Indybay Regions North Coast Central Valley North Bay East Bay South Bay San Francisco Peninsula Santa Cruz IMC - Independent Media Center for the Monterey Bay Area North Coast Central Valley North Bay East Bay South Bay San Francisco Peninsula Santa Cruz IMC - Independent Media Center for the Monterey Bay Area California United States International Americas Haiti Iraq Palestine Afghanistan
From the Open-Publishing Calendar
From the Open-Publishing Newswire
Indybay Feature
Related Categories:
US Companies sold Iraq Billions of NBC Weapons Materials
by William Blum
Wednesday Mar 27th, 2002 1:10 AM
Very relevant to todays events!!!!!!!!!


US Companies Sold Iraq
Billions Of NBC Weapons Materials
By William Blum
The Progressive Magazine
April 1998 Issue

(Note - This four year old article contains extremely relevant information for today...)

The United States almost went to war against Iraq in February because of Saddam Hussein's weapons program. In his State of the Union address, President Clinton castigated Hussein for "developing nuclear, chemical, and biological weapons and the missiles to deliver them."

"You cannot defy the will of the world," the President proclaimed. "You have used weapons of mass destruction before. We are determined to deny you the capacity to use them again."

Most Americans listening to the President did not know that the United States supplied Iraq with much of the raw material for creating a chemical and biological warfare program. Nor did the media report that U.S. companies sold Iraq more than $1 billion worth of the components needed to build nuclear weapons and diverse types of missiles, including the infamous Scud.

When Iraq engaged in chemical and biological warfare in the 1980s, barely a peep of moral outrage could be heard from Washington, as it kept supplying Saddam with the materials he needed to build weapons.

From 1980 to 1988, Iraq and Iran waged a terrible war against each other, a war that might not have begun if President Jimmy Carter had not given the Iraqis a green light to attack Iran, in response to repeated provocations. Throughout much of the war, the United States provided military aid and intelligence information to both sides, hoping that each would inflict severe damage on the other. Noam Chomsky suggests that this strategy is a way for America to keep control of its oil supply:

"It's been a leading, driving doctrine of U.S. foreign policy since the 1940s that the vast and unparalleled energy resources of the Gulf region will be effectively dominated by the United States and its clients, and, crucially, that no independent indigenous force will be permitted to have a substantial influence on the administration of oil production and price."

During the Iran-Iraq war, Iraq received the lion's share of American support because at the time Iran was regarded as the greater threat to U.S. interests. According to a 1994 Senate report, private American suppliers, licensed by the U.S. Department of Commerce, exported a witch's brew of biological and chemical materials to Iraq from 1985 through 1989. Among the biological materials, which often produce slow, agonizing death, were:

* Bacillus Anthracis, cause of anthrax.

* Clostridium Botulinum, a source of botulinum toxin.

* Histoplasma Capsulatam, cause of a disease attacking lungs, brain, spinal cord, and heart.

* Brucella Melitensis, a bacteria that can damage major organs.

* Clostridium Perfringens, a highly toxic bacteria causing systemic illness.

* Clostridium tetani, a highly toxigenic substance.

Also on the list: Escherichia coli (E. coli), genetic materials, human and bacterial DNA, and dozens of other pathogenic biological agents. "These biological materials were not attenuated or weakened and were capable of reproduction," the Senate report stated. "It was later learned that these microorganisms exported by the United States were identical to those the United Nations inspectors found and removed from the Iraqi biological warfare program."

The report noted further that U.S. exports to Iraq included the precursors to chemical-warfare agents, plans for chemical and biological warfare production facilities, and chemical-warhead filling equipment.

The exports continued to at least November 28, 1989, despite evidence that Iraq was engaging in chemical and biological warfare against Iranians and Kurds since as early as 1984.

The American company that provided the most biological materials to Iraq in the 1980s was American Type Culture Collection of Maryland and Virginia, which made seventy shipments of the anthrax-causing germ and other pathogenic agents, according to a 1996 Newsday story.

Other American companies also provided Iraq with the chemical or biological compounds, or the facilities and equipment used to create the compounds for chemical and biological warfare. Among these suppliers were the following:

* Alcolac International, a Baltimore chemical manufacturer already linked to the illegal shipment of chemicals to Iran, shipped large quantities of thiodiglycol (used to make mustard gas) as well as other chemical and biological ingredients, according to a 1989 story in The New York Times.

* Nu Kraft Mercantile Corp. of Brooklyn (affiliated with the United Steel and Strip Corporation) also supplied Iraq with huge amounts of thiodiglycol, the Times reported.

* Celery Corp., Charlotte, NC

* Matrix-Churchill Corp., Cleveland, OH (regarded as a front for the Iraqi government, according to Representative Henry Gonzalez, Democrat of Texas, who quoted U.S. intelligence documents to this effect in a 1992 speech on the House floor).

The following companies were also named as chemical and biological materials suppliers in the 1992 Senate hearings on "United States export policy toward Iraq prior to Iraq's invasion of Kuwait":

* Mouse Master, Lilburn, GA

* Sullaire Corp., Charlotte, NC

* Pure Aire, Charlotte, NC

* Posi Seal, Inc., N. Stonington, CT

* Union Carbide, Danbury, CT

* Evapco, Taneytown, MD

* Gorman-Rupp, Mansfield, OH

Additionally, several other companies were sued in connection with their activities providing Iraq with chemical or biological supplies: subsidiaries or branches of Fisher Controls International, Inc., St. Louis; Rhone-Poulenc, Inc., Princeton, NJ; Bechtel Group, Inc., San Francisco; and Lummus Crest, Inc., Bloomfield, NJ, which built one chemical plant in Iraq and, before the Iraqi invasion of Kuwait in August 1990, was building an ethylene facility. Ethylene is a necessary ingredient for thiodiglycol

In 1994, a group of twenty-six veterans, suffering from what has come to be known as Gulf War Syndrome, filed a billion-dollar lawsuit in Houston against Fisher, Rhone-Poulenc, Bechtel Group, and Lummus Crest, as well as American Type Culture Collection (ATCC) and six other firms, for helping Iraq to obtain or produce the compounds which the veterans blamed for their illnesses. By 1998, the number of plaintiffs has risen to more than 4,000 and the suit is still pending in Texas.

A Pentagon study in 1994 dismissed links between chemical and biological weapons and Gulf War Syndrome. Newsday later disclosed, however, that the man who headed the study, Nobel laureate Joshua Lederberg, was a director of ATCC. Moreover, at the time of ATCC's shipments to Iraq, which the Commerce Department approved, the firm's CEO was a member of the Commerce Department's Technical Advisory Committee, the paper found.

A larger number of American firms supplied Iraq with the specialized computers, lasers, testing and analyzing equipment, and other instruments and hardware vital to the manufacture of nuclear weapons, missiles, and delivery systems. Computers, in particular, play a key role in nuclear weapons development. Advanced computers make it feasible to avoid carrying out nuclear test explosions, thus preserving the program's secrecy. The 1992 Senate hearings implicated the following firms:

* Kennametal, Latrobe, PA

* Hewlett Packard, Palo Alto, CA

* International Computer Systems, CA, SC, and TX

* Perkins-Elmer, Norwalk, CT

* BDM Corp., McLean, VA

* Leybold Vacuum Systems, Export, PA

* Spectra Physics, Mountain View, CA

* Unisys Corp., Blue Bell, PA

* Finnigan MAT, San Jose, CA

* Scientific Atlanta, Atlanta, GA

* Spectral Data Corp., Champaign, IL

* Tektronix, Wilsonville, OR

* Veeco Instruments, Inc., Plainview, NY

* Wiltron Company, Morgan Hill, CA

The House report also singled out: TI Coating, Inc., Axel Electronics, Data General Corp., Gerber Systems, Honeywell, Inc., Digital Equipment Corp., Sackman Associates, Rockwell Collins International, Wild Magnavox Satellite Survey, Zeta Laboratories, Carl Schenck, EZ Logic Data, International Imaging Systems, Semetex Corp., and Thermo Jarrell Ash Corporation.

Some of the companies said later that they had no idea Iraq might ever put their products to military use. A spokesperson for Hewlett Packard said the company believed that the Iraqi recipient of its shipments, Saad 16, was an institution of higher learning. In fact, in 1990 The Wall Street Journal described Saad 16 as "a heavily fortified, state-of-the-art complex for aircraft construction, missile design, and, almost certainly, nuclear-weapons research."

Other corporations recognized the military potential of their goods but considered it the government's job to worry about it. "Every once in a while you kind of wonder when you sell something to a certain country," said Robert Finney, president of Electronic Associates, Inc., which supplied Saad 16 with a powerful computer that could be used for missile testing and development. "But it's not up to us to make foreign policy," Finney told The Wall Street Journal.

In 1982, the Reagan Administration took Iraq off its list of countries alleged to sponsor terrorism, making it eligible to receive high-tech items generally denied to those on the list. Conventional military sales began in December of that year. Representative Samuel Gejdenson, Democrat of Connecticut, chairman of a House subcommittee investigating "United States Exports of Sensitive Technology to Iraq," stated in 1991:

"From 1985 to 1990, the United States Government approved 771 licenses for the export to Iraq of $1.5 billion worth of biological agents and high-tech equipment with military application. [Only thirty-nine applications were rejected.] The United States spent virtually an entire decade making sure that Saddam Hussein had almost whatever he wanted. . . . The Administration has never acknowledged that it took this course of action, nor has it explained why it did so. In reviewing documents and press accounts, and interviewing knowledgeable sources, it becomes clear that United States export-control policy was directed by U.S. foreign policy as formulated by the State Department, and it was U.S. foreign policy to assist the regime of Saddam Hussein."

Subsequently, Representative John Dingell, Democrat of Michigan, investigated the Department of Energy concerning an unheeded 1989 warning about Iraq's nuclear weapons program. In 1992, he accused the DOE of punishing employees who raised the alarm and rewarding those who didn't take it seriously. One DOE scientist, interviewed by Dingell's Energy and Commerce Committee, was especially conscientious about the mission of the nuclear non-proliferation program. For his efforts, he received very little cooperation, inadequate staff, and was finally forced to quit in frustration. "It was impossible to do a good job," said William Emel. His immediate manager, who tried to get the proliferation program fully staffed, was chastened by management and removed from his position. Emel was hounded by the DOE at his new job as well.

Another Senate committee, investigating "United States export policy toward Iraq prior to Iraq's invasion of Kuwait," heard testimony in 1992 that Commerce Department personnel "changed information on sixty-eight licenses; that references to military end uses were deleted and the designation 'military truck' was changed. This was done on licenses having a total value of over $1 billion." Testimony made clear that the White House was "involved" in "a deliberate effort . . . to alter these documents and mislead the Congress."

American foreign-policy makers maintained a cooperative relationship with U.S. corporate interests in the region. In 1985, Marshall Wiley, former U.S. ambassador to Oman, set up the Washington-based U.S.-Iraq Business Forum, which lobbied in Washington on behalf of Iraq to promote U.S. trade with that country. Speaking of the Forum's creation, Wiley later explained, "I went to the State Department and told them what I was planning to do, and they said, 'Fine. It sounds like a good idea.' It was our policy to increase exports to Iraq."

Though the government readily approved most sales to Iraq, officials at Defense and Commerce clashed over some of them (with the State Department and the White House backing Commerce). "If an item was in dispute, my attitude was if they were readily available from other markets, I didn't see why we should deprive American markets," explained Richard Murphy in 1990. Murphy was Assistant Secretary of State for Near Eastern and South Asian Affairs from 1983 to 1989.

As it turned out, Iraq did not use any chemical or biological weapons against U.S. forces in the Gulf War. But American planes bombed chemical and biological weapons storage facilities with abandon, potentially dooming tens of thousands of American soldiers to lives of prolonged and permanent agony, and an unknown number of Iraqis to a similar fate. Among the symptoms reported by the affected soldiers are memory loss, scarred lungs, chronic fatigue, severe headache, raspy voice, and passing out. The Pentagon estimates that nearly 100,000 American soldiers were exposed to sarin gas alone.

After the war, White House and Defense Department officials tried their best to deny that Gulf War Syndrome had anything to do with the bombings. The suffering of soldiers was not their overriding concern. The top concerns of the Bush and Clinton Administrations were to protect perceived U.S. interests in the Middle East, and to ensure that American corporations still had healthy balance sheets. - William Blum is the author of "Killing Hope: U.S. Military and CIA Interventions Since World War II" (Common Courage Press, 1995).

Email This Article


This Site Served by TheHostPros
by Salaberria
Wednesday Mar 19th, 2003 10:05 AM
It's true all you say in the article, but are you not forgetting the French and the Germans? They also sold Iraq deadly weapons, and now it looks as if the only bad guys were the Americans. Probably they are not angels, but, and I am a Spanish who by no means shares the views of his government, I don't think worse than the French or Germans. It is a disgrace to the worls what the U.S. are doing, but let's not be hypocritical, the other countries are not better than the U.S. So now, the peace cronies are Russia, Syria, France and Germany! How cute.
by Darkstar127 (wri7913 [at]
Sunday Mar 23rd, 2003 1:16 AM
The problem I find with this column is that it attempts to paint the US Government as being a supplier of the materials for use with WMD. It wasn't the Government that established the contacts and created the supply routes, it was US Businesses who wished to make a proift off their legitimate business. As the article even admits

"Some of the companies said later that they had no idea Iraq might ever put their products to military use. A spokesperson for Hewlett Packard said the company believed that the Iraqi recipient of its shipments, Saad 16, was an institution of higher learning. In fact, in 1990 The Wall Street Journal described Saad 16 as "a heavily fortified, state-of-the-art complex for aircraft construction, missile design, and, almost certainly, nuclear-weapons research."

Saddam and his cohorts are well known for evading and obfuscating the truth about what is going on in Iraq. Just witness the past 12 yrs of Inpsections and UN resolutions for how Saddam has learned his evasiveness of the truth. Yes, the companies should have been more careful in researching who they were dealing with. However at the time they were dealing with him, they also had no idea what kind of man he really would become. As its always said, hindsight is 20/20.

Also the group who was responsible for deciding on US export policy was the Dept of Commerce in conjunction with the State Department. If you really want to look to who provided Iraq with chemical and biological weapons, you need look no further than France, or Germany.

I'll second Salaberria's comment " So now, the peace cronies are Russia, Syria, France and Germany! How cute." Its unbelievable how fast people are turning on the US. Just wait till the smoke is cleared and Iraq is liberate. The look on liberals faces will be cute.
by Monty Hanson (MontyHanson [at]
Sunday Mar 23rd, 2003 9:59 AM
The united states government secured agricultural loans for iraq that were used to purchase weapons. ALL Iraq weapons sales were approved by U.S. gov.
Donald Rumsfeld in dec 1983 visited Iraq to assure U.S. support AFTER saddam used chemical weapons. justify this please!

I love my country
but I fear my government
by Oswald
Sunday Mar 23rd, 2003 10:07 AM
Donald Rumsfeld Visited Iraq in dec 1983 AFTER Saddam used chemical weapons, wasnt that a clue of what kind of man he was? ALL iraq weapons sales were approved by US gov. sales to iraq continued up to the gulf war. Saddam Hussein like Osama, like Noreiga, Moamar Aidid(somalia) ARE ALL our govenments FRANKENSTEIN creations and now our brave men and women clean up the mess of draft doging chicken hawks like Georgie jr (air national guard thanks to dad) and Dick Cheney (5 deferments in Vietnam said he had "OTHER PRIORITY's) ???

this is a cruel paradox
by Jay Phillips
Tuesday Apr 15th, 2003 11:35 PM
Yes, I've seen this same "leaked" report all over the web. The funny thing is the great majority of them forget to mention the report was leaked from Germany and that NONE of the 80 or so German companies names are listed. The number of German companies is far greater than the number of US companies.

Also the report doesn't indicate that MOST of the materials supplied to Iraq occured during the Iran/Iraq war. During that time the US was very concerned that if either Iran or Iraq won the war they would be in control of large percent of the world's oil supply and would be able to leverage OPEC and greatly impact the world economy. We provided both Iran and Iraq with materials and intelligence so that the war would at most be a stalemate.

The report also does not indicate that most US support from US companies ended before or around the time of the Kuwait invasion and subsequent Gulf War. However support from countries like France, Germany, and Russia continued throughout the Gulf War and right through the current conflict. Iraq was still receiving military hardware and support right up to the end from many countries who coincidently were the strongest opponents of the US/Iraqi war.

And finally the report doesn't indicate that many of the chemicals and equipment supplied to Iraq are materials used in the processing of legitimate products, medical supplies, pesticides, fertilizers, etc. in the so called "dual use" facilities. You can't ban a substance used to make aspirin just because it can also be used to make poison.

Supplying people with "half" the truth is no better than telling them a lie. Quoting statistics when half the data is ignored or dropped because it doesn't jive with your hypothesis is nothing but junk science. Back when Saddam was just a petty tyrant we supplied him with toys to keep him occupied with his enemy to the east. When he set his sights on the rest of the world we backed off, but countries like France, Germany, and Russia did not. They continued to supply him with missles, rockets, jet fighter parts, and much more. How many US and coalition forces died as a direct result of being shot down by French and Russian missles? How many of tanks were destroyed by French and Russian rockets? We may never know.

The past is the past. It's easy to look back and point fingers, but this is now. There's a big difference between supplying weapons now and 20 or 30 years ago. Those weapons are long gone. They were out of date before the first Gulf War even started. In this new post 9/11 world, supplying a terrorist with weapons is an act of terrorism and if you aid a terrorist now you ARE a terrorist.
Who Armed Iraq?
Charles R. Smith
Monday, March 17, 2003
Myth vs. Fact

Name one weapon in the Iraqi arsenal that was made in the United States.

I have offered that challenge to dozens of so-called anti-war activists who claim that the U.S. armed Iraq. According to these protesters for "peace," George Bush Sr. and Ronald Reagan supplied Iraq with tons of weapons.

None have been able to name the specific weapon – missile, bomb, fighter, tank or shell – that is U.S.-made or has U.S. equipment installed in it. None have been able to name any specific weapon system.

All of them have failed the challenge, providing no more than allegations that U.S. parts are in Iraqi missiles or U.S. electronics are being used by the Iraqi military. One protester even claimed that Iraq was armed with U.S.-made trucks.

Since when is a truck a weapon? Are the Iraqis going to drive backwards, fuel tank first, into the U.S. Army?

Time to separate the myth from the reality. The propaganda spun by the far left is false. The facts show that Iraq is armed with a wide range of weapons – none of which came from the U.S.

Iraqi Air Force

The Iraqi air force does not fly Falcons or Eagles. The majority of the Iraqi air force is made in Russia. The Russian MiG and Sukhoi design bureaus supplied Iraq with hundreds of advanced strike-fighters and the Mach 3 Foxbat interceptor.

Saddam could field a force of advanced MiG-29 Fulcrum fighters if they had not chickened out of combat during the Gulf War, flying to Iran for asylum. The Iranians, who love Saddam even less than we do, never returned the MiGs.

The remainder of the Iraqi air force comes from France and China. The Chinese supplied Saddam with the Chengdu F-7, a copy of the Russian MiG-21. The F-7 can fly from unimproved runways and is known to be a vicious in-close dog fighter.

However, the French Mirage F-1 is reportedly the best jet fighter in Iraqi hands. You can view an Iraqi F-1 in action on the State Department Web site, testing a chemical spraying system.

If you still believe that the Iraqis have no chemical weapons, think again. Iraq did not modify its best multimillion-dollar fighter jet to spray for fruit flies.

Anyone with half of a brain knows that you cannot keep a modern jet fighter in the air without spare parts. Thus the Russian, Chinese and French jets should be museum pieces after 12 years of a so-called U.N. ban on weapons sales to Iraq. Yet somehow Saddam has his air force flying over 1,000 sorties a month.

Thanks to excellent reporting by Bill Gertz we now know that France has been supplying spare parts for Saddam's Mirage fighters. The French spare parts arrived in Baghdad not 20 years ago during the Cold War but last year, just in time to face our forces today.

Merci! With friends like, that who needs enemies?

Iraqi Missiles

Perhaps the Iraqi missile force has some U.S.-made weapons? Not. The primary Iraqi missile is the Russian-made Scud. Other missiles include the FROG-7 from Russia, the Exocet from France and the Silkworm from China.

The Iraqi air defense has plenty of missiles ... from Russia, China and France. The SA-2 Guideline, SA-3 Goa and SA-6 Gainful SAM missiles are all of Russian or Chinese manufacture. The French also supplied Baghdad with a number of Roland air defense missile systems.

Even the missile parts are from Chinese, German and French sources. Israeli authorities know full well what is inside Iraqi-made Scud missiles since many of them fell on Tel Aviv during the Gulf War. The Israelis found that the Scud warhead electronics were made in Germany – not the U.S.A.

In addition, William Safire recently wrote a column noting that a Chinese chemical company had supplied rocket fuel to Iraq through a French front company. Safire identified the fuel, the companies and the Iraqi missile facility where it was mixed into new Iraqi rockets. Again, the missile fuel sale was made within the last year, just in time to make new Iraqi missiles pointed at Kuwait, Turkey, Saudi Arabia and Iran.

Saddam sends his love to Paris and Beijing. Without your help he certainly could not threaten his neighbors with nerve gas and anthrax.

Iraqi Army

Okay, if not jet fighters and missiles, then how about tanks? Certainly the biggest weapons seller in the world, the U.S.A., sold tanks to Iraq.

The Iraqi armor force is made up of Chinese and Russian models familiar to any "cold" warrior. The Iraqi T-72 and T-55 tanks are all of Russian manufacture. The Iraqis also have a large number of Type-59 Chinese tanks and Russian-made BMP armored troop carriers. No M-1 Abrams here.

How about attack helicopters? The Iraqis have a number of choppers they used against the Kurds and Shiites.

So sorry, the Iraqi attack chopper force is Russian and French. The Russians supplied Iraq with a large number of the Mil-24 Hind attack helicopters, armed to the teeth with cannon, missiles and even chemical weapon sprayers.

The French supplied Saddam with a large number of Gazelle attack helicopters. The same French also managed to keep Saddam's attack helicopter force flying today with spare parts.

Guns, then? Surely the U.S. supplied Saddam with guns?

Nope. The main Iraqi artillery is the French 155mm howitzer. The remainder of Iraq's artillery is 122mm Russian-made cannons and Russian-made short-range rocket launchers. Even the Iraqi foot soldier is armed with the venerable AK-47 of Russian and Chinese make.

Iran-Iraq War

The facts are that during the Iran-Iraq war the U.S. supplied Iraq with something much more valuable than guns: satellite information on when and where the Iranians were going to attack.

Of course, current anti-war activists seize this piece of information without putting it into historical context. The information was supplied during the height of the Cold War. The main threat to America was the Soviet Union and the biggest fear in the Gulf was the Ayatollah Khomeini.

You remember the chant "death to America"? It almost seems that the ayatollah invented it. Ironically, the Ayatollah made his way to Tehran from his home in exile – Paris.

The Reagan administration, aware that the Iranian ayatollah had threatened to turn the Gulf into a sea of fire, assisted Saddam so that he would not lose the war. The assistance stopped short of helping Saddam win the war.

In fact, when it appeared the Iraqis were on the verge of victory, the Reagan administration transferred real weapons to the Iranians. The infamous Iran-Contra scandal involved a large number of badly needed U.S. TOW anti-tank missiles that were sold to Iran.

The U.S. missiles proved to be critical to the Iranian defense against Iraq's superior Russian tank force. The result was a stalemate and the war ended.


The fact is that Saddam owes billions to France, Russia and China for weapons purchases. Clearly, Iraq is buying more weapons from Paris and Beijing despite a U.N. arms embargo. Perhaps one reason why Paris, Moscow and Beijing oppose a war in Iraq is because they would lose their best customer.

The propaganda spun by the far left that the U.S. armed Iraq is false and backed by no facts. The so-called anti-war types are more interested in slamming Bush than stopping a war. None have been able to name one American-made weapon in the Iraqi arsenal.

More importantly, none of them can give one good reason why Saddam should stay in power.
by Tose
Monday Oct 20th, 2003 11:19 PM
So, 20 or so years ago, giving terrorists weapons was ok?
Saddam was bad then too. But this is old news.
by Jeremy (Jeremy41139 [at]
Friday Dec 5th, 2003 2:52 AM
Gee, I wonder why people were so fast to turn on the U.S. and not Germany, France, Russia, etc.? It wouldn't be that the U.S. was the country making propositions for war, now would it?

The fact is that all these countries were complicit in helping create Saddam Hussein's Chemical, Biological, and Nuclear Weapons program. Germany more so than anyonelse.

You flag waving idiots will do anything to vindicate America's crimes against the world. You justify Americas crimes by bringing up the misdeeds of other countries.

The major problem with both the right and left is their omission of detail. They both counter one another's claims with only one side of the story. For a while I could see that as positive thing, but we now need people who are willing to give both sides of the story. People like Charles Smith want to soley criticize the rest of the world. People like Blum want to prop America up by its lonesome self, and pin all the blame on the U.S.A. We need people who explain all sides.

Rumsfeld, Bush, Powell, etc. are dastardly scumfucks. They apply a double think standard to their "War On Terrorism." Meaning if the violence is directed towards the U.S.A. then it constitutes as being terrorism. However, these same terroristic methods may be utilized and carried out by the U.S.A. and her allies, but then it's classified as a battle for freedom.

I highly recommend you all purchase Blum's book: Killing Hope
by research is easy
Friday Dec 5th, 2003 7:13 AM
shows who sold what. Yeah, the US be eeevil, all right. France, Germany and the USSR are absolutely spotless in comparison.

Original info at - "Stockholm International Peace Research Institute"

Transfers of major conventional weapons to Iraq -

It's also interesting to see just WHAT the US sold, and when. It's on page 8 of this document.

And compare what the US sold to what the USSR sold right under it,

Friday Sep 28th, 2007 9:39 AM
Having pride in ones country is a great thing, but having the strength to challenge the country you love, is even greater. I wish that it was not true, but it is. The U.S government spends trillions of dollars on military spending. Thats you the tax payers dollars. Why do the American people stand for this? Who will stop it? I believe in a strong military, but i also believe in a strong social system. The Government has tried to tell you that they are protecting the homeland. Look at Oregon. They have slashed the budgets to the state troopers making it impossible to do anything. Your telling me that having one troop on patrol is gonna be able to do anything against terrorism, ya right. You the American people have to challenge the Government and make a difference. I am Canadian and American, when i go to a different country, i use my Canadian passport instead of my American, Why? Because most of the world is disgusted with the American Government. Please let me be proud of the country i love, and make the government more accountable.
by citizenbfk
Tuesday Apr 29th, 2008 7:26 AM
Could you please supply the name and link to the House Report mentioned several times to justify/document your info.

Any other links to source material would also be appreciated.

We are 100% volunteer and depend on your participation to sustain our efforts!


Donate Now!

$ 100.00 donated
in the past month

Get Involved

If you'd like to help with maintaining or developing the website, contact us.


Publish your stories and upcoming events on Indybay.

IMC Network