iraq and overthrow Saddam Hussein. This led to a change in Soviet policy from Summer, 1982. The Soviets did not like the implications of an Iranian victory, fearing Tehran would go on to export Islamic revolution elsewhere in the world. Although officially still neutral, the USSR gradually increased economic and military support to Iraq to stop the collapse of Saddam. The Soviets had a commitment not to let an ally be overthrown and support for Iraq also played well with many Arab nations (the Soviets finally achieved diplomatic relations with Oman and the UAE and an agreement to supply arms to Kuwait).[6] In 1983, the actions of the Iranians became increasingly anti-Soviet. The authorities cracked down on the Moscow-backed Iranian communist party, Tudeh, and then expelled 18 Soviet diplomats. The Soviets were also keen to counterbalance Iraq's increasingly friendly relations with the West by boosting military aid to Saddam. Iraq became "the largest recipient of Soviet-bloc military aid among the countries of the Third World".[7] In 1984, Iraq officially established diplomatic relations with the USA. This, combined with the outbreak of the "tanker war" (Iranian-Saudi confrontation over oil tankers in the Persian Gulf) opened the worrying prospect for the Soviets of an increased US presence in the region. The USSR responded with yet more military aid to Saddam.[8]

[edit] Active support for Iraq (1986-88)
In 1986-7, the Soviet Union definitely turned to supporting Iraq. The war had been bogged down in a stalemate until the Iranians had taken the Faw Peninsula. This and other military gains offered the prospect of an Iraqi collapse. This worrying development pushed the conservative Arab rulers closer to the USA, which they saw as their protector. The USSR did not relish the idea of increased American military presence in the area. The Soviets were also worried about what would happen in Afghanistan. They had invaded this neighbour of Iran in 1979 and fought a long war there. Iran had provided support to some of the anti-Soviet Afghan Mujahideen. In March, 1987 the Soviets decided to withdraw their forces from Afghanistan, and they were concerned that the vacuum would be filled by an "Islamic fundamentalist" regime. There was also the prospect of Islamist revolution spreading to Soviet Central Asia. This "Islamic factor" became a major concern for the Soviet leadership during the last phase of the Iran–Iraq War and led them to boost arms supplies to Iraq. "The decision to give Iraq the military edge was universal. Not only the Soviet Union, but the entire Western alliance, largely financed by conservative Arab states, engaged in the most comprehensive and massive arms transfer in history to a Third World state engaged in conflict (...) The 'Western package' for Iraq, however, paled in comparison with the Soviet's. Between 1986 and 1988, the Soviets delivered to Iraq arms valued at roughly $8.8 to $9.2 billion, comprising more than 2,000 tanks (including 800 T-72s), 300 fighter aircraft, almost 300 surface-to-air missiles (mostly Scud Bs) and thousands of pieces of heavy artillery and armored personnel vehicles." [9]The massive increase in weaponry allowed Iraq to regain the initiative in the war. At the same time, the USSR continued to press for a ceasefire and offer itself as a mediator. To this end, the Soviets made several economic concessions to Iran and opposed the US reflagging of ships in the Persian Gulf. However, Iran showed little interest in friendship with the USSR, rejecting the Communist world along with the West. Soviet aid allowed Iraq to begin a renewed offensive against Iran in April, 1988, the success of which led to a ceasefire and the end of the war on August 20 of that year.[10]"

Daarmee ligt ge er.

Oh ja?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_...%80%93Iraq_war

Starting in 1982 with Iranian success on the battlefield, the United States made its backing of Iraq more pronounced, normalizing relations with the government, supplying it with economic aid, counter-insurgency training, operational intelligence on the battlefield, and weapons.[13][3]

President Ronald Reagan initiated a strategic opening to Iraq, signing National Security Decision Directive 4-82 and selecting Donald Rumsfeld as his emissary to Hussein, whom he visited in December 1983 and March 1984.[14] According to U.S. ambassador Peter W. Galbraith, far from winning the conflict, "the Reagan administration was afraid Iraq might actually lose."[15]

In 1982, Iraq was removed from a list of State Sponsors of Terrorism to ease the transfer of dual-use technology to that country. According to investigative journalist Alan Friedman, Secretary of State Alexander Haig was "upset at the fact that the decision had been made at the White House, even though the State Department was responsible for the list."[3] "I was not consulted," Haig is said to have complained.

Howard Teicher served on the National Security Council as director of Political-Military Affairs. He accompanied Rumsfeld to Baghdad in 1983.[16] According to his 1995 affidavit and separate interviews with former Reagan and Bush administration officials, the Central Intelligence Agency secretly directed armaments and hi-tech components to Iraq through false fronts and friendly third parties such as Jordan, Saudi Arabia, Egypt and Kuwait, and they quietly encouraged rogue arms dealers and other private military companies to do the same:

[T]he United States actively supported the Iraqi war effort by supplying the Iraqis with billions of dollars of credits, by providing U.S. military intelligence and advice to the Iraqis, and by closely monitoring third country arms sales to Iraq to make sure that Iraq had the military weaponry required. The United States also provided strategic operational advice to the Iraqis to better use their assets in combat... The CIA, including both CIA Director Casey and Deputy Director Gates, knew of, approved of, and assisted in the sale of non-U.S. origin military weapons, ammunition and vehicles to Iraq. My notes, memoranda and other documents in my NSC files show or tend to show that the CIA knew of, approved of, and assisted in the sale of non-U.S. origin military weapons, munitions and vehicles to Iraq.[17]

Donald Rumsfeld meets Saddām on 19 December – 20 December 1983. Rumsfeld visited again on 24 March 1984, the day the UN reported that Iraq had used mustard gas and tabun nerve agent against Iranian troops. The NY Times reported from Baghdad on 29 March 1984, that "American diplomats pronounce themselves satisfied with Iraq and the U.S., and suggest that normal diplomatic ties have been established in all but name."[14]

The full extent of these covert transfers is not yet known. Teicher's files on the subject are held securely at the Ronald Reagan Presidential Library and many other Reagan era documents that could help shine new light on the subject remain classified. Teicher declined to discuss details of the affidavit with the Washington Post shortly before the 2003 invasion of Iraq.[18]

About two of every seven licenses for the export of "dual use" technology items approved between 1985 and 1990 by the U.S. Department of Commerce "went either directly to the Iraqi armed forces, to Iraqi end-users engaged in weapons production, or to Iraqi enterprises suspected of diverting technology" to weapons of mass destruction, according to an investigation by House Banking Committee Chairman Henry B. Gonzalez. Confidential Commerce Department files also reveal that the Reagan and Bush administrations approved at least 80 direct exports to the Iraqi military. These included computers, communications equipment, aircraft navigation and radar equipment.[19]

In conformance with the Presidential directive, the U.S. began providing tactical battlefield advice to the Iraqi Army. "The prevailing view", says Alan Friedman, "was that if Washington wanted to prevent an Iranian victory, it would have to share some of its more sensitive intelligence photography with Saddam."[3]

At times, thanks to the White House's secret backing for the intelligence-sharing, U.S. intelligence officers were actually sent to Baghdad to help interpret the satellite information. As the White House took an increasingly active role in secretly helping Saddam direct his armed forces, the United States even built an expensive high-tech annex in Baghdad to provide a direct down-link receiver for the satellite intelligence and better processing of the information... p. 27

The American military commitment that had begun with intelligence-sharing expanded rapidly and surreptitiously throughout the Iran–Iraq War. A former White House official explained that "by 1987, our people were actually providing tactical military advice to the Iraqis in the battlefield, and sometimes they would find themselves over the Iranian border, alongside Iraqi troops." p. 38

Author Barry M. Lando says, by 1987, the U.S. military was so invested in the correct outcome, that "officers from the Pentagon's Defense Intelligence Agency dispatched to Baghdad were actually planning day-by-day strategic bombing strikes for the Iraqi Air Force."[20][7] Iraq used this data to target Iranian positions with chemical weapons, says ambassador Galbraith.[15]
The MK-84: Saudi Arabia transferred to Iraq hundreds of U.S.-made general-purpose "dumb bombs".[3]

According to retired Army Colonel W. Patrick Lang, senior defense intelligence officer for the United States Defense Intelligence Agency at the time, "the use of gas on the battlefield by the Iraqis was not a matter of deep strategic concern" to Reagan and his aides, because they "were desperate to make sure that Iraq did not lose."[21] Lang disclosed that more than 60 officers of the Defense Intelligence Agency were secretly providing detailed information on Iranian deployments. He cautioned that the DIA "would have never accepted the use of chemical weapons against civilians, but the use against military objectives was seen as inevitable in the Iraqi struggle for survival." Despite this claim, the Reagan administration did not stop aiding Iraq after receiving reports affirming the use of poison gas on Kurdish civilians.[22][23]

Joost R. Hiltermann says that when the Iraqi military turned its chemical weapons on the Kurds during the war, killing approximately 5,000 people in the town of Halabja and injuring thousands more, the Reagan administration actually sought to obscure Iraqi leadership culpability by suggesting, inaccurately, that the Iranians may have carried out the attack.[24]

Begin de steun van de VS aan Sadam maar te ontkennen.

[illwill]

Oorspronkelijk geplaatst door Fallen Angel

Het legt wel de hypocrisie bloot.

Verklaar...?

[illwill]

Oorspronkelijk geplaatst door Johan Bollen

Een concreet voorstel was het niet maar zijn woorden en vooral toon kwam gevaarlijk dicht in die buurt. Zelfs de BBC noemt zijn woorden 'bellicose, almost belligerent'. Dat is niet de eerste keer. In 2006 zei hij ook gevaarlijke dingen mbt Iran (oproepen voor een alliantie om Iran aan te vallen) die hij naderhand terug introk. Hij ligt op een lijn met de havikken in Washington die Iran willen aanvallen.
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk...e-1883998.html

Het kan ook zijn dat hij de aandacht van zijn Irak leugens wil afleiden door Iran 58 keer te vernoemen.

Kortom, het was een leugen en hij heeft geen voorstel gedaan om Iran aan te vallen.

[grievous]

Oorspronkelijk geplaatst door Fallen Angel

Oh ja?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_...%80%93Iraq_war



Begin de steun van de VS aan Sadam maar te ontkennen.

Dit noemt men ontwijken.De steun van de VS stelde niets voor bij die van de USSR die gij steevast onkend hebt.
De (relatief geringe) steun van de VS was overigens gegrond aangezien Iran het grootste kwaad was.Met uw gezaag brengt ge dus niemand in verlegenheid.
Ge ligt er dus nog altijd want ge hebt duidelijk gelogen over de rol van de USSR.Ik citeer uw eigen woorden:

".???
Ik weet niet of u het weet maar de USSR steunde Iran in het conflict.
De VS steunde Irak en gaf WMD's aan Sadam."


En ik confronteer dit met een citaat uit wikipêdia over de rol van de ussr..

"Strict neutrality" (1980-82)
The outbreak of the Iran–Iraq War in September, 1980 provided the Soviets with a quandary since they aimed to be friends with both sides. The 1979 Iranian revolution had overthrown the Shah, the USA's key ally in the Middle East. Iran's new anti-American stance presented the USSR with a golden opportunity to win the country over to the Soviet camp. But the war between Iraq and Iran complicated matters. Iraq had been a very close ally of the Soviets since 1958 and in 1972, the USSR and Iraq had signed a Treaty of Friendship and Cooperation in which both countries promised to help each other under threat and to avoid entering hostile alliances against one another.[1] Iraq had replaced Egypt as the Soviet's chief partner in the region after the Camp David Accords. It supplied the USSR with oil and was a valuable customer for Eastern Bloc arms. The Soviets were unhappy with Iraq's offensive against Iran, although they avoided issuing an official condemnation. They were reluctant to supply Iraq with more arms although they allowed their Warsaw Pact allies to continue doing so.[2][3] At the same time, the USSR attempted to court Iran and offered to sell arms to the Iranians, a bid for friendship which was rejected by Tehran, due to its historic distrust of Russia and the Soviet Union. Nevertheless, the USSR's allies, Libya and Syria, sold weapons to the Iranians, presumably with Soviet permission.[4] The Soviets also worried what Western reaction would be if they opted to back either Iraq or Iran. The complicated balancing act of trying to maintain good relations with both Iran and Iraq led the USSR to observe a policy of "strict neutrality" during the opening phase of the war while calling for a negotiated peace. [5]

[edit] The USSR tilts towards Iraq (1982-86)
However, the Iranians rebuffed Soviet offers of friendship and by 1982 they also had the upper hand in the war. They decided to push on into Iraq and overthrow Saddam Hussein. This led to a change in Soviet policy from Summer, 1982. The Soviets did not like the implications of an Iranian victory, fearing Tehran would go on to export Islamic revolution elsewhere in the world. Although officially still neutral, the USSR gradually increased economic and military support to Iraq to stop the collapse of Saddam. The Soviets had a commitment not to let an ally be overthrown and support for Iraq also played well with many Arab nations (the Soviets finally achieved diplomatic relations with Oman and the UAE and an agreement to supply arms to Kuwait).[6] In 1983, the actions of the Iranians became increasingly anti-Soviet. The authorities cracked down on the Moscow-backed Iranian communist party, Tudeh, and then expelled 18 Soviet diplomats. The Soviets were also keen to counterbalance Iraq's increasingly friendly relations with the West by boosting military aid to Saddam. Iraq became "the largest recipient of Soviet-bloc military aid among the countries of the Third World".[7] In 1984, Iraq officially established diplomatic relations with the USA. This, combined with the outbreak of the "tanker war" (Iranian-Saudi confrontation over oil tankers in the Persian Gulf) opened the worrying prospect for the Soviets of an increased US presence in the region. The USSR responded with yet more military aid to Saddam.[8]

[edit] Active support for Iraq (1986-88)
In 1986-7, the Soviet Union definitely turned to supporting Iraq. The war had been bogged down in a stalemate until the Iranians had taken the Faw Peninsula. This and other military gains offered the prospect of an Iraqi collapse. This worrying development pushed the conservative Arab rulers closer to the USA, which they saw as their protector. The USSR did not relish the idea of increased American military presence in the area. The Soviets were also worried about what would happen in Afghanistan. They had invaded this neighbour of Iran in 1979 and fought a long war there. Iran had provided support to some of the anti-Soviet Afghan Mujahideen. In March, 1987 the Soviets decided to withdraw their forces from Afghanistan, and they were concerned that the vacuum would be filled by an "Islamic fundamentalist" regime. There was also the prospect of Islamist revolution spreading to Soviet Central Asia. This "Islamic factor" became a major concern for the Soviet leadership during the last phase of the Iran–Iraq War and led them to boost arms supplies to Iraq. "The decision to give Iraq the military edge was universal. Not only the Soviet Union, but the entire Western alliance, largely financed by conservative Arab states, engaged in the most comprehensive and massive arms transfer in history to a Third World state engaged in conflict (...) The 'Western package' for Iraq, however, paled in comparison with the Soviet's. Between 1986 and 1988, the Soviets delivered to Iraq arms valued at roughly $8.8 to $9.2 billion, comprising more than 2,000 tanks (including 800 T-72s), 300 fighter aircraft, almost 300 surface-to-air missiles (mostly Scud Bs) and thousands of pieces of heavy artillery and armored personnel vehicles." [9]The massive increase in weaponry allowed Iraq to regain the initiative in the war. At the same time, the USSR continued to press for a ceasefire and offer itself as a mediator. To this end, the Soviets made several economic concessions to Iran and opposed the US reflagging of ships in the Persian Gulf. However, Iran showed little interest in friendship with the USSR, rejecting the Communist world along with the West. Soviet aid allowed Iraq to begin a renewed offensive against Iran in April, 1988, the success of which led to a ceasefire and the end of the war on August 20 of that year.[10]"

[illwill]

Oorspronkelijk geplaatst door Fallen Angel

Klopt wel

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_...%80%93Iraq_war

Nogmaals...daar moet je voor aan de deur kloppen bij de leiders van toen, niet bij degene die er niets mee te maken hebben. Je gaat nu toch ook niet klagen bij Merkel omwille wat Hitler allemaal heeft uitgestoken.

[illwill]

Oorspronkelijk geplaatst door Fallen Angel

???
Ik weet niet of u het weet maar de USSR steunde Iran in het conflict.
De VS steunde Irak en gaf WMD's aan Sadam.

Dus Irak had wel WMD's en vandaar dat de inval in Irak ook gegrond was om deze reden. Niet gevonden betekend niet, niet hebben.

[Fallen Angel]

Oorspronkelijk geplaatst door grievous

Dit noemt men ontwijken. De steun van de VS stelde niets voor bij die van de USSR die gij steevast onkend hebt.

Ik heb nergens de steun van de USSR ontkend. Het enige dat ik gezegd heb is dat ze hun steun hebben afgebouwd tijdens het Iran-Iraq conflict. En toen is de VS in de bres gesprongen met "Bear spares", geld, intelligence en WMD's.

Oorspronkelijk geplaatst door grievous

De (relatief geringe) steun van de VS was overigens gegrond aangezien Iran het grootste kwaad was.Met uw gezaag brengt ge dus niemand in verlegenheid.

1) 500 miljoen dollar in de jaren 80 plus biologische en chemische wapens is "geringe steun" in het woordenboek van Grievous. Ik vraag me dus af wat u verstaat onder "grote steun".

2) Alleen spijtig dat de VS hypocriet van voor tot achter is.:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iran-Contra_Affair

The Iran–Contra affair (Persian: ماجرای مک*فارلین, Spanish: caso Irán-contras) was a political scandal in the United States which came to light in November 1986, during the Reagan administration, in which senior US figures agreed to facilitate the sale of arms to Iran, the subject of an arms embargo, to secure the release of hostages and to fund Nicaraguan contras.