Talk:Iraq–United States relations/Archive 1

Archive 1

WSJ resource

• In Iraq, U.S. Shifts to a Large, New Footprint by Nathan Hodge, 10.December.2011 excerpt ...

  U.S. troops are on track to leave Iraq before the end of December, but the U.S. involvement there is anything but over—meaning local resistance to Americans, and the security challenges that come with it, will continue. In place of the military, the State Department will assume a new role of unprecedented scale, overseeing a massive diplomatic mission through a network of fortified, self-sufficient installations. After the troops have left, the U.S. presence in Iraq—which peaked at 170,000—will number between 15,000 and 16,000, including federal employees and private contractors. Federal officials are busily signing hundreds of millions of dollars in contracts ...

99.181.141.143 (talk) 01:38, 12 December 2011 (UTC)

Untitled

This article is Strongly biased to the point of being propaganda.

The "dual use" weapons section I started to edit is a perfect example. The whole point of dual use technologies is that they can be used for both military uses and civilian.

VX is a chemical weapon and is not dual use, the precursor chemicals used to create VX are dual use because they can be used to create pesticides and other civilian products. --Kamil713 (talk) 04:10, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

There is a similar article to this one, with very much comment content: Saddam Hussein - United States relations. Maybe the two articles should be merged. Imad marie (talk) 17:16, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

They were "merged" and, just like I figured, a lot of useful information was left out. InforManiac (talk) 05:02, 2 June 2012 (UTC)

I added a citation needed tag to the sentence "Some even go as far as to say that U.S. covert military personnel were involved in these killings." Someone needs to give more detail to the events that led to the fallout between the US and Iaqi Gov't in the late 80's to early 90's. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.163.56.75 (talk) 19:33, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

For an analysis of the debunked hoax that the CIA engineered the 1963 Ba'athist coup, see here (or tl;dr). "Some even go as far as to say that U.S. covert military personnel" supported the anti-communist bloodbath? "Some people say" usually means "I'm about to pull something out of my ass", which is indeed what it means in the quote above.TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 02:44, 22 March 2016 (UTC)

Alleged 1967 Iraqi military tour of American chemical weapons facilities

I can find no evidence for this, beyond one statement made by one pundit in 1990.[1]

It is just barely possible, in that the US had diplomatic relations with Iraq up until mid-1967. But one would think that, if this was true, it would have been mentioned elsewhere.

Also, this article currently says, not just that Saddam Hussein was one of the visiting military officers, but that the visit was led by "Arif" - presumably meaning the Iraqi president. That particular claim does not appear in the original source. Is there even any evidence that the president of Iraq visited the US in 1967?

If this isn't true, it would be interesting to know what Neil Livingstone (currently running for governor of Montana) was thinking when he made these remarks to "Frontline" in late 1990. Mporter (talk) 11:57, 30 May 2012 (UTC)

Evidently, an earlier version of this article contained the assertion that Saddam Hussein visited chemical weapons facilities in the U.S., with the sinister implication that somehow America is therefore to blame for Saddam's subsequent chemical genocide and war crimes. How someone even managed to find a source saying this is an impressive feat in and of itself. The relevant transcript from PBS is as follows:

NEIL LIVINGSTONE: Well, Saddam came here, of course, in 1967 with a group of other young Iraqi military officers, and was taken to all of our principal chemical weapons facilities—Aberdeen, Edgewood, Dougway and Annistown. And he went through the process of seeing the design of weapons—at least, seeing something about the design—the manufacture of weapons, and their actual use and deployment on a battlefield. I'm sure that no national secrets were given to Saddam Hussein and his colleagues, but at the same time, it was a course in the effectiveness of chemical weapons, how they can be deployed in a battlefield situation.

Interestingly enough, a delegation of five Iraqi generals did visit the U.S. in January 1967. According to a January 21, 1967 memo from National Security Adviser Walt Rostow to President Lyndon Johnson, "General Sabri is here at the Pentagon's invitation for an orientation tour with four other senior officers who have considerable political power in Iraq"; the reference to the Pentagon indicates that Livingstone's claim about chemical weapons facilities could well be true. At that time, Iraq was led by President Abdul Rahman Arif, a moderate with whom Johnson engaged in regular, friendly exchanges and with whom the U.S. established closer ties than any Iraqi leader following the 1958 revolution. According to the memo and a footnote referencing the President's Daily Diary, at Arif's request, Johnson received the Iraqi delegation in the White House from noon to 12:09 pm on January 25. The notion that Saddam was one of the officers, however, is utterly ridiculous; Saddam was imprisoned by Arif's government in 1964 following a failed Ba'athist coup attempt, and did not escape until 1967. Moreover, Saddam was a known quantity even at the time. A little digging through the archives would likely yield the names of all five Iraqi generals fairly easily, but the idea that Saddam was ever allowed to meet a U.S. President in the White House is so absurd on its face that it hardly requires a more detailed refutation. The only Western country Saddam ever visited is France.TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 03:27, 22 March 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Iraq–United States relations. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20061011195656/http://www.army.mil/professionalwriting/volumes/volume1/july_2003/7_03_2v2.html to http://www.army.mil/professionalWriting/volumes/volume1/july_2003/7_03_2v2.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090227184600/http://www.iraqiembassy.us/ to http://www.iraqiembassy.us/

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 17:16, 14 April 2017 (UTC)

Note - Mentioned on Portal:Current Events

For article history:

• The article was mentioned on the Portal:Current events on January 7, 2021. Portal:Current events/2021 January 7. Elijahandskip (talk) 18:35, 7 January 2021 (UTC)